< 7 June	9 June >

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alloy Ventures[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A directory like listing on an unremarkable venture fund. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH.

First AfD closed as "speedy keep" in 2010 because it was an apparent revenge nomination. However, the sourcing is not convincing. NCORP has been signficantly tightened since then, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article sounds a tad promotional.TH1980 (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete For being completely promotional, but if someone wanted to re-write it as just the facts it could fly. Seafox289 (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely promotional. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most likely a clear-cut delete, given the tone and lack of RS, but I worry that the more aged firms will always struggle with WP:CORPDEPTH at AfD when users primarily do their WP:BEFORE due diligence on the web, rather than thumbing through old dusty stacks of RS in print. Just a thought. Pegnawl (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG fail. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:51, 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 speedy delete per A7. MT Train^Talk 04:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saqlain Baqir[edit]

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

Clearly rubbish. Subject lacks even trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt - autobiography that doesn't make the slightest attempt to assert notability. Two drafts by this editor repeatedly declined, so he moved his user page to main space. Clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:58, 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 08:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MedGenome[edit]

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

Yet another start up that fails to meet WP:NCORP - substantial coverage is only in relation to funding. Almost certainly undisclosed paid editing too. SmartSE (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yea, you're right SmartSE. total WP:Promotional. tough rewrite if possible at all Seafox289 (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mostly non-significant coverage or their series C. Single-article editor smacks of undisclosed COI or payment. Basie (talk) 05:15, 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 redirect to Meghan Murphy. Content can be merged from history if the Meghan Murphy article is kept. Sandstein 08:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist Current[edit]

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

This website is not notable, it is a fringe site that has little to no coverage in the mainstream, thus this comes off as a POV page creation, and not an actually note worthy page on it's own grounds. Many web results of the 400 mentions in google news, aren't actually about the site, but happen to be picked up from people using the term "Feminist current" or even Feminist. Current" in unrelated context. ShimonChai (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that FC doesn't seem notable enough to stand on its own. Do the ties to Meghan Murphy justify keeping the article? Taylan (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taylan, It is typically merged into the notable article see: Jesse_Brown_(journalist)#Canadaland ShimonChai (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see, that makes sense, thank you. I'll work on merging the contents of the FC article with the Meghan Murphy article later. (Too late for me today.) I don't know how the technicalities of this works, but in any case I've saved the current source of the FC article to my computer (which wasn't much to begin with) so I can later merge it manually into the Meghan Murphy article, therefore feel free to delete it any time. Taylan (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mergewith Meghan Murphy. Murphy is the founder and editor of Feminist Current. Vexations (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meghan Murphy. Not a lot to merge. AIRcorn (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a redirect is the wrong move. could put a line about it in murphy's text . Seafox289 (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reason? Seems like a likely search term. AIRcorn (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've now manually merged the contents into the Meghan Murphy article. (Maybe the website infobox should be deleted though.) A redirect to the section I've created within the Meghan Murphy article seems appropriate to me. Taylan (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a technical point but per WP:MAD, if Meghan Murphy is kept then there may need to be some work to keep attribution if this is deleted. If TaylanUB is the major author then it is probably alright and there are other ways to keep attribution and delete this. More just something to consider if this is closed as delete. AIRcorn (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is an AFD going on for the Meghan Murphy article and it seems likely that article will be deleted. I think delete is the right choice over merge or redirect in this situation. Rab V (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might have spoken too soon as the tide has turned there. AIRcorn (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Meghan Murphy. Taylan (talk) 18:47, 14 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 08:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saringkan Promsupa[edit]

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

Deleted 2 10 months ago via discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saringkarn Promsupa because subject fails WP:FOOTY. Copy pasted to mainspace during this Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Saringkan Promsupa discussion. So here we are to discuss again. Legacypac (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - still non-notable. Giant Snowman 10:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom. Hhkohh (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In-depth coverage in sources such as FourFourTwo, Thai Rath Online and the evening news programmes of Thairath TV and PPTV likely satisfy the GNG. Less in-depth but still non-routine is the coverage of his potential transfer last year.[1][2][3][4] --Paul_012 (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The previous AfD was ten months ago, not two. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks my mistake. Legacypac (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG per the above sources by Paul_012. Smartyllama (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I think the subject just barely passes WP:GNG per the coverage mentioned above. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 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 08:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darren LaCroix[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Obvious autobiography / PR job, entirely written by WP:SPAs. Sources are primarily affiliated with his club, Toastmasters International, are self-authored, or are press releases. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing that has changed since I first nominated this for deletion.—Chowbok ☠ 00:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is too promotional in tone and style.TH1980 (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. More importantly, in addition to stories about LaCroix in WP:RS already page (yes, most sources are poor and should be removed,) INDEPTH includes feature stories about him not yet on the page: REGIONAL COVERAGE: Telegram & Gazette, 12 Jan. 1997 Serious Money in Laughter; Boston Globe, FINDING A WAY WITH WORDS: [Boston, Mass]23 Dec 2001 (regional, metro west edition;) Telegram & Gazette (regional coverage, he lived Auburn, MA) 10 May 1998 Comic wrings laughter from serious illness - and more similar form region. NATIONAL and NON-LOCAL COVERAGE: Telegraph Herald, 5 Feb. 2015, Remember the power of the pause; The Pantagraph 1 April 2008 Where laughing matters; and Chicago Tribune, 20 March 2002 you can be a successful flop. Clearly he was a bit of a thing around the turn of the century. There was a spate or articles like the one in the Los Angeles Times that is already on the page, generated by the fact that he won a speaking contest in 2001. And the discussion 3 years ago was a firm keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article could be updated using this[5]. It's not a BLP:1E because his career got coverage for years. And he gets discussed in books about humor and public speaking. Because: One of the greatest openings in Toastmasters World Championship history involved a pratfall of epic proportions. In his 2001 winning contest speech, Darren LaCroix walked out onto the stage in front of 2,000 people in the audience..." started to speak, and literally fell flat on his face. [6]. It conferred a kind of enduring notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as multiple reliable sources significant coverage have been identified above so passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sources lack independence. That remains the case. Unsurprisingly, he is a gifted self-publicist, but his own promotion seems to be the only trigger for any coverage at all. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem, all that needs to be done is to remove the PRIMARY and add WP:RS, several of which are listed above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That leaves no sources, though. And you just added more non-independent ones. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- deletion is not cleanup, but we do delete articles for being purely promotional, which this is. The citations are from fluff pieces where he talks about how effective his methods are. I'm not seeing any meaning sourcing. Did I mention almost all the sources are from Toastmasters International? Apparently meaningful articles are not about him as an individual. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there are multiple reported stories in large market daily newspapers that give the details of his life and career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN Despite the fact that WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP I have expanded and RELIABLY sourced the details oh this man's life and career. I removed the PRIMARY sourcing to which editors above, rightly, objected. Note that I used Proquest, which is paywalled, and that one Boston Globe story has duplicate citations: one to the Globe website and the other to Proquest, both are paywalled. Lacroix garnered drew attention nationwide attention in the U.S. and Canada) in 2001 - 02 after he won the annual Toastmasters International contest. But note that coverage of his career as a public speaking instruction began in 1998 and has continued.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, current refs are:

Kooker, Naomi R. (December 23, 2001). "TOASTMASTERS BAR NONE AT NORFOLK FACILITY, INMATES LEARN NEW WAYS TO MAKE THEIR POINTS". Boston Globe. Boston, Mass. - Press release churnalism
Basheda, Lori (26 August 2001). "Stand and deliver Speaking Toastmasters select their world champion, whose theme is failure's value. Series". Orange County Register. Retrieved 11 June 2018. - Press release churnalism
Kooker, Nomi (23 December 2001). "TOASTMASTERS BAR NONE AT NORFOLK FACILITY, INMATES LEARN NEW WAYS TO MAKE THEIR POINTS". Boston Globe. Retrieved 11 June 2018.- duplicate of 1
Gibes, Al (September 26, 2010). "Laugh and learn: Speaker says to humorize is to humanize". Las Vegas Review Journal. - will check when archive.org is working for me, this is not online now.
Silver, Kate (September 30, 2010). "Las Vegas humor coach insists anyone can be funny—even you". Vegas Seven. - looks like PR
Sean, McCarthy (27 February 2005). "Word to the stars: Gab's no gift, so be prepared". Boston Herald. Retrieved 11 June 2018. - Can't find on Boston Herald website, please help with a direct link
Courtemanche, Dolores (8 May 1998). "Comic wrings laughter from serious illness". Telegram & Gazette. Retrieved 11 June 2018. - appears to be churnalism
Holliday, Bob (1 April 2008). "Where laughing matters". The Pantagraph. Retrieved 11 June 2018. - non-RS
LaCroix, Darren. "Get More Laughs in every presentation for the rest of your life". Archived from the original on 2010-11-15. - non-RS
Murphy, Dave (20 March 2002). "Sometimes you can be a successful flop". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 11 June 2018. - Press release churnalism
Anton, Mike (August 26, 2001). "The Region; Victor in 'Olympics of Oratory' Falls Flat, but His Speech Doesn't; Communication: A pratfall helps salesman underline his message". Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif. - Can't see it on LA Times, please help with a non-paywall link.
"2009 Our Featured Speakers". AATH Annual Conference. Archived from the original on 2010-09-17. - not independent

I think we all agree that obvious press releases and PR bios should not be included, yes? As to WP:HEY, not even close, sorry. In fact if it was anybody else doing it I would suspect resume padding. Guy (Help!) 15:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources now on the page are signed, reported stories in reputable newspapers. His speaking championship "flop" is discussed in a number of books. (And, yes, I frequently cleanup, revise, and source articles that I find at AfD. This page was obvious PROMO, but with the Promo removed, it is the life of a person who obtained notability as a public speaker.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep 2001 World Champion of Public Speaking... come on, clearly passes WP:GNG. Forbes, Boston Globe, Training Journal... Any issues with the content are editing issues and not deletion issues.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What is this "World Championship of Public Speaking"? What makes it notable? I don't see an article on it. Is it recognized by any other organizations as a legitimate competition, or is it simply a Toastmasters publicity stunt? The National Dishwashers' Manufacturing Council could annually award a "World's Best Dishwasher Stacker" trophy to somebody, but that wouldn't confer notability on the winner.—Chowbok ☠ 22:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if your dishwasher stacker, was given as much WP:SIGCOV in as many reliable, independent books and newspapers over the course decades as LaCroix, his BPL would pass WP:GNG. This also applies to the World Champion of Public Speaking, although not every winner will be notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn as a "keynote speaker, author, comedian [or] teacher". The 2001 Champion of Public Speaking is not an honour that's sigificant and well known, and there's nothing better. Wikipedia is not a free means of advertising, which this page is. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - World Championship of Public Speaking is a non-notable event, if you take that away then I fail to see why the individual is notable. Dan arndt (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is, however, a notable event:

World Champion of Public Speaking. (I often start articles during an AfD, when it becomes clear that we have neglected a significant topic.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delte not notable for any accomplishment. This is not a notable topic, and we have not been neglecting it. If anything Wikipedia has way, way, way too many articles on people who are most notable for being public speakers, no where near a lack of such articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- With world championship coverage like this, it's hard to read that comment and take it in good faith. It looks more like a carefully crafted stab at WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than something related to research and data. If it's not notable, how come there are all these articles in the media on the topic?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:45, 13 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. As has been pointed out, the assertion that "high schools are notable" does not correspond to community consensus. Sandstein 08:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Westcliff School of Skills[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of references
Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Committee meeting minutes	N	N	Y	N	N	Someone from the school spoke at the hearing about the work that the school does
Entry in government directory	N	N	Y	N	N	Just a listing providing contact information
School's own website	Y	N	Y	N	N	Clearly not independent
Business directory	N	N	?	N	N	Just a listing providing contact information
Bellville - wordingsjare van n stad (book)	?	Y	Y	?	?	How funding was obtained for tools and instruments. Offline source
Business directory	N	N	N	N	N	Just a listing providing contact information
Magazine mention	N	N	Y	Y	N	School takes part in Christmas activities - not in citation given
Magazine mention	N	N	Y	Y	N	School takes part in Christmas activities - in Africaans
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was approved through AfC recently, I had it in my watchlist, and I was surprised to see it approved as I couldn't see how it met the notability criteria. There are no doubt lots of articles about non-notable schools; I am not going to make a habit of nominating them for deletion. But I don't think we should be adding to them. The updated WP:NCORP and [RFC] are clear enough, in my interpretation, that we shouldn't be creating more school articles without them meeting the WP:GNG criteria. As this is a newly created article, and appears to have no sources that would count towards notability, I believe we should consider it for deletion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I respect your decision to possible delete my article. I however would like to have it remained. My reasons are: It has coverage in: • Newspapers • Published history books • Government related websites Furthermore the school has been involved in a movie issued in 2010. The school has a history and has been in existence for 65 years. User:Barry Ne
Push back to Draft and create redirect to List of secondary schools in the Western Cape this article. As a high school it has some notability, so WP:NSCHOOL may apply ahead of WP:ORGCRIT. However, the school article needs better sectioning as it reads like someone's website and contains trivial instances of like how many rugby players they have or the school's motto. Better sources can be found. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a high school and high schools are notable - I previously AfD'd a high school which had only one reference and almost no ghits but it was kept Gbawden (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLRFC determined that secondary schools are not inherently notable, Gbawden, and I have witnessed a number being deleted since that discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gbawden: Primefac, as closer of WP:SCHOOLRFC, recently reminded us that "schools have to follow the same WP:CORP guidelines as every other organization." Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG big time. The Banner talk 18:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree that Curb Safe Charmer has shown that the subject fails our notability criteria. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn and no !votes other than keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Housing and Urban Development Corporation[edit]

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

Sources available are not comprehensive at all, only one has any discussion of the subject at all, the rest is simply listings of finances. Article has been tagged with notability maintenance tag since 2014, so if no one can come up with better sources in four years... Waggie (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request to preserve the article. The organisation is under control of central government of India started in 1970. I think the article has enough notability because the organisation has started functioning long back by providing financial assistance to various organisations in India. I have added 2-3 references last week. Request for some more days to expand the article with good reference. --Jinoy Tom Jacob (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel that this is an important entry for wikipedia as HUDCO is a significant entity in Indian housing finance landscape. I am adding some information on the topic. Kindly consider preserving the article. I will be adding further content to the article User: Anom1987 —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so some actually relevant sources would be: | Financial express - interview, which contains a summary of purpose and technical plans before the interview; Business Line miniratna status, which covers its public sector enterprise status being given; | Hindustan Times - Aadhaar card/gifts massive fines probably most reliable source, covering the fines it picks up; IPO equivalent, significant detail on going public; | Asian Times - Housing/Development loans and funding. The WP:NCORP notability requirements are very severe, so while the organisation would meet WP:GNG I'm unsure whether it has at least two high quality (vs lots of less good) sources as required. Thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited some Government annual reports and Lok Sabha's documents, which are fairly reliable. I agree to your point that this article needs more content. I will go through your links and include the information in this article. Thanks. Anom1987 (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is regularly covered by multiple reliable sources. A simple google search provides plethora of sources. Since the organisation is completely owned by the government, the sources are independent, reliable and secondary, which makes the subject pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Pratyush (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PratyushSinha101, could you link to some of these reliable sources here, please? Waggie (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[7], [8], [9]. Pratyush (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added up some some of the functions of HUDCO along with references. HUDCO has been recognized by UN organisation, for UN-Habitat Scroll of Honour Award in 1991. So i think its a good reason to keep the article. -Jinoy Tom Jacob (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-And, a miniratna PSU ought to be encyclopedic-notable......Also, enough abundance of NORG-compliant sourcing.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm glad this article has received some much needed attention. I think the added sourcing may now be enough to meet WP:GNG. I'm not sure a miniratna-status organization deserves defacto notability, but I do think there's enough comprehensive sourcing that's been found to deserve a keep here. Waggie (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove entry from AfD Now that we have settled on keeping this article, can we remove the entry from AfD and also withdraw deletion banner on the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anom1987 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional assimilating races[edit]

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

Mostly unreferenced, unclear inclusion cirteria, fails WP:LISTN. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, unreferenced listcruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no complaints from me, this was the usual compromise to mitigate the stream of refuse that was pouring into other, better articles at the time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft better suited for TVTropes. It is a combination of different types of fictional concepts, and most of the entries don't have pages themselves. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced listcruft. Ajf773 (talk) 20:19, 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 08:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Capuano[edit]

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

I think it’s G11, but that was declined by another admin. Random political appointee to a low-level office in DC. Likely created by an undeclared paid editor. Excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM, so nothing else matters, but if you want to check notability too: she’s not an elected official so fails NPOL and doesn’t meet the GNG either. All of that is secondary to being spam, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 18:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 18:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I don't see this as either A7 or G11. [10] is independent (unlike any of the existing references), and some of the refs such as a University of Colorado alumni profile are useful for writing an article, though not necessarily for determining notability. Depending on the result of the COIN thread, I may support deletion; it's very marginal for GNG and no SNG is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Power~enwiki the Chronicle situation is routine coverage of a government announcement, which wouldn't meet the GNG. Also, the GNG doesn't even matter here: this is likely commissioned spam, so we don't need to even think about notability when looking at deletion. G11 is not the only way to delete spam, and while I think this is G11, I'm fine deleting it as spam through AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reads like a personal profile written by someone promoting the subject (as Tony said above, UPE is quite possible). If the subject is notable - and I'm not convinced she is at the moment - we won't lose very much at all by deleting this. A better article can be written in its place. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 11:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete contrary to what was said above, one does not have to be elected to meet the requirements for politician notability. People with clear policy creating power, like members of cabinets and holders of important sub-cabinet level positions, like head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, head of the FBI, head of the CIA, Surgeon General, and others clearly are notable. However Capuano's nominated post does not seem to be quite at that level. She has also apparently not been confirmed in the nomination. So even if the post did confer notability, she does not have it. The alumni profile is clearly not something that in any way adds to GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silent films of marion davies[edit]

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

Self-published book, does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. The only reviews I could find were on a wordpress blog and a web forum. The book is mentioned in this HuffPost article, but it doesn't seem to be significant coverage (it's one paragraph in a much longer article about Marion Davies herself).

This could potentially be a redirect to Marion_Davies#Hearst_and_Cosmopolitan_Pictures or Marion_Davies#Filmography, but the capitalization would need to be fixed first. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable book. Farahpoems (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It also got a passing mention in another HuffPost article, but that's about it. We'd be patsies if we thought there was buried treasure here. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Createspace book with a couple of Huffpost entries by Thomas Gladysz - not even close to NBOOK.Icewhiz (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only contemporary book about the films of Marion Davies, and she is having a critical resurgence. There has also been a surge in new DVD projects of her silent films. I don't understand the comment about capitalization. I see no errors in the entry. Thanks. Drednm Drednm (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about capitalization is that if this article is about a book title, it should be The Silent Films of Marion Davies, and if it's redirected to Marion_Davies#Filmography it should be at Silent films of Marion Davies. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NOR/WP:V in that it talks about the book without an additional source (for instance, how do we know that she starred in exactly 30 silent films?). Possibly fails WP:NPROMO. Without secondary sources, WP:NPOV issues are possible as well. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Coppa Italia[edit]

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

There are no sources for the 2018–19 event yet. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we cannot assume that this would occur based on previous events. It could happen, but this is not certain. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur with above. Article should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. Editor10293813 (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the end of the 2017-18 season, although early for next season we always need these articles and the Coppa Italia is a major tournament and I am sure it will be fixed up properly soon, just delete it to recreate in a few weeks seems pointless. Govvy (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CRYSTAL does not provide an argument for deletion, as the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Television rights have been secured for the next three seasons, and this has been an annual event since 1958. The season starts in only a few weeks. Maybe it could have been left in draft space for a while, but it would certainly have been created within a few weeks. Last year, the Italian WP created an article on 18 June with a schedule published by the League on 12 June, and English WP created an article on 28 July. I'm sure someone fluent in Italian could find plenty of sources, if not today then certainly by the time this AfD closes. Jack N. Stock (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - CRYSTAL does not apply here. Show some WP:COMMONSENSE please. Giant Snowman 15:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if it somehow doesn't happen, that would still be notable. It will start in about 2 months, and there are probably Italian references now. I expect that the regular football editors will update this very soon. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and speedy. Ridiculous nom. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominating an unreferenced article for a future event is never ridiculous. There are plenty of Italian sources, but my Italian is very bad even with Google Translate; I've added one source for the start date. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per GiantSnowman, COMMONSENSE. It was poorly written to start with, and probably created a bit too early, but after 70+ years of playing, and a quick google search will show it is obviously running. For this nom, it's ridiculous. The source doesn't say it starts August 11 or 12, it says August 12 for the 2018 Supercoppa Italiana, which was recently changed to January 2019, so the info is outdated. It doesn't look like there's a start date for the Coppa Italia yet, but we can see that it is obviously playing for those sources.Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the wrong link. [11] is the one with the 11 August date. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found thousands of mentions of the 2018-19 TIM Cup, including the sale of the TV rights, start date, and when ticket sales commence. Like you, I consider Google Translate is poor at Italian→English, and also I don't know which Italian sources are preferable or considered reliable, so I left it for one of the many Italian-speaking soccer fans to provide citations. Jack N. Stock (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's already scheduled and notable per WP:GNG even if the article wasn't fleshed out when I saw it. Clear keep. It's at the point where if it gets canceled, it'll be notable. SportingFlyer talk 19:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Per all above, this is a ridiculous nomination, it's obviously happening, it's obviously happening soon, and we have literally thousands of sources. Smartyllama (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pedantic nomination. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 04:48, 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 08:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rudi Oudshoff[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor who fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sourced almost entirely to primary sources, birth certificates, and find a grave. He does get cited on newspapers.com in his capacity as a mayor, real estate developer, and commissioner of the housing authority, but nothing on him that I could find that I think is anything other than run of the mill local political coverage. SportingFlyer talk 16:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable at all for stand alone article; trivia. Kierzek (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to be the subject of WP:RS.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another example of a mayor who fails NPOL and GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:15, 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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ric Forman[edit]

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

Delete References are mainly PRIMARY or based on PRIMARY sources. Fails WP:BASIC. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There SF Gate (San Fran chronicle) source is suitable secondary. As well as a blizzard of industry sources, there are plenty of books with significant coverage. Example 1 and Example 2 . While there are primary refs, there are plenty of secondary sources findable in a BEFORE check. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: appears to be a winemaker of some renown. Here are some book snippet, including about his namesake vineyard. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Wine: A Comprehensive Guide [12], by Anthony Dias Blue - 2010: "Ric Forman is a winemaking legend. Starting with his tenure at Sterling Vineyards, where he made history with a succession of great Bordeaux-style Cabernets, Ric has made news (and great wines) everywhere he has been. He is currently ..."
Parker's Wine Buyer's Guide [13], Robert M. Parker - 2008: FORMAN VINEYARD * * * * Ric Forman, who began his winemaking career at sterling in 1969, is one of the most experienced...
American Wine Economics: An Exploration of the U.S. Wine Industry [14], by James Thornton - 2013: The Forman Vineyard wine firm, located in the Napa Valley near St. Helena, California, was founded in 1979. It produces three wine products, sells them under two brand names, and has annual sales of around 3,500 cases...

Sources are independent, from what I can tell, and present the subject as a significant figure in California wine industry. Sufficient for a stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Book Sources above by K.e.coffman. Clearly meets WP:BASIC. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to North Dakota State Bison#Mascot. Sandstein 08:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thundar[edit]

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

Subject not notable enough to support own article as sufficient information can be (and now has been) included in the North Dakota State Bison article. Editor10293813 (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to North Dakota State Bison as the mascot has a section there and there isn't much else to say about it for its own article. Retain hatnote as Thundarr has been around longer (1980-1981 television series) as opposed to Thundar mascot 1991. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:50, 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 08:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Käla Mandrake[edit]

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

No indication of notability that I can see, apparently unambiguous promotion (or perhaps self-promotion?) by an WP:SPA. I've been able to identify only one reliably-sourced fact about her: in 2016 she wrote for a documentary by Jen Senko called The Brainwashing of My Dad (see this New York Times review); that isn't in the article. There is no verifiably independent source in the page – the closest to that is an interview in Kotori Magazine. There are claims that she has written books, but no trace of them in WorldCat or the LoC, nor any entry for her on VIAF. She does have an entry in the New York Public Library Photographers’ Identities Catalog, but that is sourced to ... Wikipedia and Wikidata (and the copyvio image is taken from Commons, where I've nominated it for deletion). She is apparently the grand-daughter of Leon Mandrake, but notability is not inherited. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but all too often notability is inherited. Or anyway so it seems in Wikipedia. This is particularly pronounced in "nobility" and the world's (quasi-) monarchies; but even aside from those ... well, today's examples are a couple whose minor notability seems entirely inherited from Oscar Wilde: Cyril Holland and Dorothy Wilde. -- Hoary (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "In the Fall of 2010, Underground will be published and available worldwide." It's published by Xlibris. Has the world taken much notice? -- Hoary (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, where'd you find that, Hoary? Did you find an ISBN too? Anyway, it appears to be held in a grand total of zero libraries world-wide. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it up at Amazon. I presume that the vanity publisher Xlibris has all its products listed (and occasionally even sold) by Amazon. -- Hoary (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable enough to generate any publicity from independent sources. Even one of her "interviews" appears to be solely self generated. I found references to 3 books (collections of photos); one at least may have been self published- the subject did mention one was for sale at Barnes and Noble, so presumably it did have an ISBN... However I couldnt find anything from RS; it was all passing mentions on bloggy stuff, or on the only page that works on her own website. Noone seems to have reviewed or talked about them that I could find. The only RS material was on that documentary Justletters mentioned. She is supposed to have filmed a documentary/short on the making of a Melody Sweet music video, and was an extra in it, but not even Melody Sweet's website mentions it (although the music video is posted there). Curdle (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found the books complete with ISBN; Amazon sells Underground(978-1453562055) Barnes and Noble sell the other two; 9780998309514 and 9780998309507, published by "Mandrake Books". Still no independent reviews in RS. According to the bio there, she has an annual magazine and blog called Mandrake Magazine - ok, found https://issuu.com/kalanyc/docs/mandrakemag_2012_2013_issuu_f6893d41fae0ae. Again self published, only seems to have gone a year. There is a Demo reel on youtube which references various HBO docs, films series, that she seems to have edited,or written for but again, all self sourced and no independent commentary.Curdle (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curdle, I know you know this, but I'm saying it for those who may not: Amazon and Barnes & Noble are booksellers, in the selling business, so not WP:RS; Amazon at least will offer stuff for sale whether or not it actually exists. In how many reputable libraries round the world did you find copies of these books? I looked and found none (see above). Just for comparison, the first result in this search for books by this not very well-known photographer is in 305 libraries, the second in 139 (I think he's probably notable, and have worked bit on the article on that assumption). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I hope that nobody here is under the illusion that something purporting to be a book becomes a real book once it gets an ISBN. Given a randomly selected 20 kg pile of recent books with ISBNs and ditto of recent books without them, the former pile is very likely to be more worthwhile. However, plenty of recent, worthwhile books lack ISBNs, and tonnes of junk have ISBNs. -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - scant and unreliable citation suggest a lack of notability. Much of article is totally uncited. Additionally, article has some issues with promotional language and is not encyclopedic in tone. Current citations 2 and 3 don't seem to exist, citation 5 is from a press website where you can say anything you'd like, I don't like to be rude, but citation number 1 is pretty laughable. Delete, delete, delete. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 23:28, 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 G5 by BU Rob13. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Way (company)[edit]

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

fails WP:NCORP notably CORPDEPTH. The sources are either passing mentions, a Huffpost WP:INTERVIEW directory listings dubious human interest stories about the founder having inspired Erlich Bachman's character, in sources this has been denied by all concerned, and a dubious looking article from Inc.com see Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_dependent_coverage Dom from Paris (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 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 08:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaja Vaňková[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Far from persistence.Hardly notable. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 14:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails our notability guidelines. - Darwinek (talk) 22:40, 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 merge to LeasePlan. Sandstein 08:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LeasePlan UK[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The article has been nominated for deletion before (when it was just titled Leaseplan) and was kept, however the criteria by which we assess the notability of companies is stronger now and the references provided in the article and in the original deletion discussion would be dismissed now as not meeting the CORP criteria. The reason I am nominating this now is that I am helping a new editor understand those criteria and they have cited WP:OTHERSTUFF as a reason why their draft should be accepted into mainspace. Given that the condition of her draft that has been declined is on a par with the LeasePlan UK article I see her point. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to LeasePlan, which only has a single passing mention of LeasePlan UK. This will improve the merge target article, as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As nom, I'd support that in preference to deletion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:17, 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 10:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ault[edit]

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

I think it would be preferable to go through the WP:AfD process to discuss this article.

It was created September 7, 2005 and this gives an opportunity for the editors who have worked on the article to review it and add to the discussion.
There are "About 756,000 results" in a Google search for "Mike Ault" (admittedly many of them about people of the same name who are not the subject of this article.)
While of course AfD is not for cleanup, perhaps this AfD might yield some good outcomes. To the best of my knowledge and understanding, the current buzzword for this is "teachable events". Shirt58 (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete. This guy (narrowly) fails the requirements for WP:AUTHOR. Although he clearly knows a lot about Oracle, I don't think this fulfills the requirements. He definitely isn't highly cited (RQ 1): a search of Jstor for "Mike Ault" and "Mike Ault Oracle" reveals little (the one paper that his name appears on is clearly not him, being a journal of political science). GScholar has more results, but they're all guides written by him rather than academic papers, and he isn't cited by anyone. There's no suggestion that he came up with any new concepts or theories (RQ 2) or gained fame from his work (RQ 4). A very shaky case could be made for the Oracle series being a significant collection of works (RQ 3), but I question its real significance. Delete, but reluctantly so.FirefoxLSD (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shirt58 (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Re
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shirt58 (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly Fails WP:AUTHOR. No strong references. Farahpoems (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original speedy delete tagger. Non-notable author. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:23, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vaultry[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage to carry an article. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform, so every band is not automatically entitled to have an article on here just because they exist -- but nothing here passes any of the notability criteria for bands, and the referencing is entirely to blogs and podcasts and their own social networking profiles, not to real media that would help get them over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided - I don't think you can condemn all of the sources in the article as merely podcasts and social networking. The following appear to be reliable and independent of the band: [15], [16], [17], [18]. However those are still fairly obscure and spotty, so I am undecided on whether they qualify as significant in the notability guidelines. But the arguments in Bearcat's nomination may not reflect the situation. On the other hand, if the article is kept it definitely needs to be pared down to verifiable facts. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I disagree that the 4 sources cited by DOOMSDAYER520 indicate reliable coverage. Sources 1 and 4 are run-of-the-mills quasi-promo paragraphs or two of upcoming appearances/releases (authorship of #4 is credited not to a writer, but rather “victoriamusicscene.”) Source #2 is radio station’s website with a Band of the Month profile (credited to “Webmesiter Bud”) wherein the text is paraphrased content from the “about” section on the band’s website. Source #3 is emphatically not a reliable source; they solicit content per their “contact” section: https://www.unfazedmag.com/contact-1/ Other sources in the article, per the nominator’s comment, similarly fail. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Did google a bit. Couldn't find strong references. Farahpoems (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NMUSIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:42, 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HubbaBubbas[edit]

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

The musicians discussed in this article do not meet the criteria for notability in music as outlined in Wikipedia's guidelines. All reliable source coverage listed is local. WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO criteria are not met. The article is biased, it is written as though it were trying to advertise for or promote the musicians discussed within. The musicians themselves have no strong claim and very little regional/international renown if at all. InspectorMikeChin (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following articles were initially listed in this discussion, and some, but not all have been later nominated separately. Some of these articles have not been renominated, and the nominator has implied withdrawal per their removal of content on this page in this edit. At this time, this discussion only pertains to the HubbaBubbas article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am also nominating the following pages because the musicians/bands discussed therein likewise cannot be considered notable, for the same reason as the aforementioned. In addition, some of these articles are stubs. Lorong Boys (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL The Steve McQueens (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Gentle Bones (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Shigga Shay (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Orchestra of the Music Makers (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL The Sam Willows (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL The Sam Willows discography (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL The Sam Willows (EP) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Jonathan Chua (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Sandra Riley Tang (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Narelle Kheng (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Benjamin Kheng (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The following articles were initially listed in this discussion, and some, but not all have been later nominated separately. Some of these articles have not been renominated, and the nominator has implied withdrawal per their removal of content on this page in this edit. At this time, this discussion only pertains to the HubbaBubbas article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am also nominating the following pages because the musicians/bands discussed therein likewise cannot be considered notable, for the same reason as the aforementioned. In addition, some of these articles are stubs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural close. Per Squeamish Ossifrage's prior comments [19]; the bundling here is inappropriate, as the only thing that's evidently in common among these subjects is Singapore. And the nominator's removal of Squeamish's comments [20] violates WP:TPO. If the nominator wants to nominate these separately the first step is to close this one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this and recommend a temp topic ban for whoever deleted that comment. Someone who deletes other comments at AFD is unstable.Egaoblai (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below is the restored content that the nominator removed from this page in this edit (see Revision history for more information). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. These are the worst kind of bundled nominations. Most of these entries are not directly related, other than thematically (as Singaporean musicians). So this omnibus AFD requires us to search for potential missed sources for a whole slate of different subjects. On top of that, there's a real possibility that some of these musicians will be better represented in Chinese-language media than in immediately obvious English-language sources. And make no mistake, I'm fairly sure that there is at least one notable subject here. The Sam Willows have quite a bit of media coverage; now, some of that is quasi-independent sources that include interviews, but this is a bylined article about the band (and their then-new album) from The Jakarta Post. This is one of those articles that contains an interview, but is not exclusively an interview; whether or not it is an appropriate source is somewhat secondary to the fact that it's a Singaporean media outlet describing the band as "arguably Singapore's most popular band". And so forth. Needless to say, there are a LOT of sources available. And that makes me think that WP:BEFORE wasn't done on everything in this list, either. I'm sure this was all well-intentioned, but these omnibus AFDs are almost always trainwrecks unless they have a very narrow, clearly-defined scope. This doesn't. I'm not saying all of these articles should be retained. I don't know. But let's not try to figure that out this way? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have removed the Sam Willows case from above, and I will make the necessary edits so that they will be as separate nominations rather than related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InspectorMikeChin (talk • contribs) 04:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator is nominating articles based on a false understanding of the guidelines given that local coverage does not preclude a band being notable. Some of the nominations also appear to be indiscriminate. The coverage in any case is national and significant - [21][22][23] and would qualify under WP:BAND. Hzh (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close/Keep All - As recommended elsewhere by User:Arxiloxos and others, I support a quick close of all recent AfDs by User:InspectorMikeChin due to incorrect procedures and misunderstanding of notability guidelines. This includes the following: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lorong_Boys, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Steve_McQueens, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gentle_Bones, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shigga_Shay, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orchestra_of_the_Music_Makers, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HubbaBubbas. Later, each can be inspected for notability if desired by other editors. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In response to Hzh, the coverage does not qualify under WP:BAND on several accounts, if you check the WP:BAND section, the qualifying conditions include the following which the nominated article does not qualify: (3) Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. (6) Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a WP:CIRCULAR manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.) (8) Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Based on what is written in the nominated article, the musician(s) discussed within do not seem to qualify for the above three clauses for notability. Please feel free to correct if I am wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by DouglasRosieFan10 (talk • contribs)

This editor has only made four edits, all at this AFD Atlantic306 (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by meeting (generally speaking) at least one of the criteria at WP:BAND; a musician need not meet them all to be notable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified by Hzh which enable a pass of criteria 1 of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed and it probably passes other criteria as well) and passes WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rectiverter[edit]

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

Promotion. Nothing special about the product, fails WP:NPRODUCT. Störm (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the claim that this is a trademarked product from 2016, it does seem to have been used as a generic term long before this, especially in the period 1930s–1960s. The term probably died out after that and was replaced by uninterruptible power supply (UPS). The device described would more commonly be known now as an "online UPS" or "double-conversion UPS". The only thing unique about this product is that the batteries are not included. There is possibly a genuine article at this title either on historic technology or as a UPS variant, but this piece of promotion ain't it, so I'm going with delete for now. I'm prepared to withdraw that if an editor wants to work this in to an acceptable article not about this one product. SpinningSpark 22:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it looks like promotional material to me.Constant314 (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SpinningSpark. The rectifier-inverter combination is a concept in power electronics, eg.g, [24], and is not novel with this product. The present article is promotional and from the cited primary sources and press releases, looks like original research. --Mark viking (talk) 23:40, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryszard Linkiewicz[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Does not meet WP:GNG Only Authored one book. No notable coverage 8==8 Boneso (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources seem to mainly just be websites where the single book this person made can be bought. I can't find any significant coverage in independent sources.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 12:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment discospinster left a note on the creator's talk page informing them that the article had been moved to draft space, however the article has only copied to draft space. I have attempted to notify the creator of this article but they have placed a ((Edit fully-protected)) tag on their talk page.8==8 Boneso (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete author of a single non-notable book. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Searches find nothing significant about the author, just sites selling the book, an entry on Goodreads and so on. Neiltonks (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Boneso - what happened is Discospinster moved Ryszard Linkiewicz to the draft namespace without leaving a redirect so that it could be worked on further. However, the author, instead of working on the draft further and then moving it to article namespace (or requesting that it be moved), recreated the page in the main namespace as Ryszard Linkiewicz. (I've seen this happen very often)--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NAUTHOR, no claim to notability. Note anon IP removing AfD tag on page. Ifnord (talk) 21:10, 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 no consensus. – Joe (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Lee Evans[edit]

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

An obvious case of BLP1E for this individual who is known solely for his role in a double-murder. News coverage was sporadic, routine, and...well, news. Perhaps the murder itself is notable, but a comprehensive article cannot be created simply by making a few adjustments to this unnotable individual's bio. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly a case of WP:BIO1E. Also, there are few reliable third-party references showing notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~. I disagree with the nomination (BLP1E not relevant - it is more of a 2E just for the crimes/legal proceedings, and subsequent coverage (and commutation of death sentence) would be additional Es - and in any even we could've renamed o the ctime), and murder does not fall under NOTNEWS. What is relevant is NCRIME - and in this regard - it seems this individual mainly has Maryland coverage (around death row issues and the death penalty in the state (at some point he was slated to be "first to be executed" on reinstatement) as well as some coverage of the crime), there is some coverage of a legal aspect of the case (but not very wide), and looking at books and scholar hits, which there are some (various aspects - including a blog by the BLP from prison) - the whole assemblage does not, in my mind, cross GNG/NCRIME. I am amenable to changing my !vote if INDEPTH sources do show up.Icewhiz (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC) I overlooked the journal coverage of the case, so striking my !vote.Icewhiz (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I will have to choose another day to convince you that crime (yes, even murder) is a daily occurrence, and the news routinely reports on it. Unless there is an exception to NOTNEWS I have missed after reading it dozens of times, murder can/does indeed fall under it when you take the time to analyze the nature of the news coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the murder, a drug gang-related contract killing, was "ordinary," the political activism was not. It included undercover surveillance of anti-death penalty activists and drew not only regional coverage in the Washington Post, and intense coverage in the Baltimore Sun over many years, but some national and international coverage, including a story in The Guardian about Evans' death-row blogging. Much more can be added, but I WP:HEY, I have done a modest expand/source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

also this article [25] in the Baltimore Law Review, covering the legal impact of an appeal of the Evans case. p. 92. vol. 37, issue 1, 2007, The Crime, the Case, the Killer Cocktail: Why Maryland's Capital Punishment Procedure Constitutes Cruel and Unusual , Punishment Matthew E. FeinbergUniversity of Baltimore School of Law.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I just now added a search bar under the name used by many newspapers, "Vernon, Evans, Jr.". and note that the commutation of his death sentence was national news, with reported stories in the New York Times, on CNN, and in other national media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 14 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 10:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Trivial mentions in reliable sources, that covers precisely nothing but mentioning event(s) held by the body.A host of self-sources and other unreliable stuff used as references.Written with an aim to promote the organisation. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 01:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vinaybv (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Vote to Keep the article. Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya is a non profit organization and does not need promotion as mentioned in the reasons for deletion. It is nearing its centenary and has a history of its own. India (and regional languages like Kannada) have a poor history of retaining information and developing on it. This serves as a good start to build on documenting the rich heritage. This institution is leading the way for a very different look at Shankara Advaita and the diversity of opinions will be lost.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant media coverages. Just few hazy mentions in newspapers. Farahpoems (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteReferences are not in details about Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya as per norm delete.Heshiv (talk) 05:33, 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. Sandstein 10:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LigerCoin[edit]

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

Not a notable cryptocurrency. Existing references are crap and there's no reason to believe good references exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've been vocally against these promotional cryptocurrency articles that pop up at the new pages log constantly. In many cases they're created by a user with a COI (either holds the currency or is a developer) and/or edited by members of off-wiki crypto communities (like subreddits), and I see no indication that this isn't the same. Delete and notify the creator of the general sanctions on blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Nanophosis (talk) 21:58, 13 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 10:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

37coins[edit]

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

Somewhat promotional article about an unremarkable, failed startup. Does not, and will never meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by a SPA who contested a PROD on the day this page was created (8 May 2014) without addressing the concerns raised. MER-C 11:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are small mentions in more reliable sources such as News24 or TechCrunch, but only SIGCOV are in the crypto industry mags that are amongst the most unreliable of industry mags. A lot of that coverage is purely the shutdown of the company, and obviously it isn't going to get any further coverage. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a startup that lasted 1.5 years in an industry with 100s of companies. Is "Tech in Asia" a reliable source? The other 3 certainly aren't. Not notable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- and the article originator was a paid editor [26]. Hope he cashed his check quickly. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:54, 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 keep. Sandstein 10:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Abdollah Tahmasebi[edit]

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

This is far from the depth or persistence of coverage demanded by even basic compliance with WP:ANYBIO.Accesscrawl (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - former governor of a national capital city per WP:NPOL, and his national political significance is explained in the article. Sufficient coverage in Persian WP:RS if you Google for "عبدالله خان امیر طهماسبی", e.g. [27], [28], and he is mentioned several times in this book, notably in the footnote on p.376. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets WP:ANYBIO since he is covered by RS decades after his death and the amount of information in the English book linked to by The Might Glen is SIGCOV. Additional English sources [29] and [30] Kges1901 (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable by virtue of positions held. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets NPOL (governor, minister of war), probably SOLDIER (rank?), and ANYBIO(1) with Order of Zolfaghar. Sourcing in English seems scant (at least in this spelling variant - might be off) - however the Persian article has several sources.Icewhiz (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of the sources in the Persian article in particular, here, seems RS and quite detailed. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cashel South African Air Force Alouette crash[edit]

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

Tragic but not notable military accident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In what sense is this claimed to be non-notable? The senior officers killed in this crash were apparently an important loss to the Rhodesian military during the Rhodesian Bush War. The article is referenced to two book sources (although full citations are missing) and other sources exist. It meets WP:N as far as I can see. SpinningSpark 00:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Generally small military helicopter crashes such as this one are not notable, however the exception to the rule tends to be when high-ranking personnel is involved - in this case, Major-General John Shaw (who was possibly slated to be the next Rhodesian chief of staff). BEFORE shows plenty of book coverage for this crash.Icewhiz (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one of those accidents that probably changed history. Imagine if Napoleon's ship had sunk under him in June 1798, before he disembarked in Alexandria? Had this Alouette not gone down, perhaps Rhodesia would still be a prosperous nation today, and continue to be "the breadbasket of Africa," like it once was. Article is well sourced to books, no question it's a keeper. XavierItzm (talk) 17:03, 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 speedy keep. Clearly a bad faith nomination. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Seinfeld[edit]

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

I want my Wikipedia article be taken down. - Evan Seinfeld wiki (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Delete my and my Wife's page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupe_Fuentes. We don't want to be on Wikipedia. It's a harassment for us. Please delete these pages as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan Seinfeld wiki (talk • contribs) 01:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please read WP:BLPSELF it may help you.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sorry, I doubt the article's going to dissapear. Let people on the article talk page know about any misinformation or missed information Spacepine (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest speedy close, this has Streisand effect written all over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep/close I struck a line from Lupe's bio that was a ridiculous statement about child porn. I don't see anything else in these articles that comes across as an attack. Assuming it's really you, you and your wife are notable individuals and the Internet never forgets. BTW I enjoyed "Oz". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per above. We're sorry you don't want to have an article about you, but its presence serves a public good. Many of the other editors have given you good advice if you have specific concerns about content in the article. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:37, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar S. Paulsson[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG. Does not meet WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. Subject is the author of one significant book Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw 1940-1945. Per his scholar profile he has authored 13 works (1 book, edited one book by Engelking, 1 journal article with 40 citations, 4 journal articles with 7,5,4,2 citations, a museum exhibit, and some un-cited works), and has a h-index of 5. Subject does not hold a significant academic appointment - he's basically been a mid-life PHD student, post doc, and ~~fellow~~ post doc fellowship positions. He is occasionally interviewed as a Holocaust expert, usually mentioning he is the author of Secret City. Little WP:INDEPTH coverage of the subject himself (as opposed to his expert opinion or Secret City) exists, though there is some coverage of a libel lawsuit he filed against Slavic Review in relation to a book review of Secret City. In terms of coverage not related to the book, there is this - A failed probation, 1999. To summarize - the subject does not meet the SNGs, does meet GNG, and is mainly discussed with his one notable work which has an article. Icewhiz (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC) clarify fellow to post doc fellowship positions.Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this ridiculous AfD nom borders on a BLP violation (" he's basically been a mid-life PHD student, post doc, and fellow"). Director of the Stanley Burton Centre for Holocaust Studies. Described as an expert in Holocaust studies by Times of Israel. Senior Historian in the Holocaust Exhibition Project Office at the Imperial War Museum in London. Pearl Resnick fellow at the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. Lecturer at Oxford. Does that sound like a "mid-life PHD student, post doc, and fellow"??? I mean, yeah, it's true he was those things but, since pretty much any academic in this area goes through these stages, but this way of presenting the subject is grossly disingenuous. The nominator basically has a problem with what the subject has written and this is just petty Wikipedia style revenge. Similar BLP vios by Icewhiz can be observed on other BLPs of historians and academics who don't happen to agree with Icewhiz's POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Subject (born 1946) began his PHD in the 1990s, and held a number of positions at the post-doc level (including the 7 month Pearl Resnick postdoc fellowship [31], which is not an indication of notability), as well as some untenured lecturing roles. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid !vote, this subject is not even close to any of the NPROF criteria, AUTHOR, or GNG. The single notable book is, and does have an article.Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw 1940-1945. The book is clearly notable, but the author's notability stems principally from the book. I considered a Weak keep but I'm not sure there's enough to justify a stand alone article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I made a page on the Barbara Engelking book, Holocaust and Memory (2001) that was edited by Gunnar S. Paulsson. I am not sure if or how being the editor of this may add to his WP notability.Thsmi002 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He is the editor of the translation to English (there is also a translator) - the author is listed as Engelking, and Paulsson AFAICT had nothing to do with the Polish 1996 original.Icewhiz (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm reading Icewhiz arguments and still don't quite understand why this acclaimed historian is not notable? Also why 11 years old page [32] with an average view of 183 per month [33] should be all of a sudden deleted? I disagree, definitely a keeper for me. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A very stubby article for 10 years, most of the text CV-like and devoted to listing a rather encompassing publication list. I was intending, prior to creation (copying of content + expansion) of Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw 1940-1945 to file a requeted move for this article to the book, but the creation (and copying of content) of the book article made the non-notable author article redundant.Icewhiz (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jonathan A Jones's suggestion. I understand the rationale for this vote, and indeed if one trims down the lists (bibliography and awards) and the we're left with just two paragraphs and a lead, and one of these paragraphs is a sub-article of Secret City. That being said, we have more than a handful of articles of this length (a couple of paragraphs and a list), so it seems the question is less about this particular author and more about the nature of this encyclopedia, and I would consider raising it in a wider forum. As an aside - one good book can be more than enough to make an author notable, but it has to be a really notable book or an author with a really interesting life story. François Robere (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note - all 3 awards are for the book (the 1998 Fraenkel Prize is for the unpublished manuscript (which was the PHD dissertation) which was later published as the book).Icewhiz (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'll just copy what I posted on the nom's page a few days ago: "I have more citations than him, lol ([34] - and you are right, he clearly self-describes himself as Steve, omitting Gunnar from his GSCholar profile entirely) but his book is reasonably famous in the field. His research is also discussed in books ([35], [36] - note we need two searches, one for Steve, one for Gunnar, with Gunnar being more popular, and total = 2k hits, that's pretty good). He is called an "an expert on the [Holocaust] period" by Times of Israel: [37], presumably reliable newspaper." So a bit borderline, but I think he meets WP:PROF, as an author of an influential and well cited work (if only one work). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.A notable historian that has been published and debated in mainstream sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards keep -- The author of a book that wins two awards is likely to be notable. He has also done work on the Jews in Denmark, which also tends to notability, as indicated by it being republished in a collection of articles, which will not fit into the article on the book. His list of publications is still fairly short, but I think he has enough to keep. The alternative might be to reverse merge - book into author. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron:, he is 71 and his last article authored was in 2010 (and that after long gap, most of his output is 1995-2005) - additional works are not very likely. Try finding INDEPTH sources on him - I came up short with the exception of the libel case which is connected to the book.Icewhiz (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously arguing that people should be considered non-notable because of their age??? Add that to the list of problematic generalizations and views you hold about entire groups of people.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of good sources in article and per google search. Per WP:GNG as well.BabbaQ (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and sanction the nom for WP:POINTy-ness and behaving like a bull in a china shop in an area covered by multiple sanctions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment' -- I thought hard about this one. These holocaust subjects are always sensitive. I am never sure how useful it is to have articles on books. Hence my suggestion of merging the book to the author. I am far from sure that we need both articles, but we probably ought to have one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems notable to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie West[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a musician, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no reliable source referencing being shown. The strongest discernible notability claim here is that he and his music exist, which does not automatically guarantee a Wikipedia article in and of itself absent passage of an NMUSIC criterion -- and the referencing here is to WP:BLOGS, his own self-published website, a Spotify stream and YouTube videos, not to reliable source media coverage that counts as valid support for notability. Bearcat (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Any independent coverage of Mr. West is WP:ONEEVENT related to him winning a busking competition nine years ago [38], and there has been nothing since then. The rest of the article is self-promotional and citing only Mr. West's own social media. Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For exactly the reasons that Nom and Richard3120 lay out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:03, 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 10:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dananjaya Hettiarachchi[edit]

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

A motivational speaker. The sources are all based on press releases surrounding a single event, winning a competition on which we have no article. WP:BLP1E and WP:ANYBIO fail. Guy (Help!) 18:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, I do think that the Toastmasters International#Public speaking championship could support an article. Competitors worldwide get INDEPTH coverage every year just for winning a local competiton and attending, and the champion always gets regional, national, and often international coverage, albeit the name of the competitions often shortened to phrases like: world speaking contest.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with nom, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources - fails WP: ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep my WP:BEFORE search brought up a good number of bluechip sources spread over several years, including the article from The Hindu that I added to the article, note that this is not a local source since subject is form Sri Lanka, not India, but it is not paywalled and contains bio material from which this article can be expanded.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nn as either "keynote speaker, trainer [or] HRD specialis". The 2014 Toastmasters International World Champion of Public Speaking award is not significant and well known, and there's nothing better. Just a promotional directory listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per K.e.coffman. I was the southwestern U.S. spades champion in college. Doesn't make me notable, either.—Chowbok ☠ 02:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would, of course, depend on how much press coverage your bridge games got. Which would, in part, perhaps depend on whether you were the first American to win a game of spades. You might not have noted that Hettiarachchi was the first Asian to win this contest, or known what a big deal these contests are in east and south Asia. Honestly, I had no idea until I stumbled into this and ran some searches. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World Champion of Public Speaking.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 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 10:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Celeris[edit]

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

Article is recently created - But Celeris are not notable outside of the Virtual Pool series, which already has a comprehensive list of articles. If they had created other games, then, this would be ok.

Article should be deleted/returned to redirect. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An RfD revolved around it producing another game, FlixMix. But FlixMix is tagged for notability since July 2012, so the consensus here will revolve around that game's notability. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of there being a second notable game that was created by the studio, that doesn't automatically make the studio themselves notable. There are a lot of non-notable studios that have produced lots of notable games, however, they are possibly notable for the Virtual Pool series, (and potentially FlixMix), but that doesn't make the studio themselves notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 19:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any significant coverage of the company itself. I lean against redirecting per WP:XY but I don't know if we really want to rehash the RfD. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:29, 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 08:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Marlett[edit]

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

The sources currently cited are poor. We need some coverage in a more reliable source to satisfy WP:BIO SmartSE (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another poor magician WP:RESUME article. We need a new policy, possibly titled WP:NOTYOURMAGICCV because these badly-written magician articles keep popping up like rabbits out of a hat. Nate • (chatter) 01:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The best source I could find was this interview with the local fox affiliate. The iTricks piece is somewhat interesting but not reliable enough to use. An weak argument could be made about Marlett passing WP:NCREATIVE as an important figure, but I think that while he is widely known, that criteria should be reserved for significantly more important figures.

/* Kyle Marlett */ Added more criteria and articles. I suggest keeping the page. He is a world renown magician who has appeared on countless TV shows.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.159.81 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an over-the-top promotional page, totally lacking in encyclopedic tone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Irons[edit]

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

Entirely unreferenced potential WP:BLP (if he's still alive.) A before search brought up only a few run-of-the-mill articles. (There's a television character with the same name.) Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 23:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Florence is a city of less than 50,000 people. I am less than convinced we should keep any article on a mayor with less than comprehensive coverage, but clearly with a city of this size we need something more than a source merely showing that Irons was in fact mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree that this fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 01:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and any coverage is going to have serious WP:BLP issues if kept. I found some cursory coverage of his political career by news organizations, but nothing substantial. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails wp:NPOL as Irons has not held statewide office or higher. A google search yielded some coverage in independent, reliable sources, but all are in local media organizations (like WAFF (TV)) and unsubstantial. Zingarese (talk) 03:01, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation Works[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A directory like listing on an unremarkable venture fund. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Cyounkins with no other contributions outside this topic. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH.

First AfD closed as "no consensus" in 2013. NCORP has been significantly tightened since then so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article about an unremarkable venture capital fund. MER-C 11:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete not entirely sure why consensus couldn't be reached in 2013. It didn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH then and it doesn't satisfy it now. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:47, 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. Consensus is to retain the disambiguation page as is. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jethro Tull[edit]

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

WP:2DAB. Should be deleted and Jethro Tull (band) moved here, as that's the primary target. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a disambiguation page with only 2 subjects that should instead be a hatnote. Agree that Jethro Tull (band) should be the redirect, since a vast majority of users would likely be searching for the band rather than the person. Nanophosis (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 03:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 03:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: one current band, one significant historical person, both disambiguated, no primary topic. Perfectly correct dab page, as it was when created in 2002. PamD 10:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: isn't this a move request rather than an AfD? Richard3120 (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that DAB pages have to be AFD'd. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep my understanding of this is to build consensus that the band is the primary topic. I disagree. I had never heard of the agriculturalist (and I've only heard of the band enough to be surprised to find it in the list of AfDs), but he appears to be a substantial historical figure, and the disambiguation page seems proper to me. SportingFlyer talk 16:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DAB As-Is -- The disambiguation page could be eliminated if there was a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name, but I don't think that is the case here. Scientists and historians may enter "Jethro Tull" to find the agriculturalist, music fans may use the term to search for the band. Since the agriculturalist is clearly a notable historical figure, he may be just as "primary" as the famous band. The brief detour through the disambig page when someone searches for the name is a bit annoying but easily clicked through. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If one of the topics was clearly the primary one, it would be the agriculturalist of the 18th century. I think I may have heard of him a little in the past, the band not at all. We should avoid unwaranted presentism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don think either could be argued to be the primary topic as both are very notable in their fields (although the fact that the band took their name from the historical figure, might suggest he is the primary subject I suppose). Equally, I suspect different audiences will enter the term expecting different results so a disambiguation page is helpful. Dunarc (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The agriculturalist is just as famous as the band. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to band - Have hatnote on both pages. Maybe the band hatnote could say "Named after" (not sure about style guidelines on this). Band popularity is about an order of magnitude higher (6x-50x). Google Trends show notability is to the band.[39] NGram shows mentions for the agriculturist disappeared until the band appeared in 1967.[40] Pageviews are about 8x for the band.[41] Suggested search on WP for "Jethro Tul" (missing final "l") has first the band, then agriculturist, discography, The String Quartet, DAB, Slipstream (band video), Christmas album, A (band album). StrayBolt (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD (talk · contribs) and others above. Note that this has already been proposed and rejected as a move request a few months ago: see here. --Deskford (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep as such a request should be made via the RM process. feminist (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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