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. Clear consensus to keep this. It may be in need of some cleanup or a split or two, but that's not for AfD to solve or a reason to delete. I'll note that most !votes discuss the utility of the page rather than notability, so perhaps this isn't as resounding a keep as mere counting might suggest, but still, a strong keep for the content. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 10 version history[edit]

Windows 10 version history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is going to get longer and longer as new Windows 10 updates come out. What can we do when the article reaches 500 kilobytes?? This article might violate "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts." Georgia guy (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All the sources are primary and therefore this list fails WP:RELEASENOTES. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline is for the release notes for software projects where each release is not notable (i.e. not described in reliable third-party sources independent of the subject). Each Windows 10 release has had non-trivial mentions in reliable third party sources, e.g. [1] (Windows 10 1803) [2] (Windows 10 1709) [3] (Windows 10 1703) etc. Indeed, the guidelink you link to says "Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article" (emphasis mine) Samboy (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a very important report of Microsoft Windows Operating System. Aainitio (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  How?? What will you do when this article reaches 300 kilobytes?? (Feel free to replace this with a larger number if you prefer.) Georgia guy (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok This seems a trouble. But... What will us do if this article were summarilly deleted? Aainitio (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but cleanup - we do not need rather irrelevant information about preview or Beta Builds. --Denniss (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  ...but we do need... Georgia guy (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There will be a day Win10 will be replaced with Win11 and that is when the size of the entry is decided.

I found the way the information is presented very useful and accessible. This entry gave exactly the information I was after helping me to solve an issue where otherwise I would have been left in the woods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.151.114 (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure there never will be such a day. Windows 10 will always be the newest version of Windows according to what Microsoft made official. Georgia guy (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep Why is this even in WP:AfD?? I was Googling Windows update history and was shocked to see this AfD. Knowing which Windows 10 versions exist is very useful information. Finding references from reliable sources is trivial; here's one from a 20 second Google search for "Windows 10 1803" (the version running on my laptops): "Here's what's new in Windows 10 April 2018 Update". ZDNet. We do not delete articles because they might get too long; we split them (Windows 10 updates from 2015-2019; Windows 10 updates from 2020-2024; etc.) Deletion is for non-notable topics; Windows 10 updates, used by millions of users, are obviously notable. Samboy (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are plenty of secondary sources on the topic. Splitting by years (I imagine near years might make sense to sever along major updates) is the way to go. Deciding what size each article should be I would leave to those most interested in the article. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a good solution. Will there be another better? Aainitio (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with the above, I use this page for reference often, but perhaps clean up the References, that section makes up most of the page and is a mess! 206.123.216.105 (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm sure of great interest to some, and an extremely notable product, with this page keeping the more detailed information pertaining to it off the main Windows 10 page, and attempts to be informative and encyclopaedic.Nick Moyes (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)  [reply]

  That's to keep the Windows 10 page from being too big. But we need a way to keep this page from being too big; it will just get bigger and bigger every time a new build of Windows 10 comes out. Georgia guy (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  We do not delete articles because they might get too long; we split them (Windows 10 updates from 2015-2019; Windows 10 updates from 2020-2024; etc. — I have helpfully already created those articles) Deletion is for non-notable topics; Windows 10 updates, used by millions of users, are obviously notable. Samboy (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This really seems to be a good — probably, the best — solution. Will there be another better? Aainitio (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This information is extremely helpful when installing Windows 10 from an ISO and winver reports Build 10240 but it is known retroactively as 1507. This was the first hit on Google and answer my question perfectly along with additional releases so I know how far behind this system is. --64.141.165.2 (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Samboy: - the article is clearly too long at its current length - I think waiting until 2019 to launch a break would leave it too late. It would be the easiest to get user approval for (since it doesn't require any difficult break-point discussion) but would leave a very large article. I think 2015-17 ( that's inclusive: 2015-2018 exclusive) makes more sense, i.e. end of last year.

In any case, these are post-AfD discussions, there is a clear solution to the article's only issue, and that issue didn't warrant deletion in any case Nosebagbear (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No one needs the approval of the Wikipedia bureaucratic committee to split up an article if it’s getting too big. Just do it! I know this isn’t the Wikipedia of 2005, but, really, whoever goes to the effort of splitting the article gets to decide how to split it up. This isn’t a hot button article about religion, politics, or sex—so I don’t think people are going to make any significant controversy. Samboy (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very true - I can't imagine any split you (or another) implementing causing significant controversy if you just went for it. My point is just to stop a future argument that the articles are still too big because they've been severed into too large chunks. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly... But, just remembering: "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." King James Version (KJV)

I am sure that future things can be dealt with when they are really present. Wikipedia shows that Wikipedians are very competent to offer the best solution in all cases. Aainitio (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" - generally a dangerous viewpoint to hold in life I would say, @Aainitio:! "Wikipedia shows that Wikipedians are very competent to offer the best solution in all cases." - A spectacularly optimistic POV given past experience with the site, I feel!

Our contrasting world viewpoints aside, that was just my advice on article size breaking - it's not an article I'm linked with, nor is size-splitting a speciality of mine, so we'll see what happens then. While there is a delete !vote at the top, we've really hit snow grounds now. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I refer to this article when I need to and I find it helpful. I don't agree with the purpose of deleting the article. Just split it in different page and sub-page and that's it. RafaelS1979 (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and edit - The article is fluffy, but appears to satisfy an encyclopedic interest. I like to saw logs! (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep some of the tables may be indiscriminate and should be removed, but the article's topic as a whole is fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this information is very helpful and useful, sort of like technical world history. In 10-years when we find that Win10 PC running 16299.248 we will know what it means without having to read 10 pages on a Microsoft site. If the article can not grow larger than 500KB then perhaps offload some data into new sub-articles or trim out extraneous details from this main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParrFour (talk • contribs) 16:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Snowball Keep as it has been and continues to be a very useful resource. There are other, varied ways to resolve excessive article length concerns. Timeshift (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:AFD is not the place to remedy articles that are too long, unwieldy, or poorly written. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but split... this article into suitable subsets, so that such subsets refer, for example, to chosen arguments, such as time (year, semester or other), edition or otherwise. Thus, the current article would have only the initial part and the evolution table ("Overview").

This, in fact, has already been [very well] suggested by other wiki-editors, such as Nosebagbear and Samboy, who are much more competent and experienced than I am to do so. Aainitio (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hamburger[edit]

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

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

This page has been tagged as failing to demonstrate notability since 2014. – Fayenatic London 22:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. <RetroCraft314/> 23:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. <RetroCraft314/> 23:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. <RetroCraft314/> 23:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the whole thing feels promotional, and I don't see a clear case that GNG is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC) also, not to be confused with Robert Hamburger.[reply]
• Keep. Some of the references weren't formatted. They are now, and I think the references from reliable sources are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The AfD nomination is incorrect, the ((note)) tag does not mean an article "fails notability". Only AfD can determine that, and there has been no consensus about it. Second, the article contains numerous in-depth biographical profiles of Hamburger including a front-page feature article. More so when you read them it becomes clear he did something unusual in his field, he is an innovator in his profession. There is a reason all these sources about him. I agree there is some salesmanship in the writing, I started working on it just prior to the AfD. -- GreenC 02:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing more than local coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-promotional biography, very poor sourcing.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as no policy-based reason for deletion has been offered. 73.81.147.224 (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very borderline notable at best, and almost entirely promotional. Most of the refs are from his own site or obvious PR. One WSJ article does not prove notability in theabsence of anything else. 80% of the content is listing his opinion and talks he has givern. No indication his law firm is notable; no indication his charity is foundation; no indication his conference seies is notable. The content in the section on his conference consists of namedropping the people who attended. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburger "helped define the (Registered Investment Adviser) industry" (Wealth Magangement magazine). He "took the independent advisory model to the next level" (October 2008 issue of Investment Advisor). These are direct assertions of notability by independent reliable sources. Do we trust the expert sources, or the opinions of Wikipedia editors who may or may not be expert in the field of RIA. -- GreenC

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

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

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of volcanoes in Brazil[edit]

List of volcanoes in Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sources, the article is insufficient. It's also being considered for deletion in the portuguese wikipedia. There are no volcanoes in Brazil btw. Holy Goo (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article shows 3 volcanoes in Brazil, all of which have articles. Valid for list. Ajf773 (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep such "List of..." articles are generally kept provided items listed are independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, in the portuguese wikipedia we have different rules governing lists. Such list wouldn't be kept there. Holy Goo (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this is a very useful list. People often search for physical features by country and this list (even if it is small) is useful for navigation purposes. An example of a similar list with more information is List of volcanoes in India. This article can also be similarly augmented with additional information.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We should never apply policies from one language wiki to another. I was going to vote strong keep, but doing a bit (but not enough) research into extinct volcanoes in Brazil and its islands, I found that the page for Pico do Cabugi states this is the only extinct volcano in Brazil to exhibit its original form. I have added a ((disputed inline)) template to that statement and added a note on its talk page, as a result of this paper which suggests Pico do Cabugi is simply a sub-volcanic neck which has experienced differential erosion, and does not classify as an extinct volcano. Similarly, please read Nova Iguaçu Volcano to discover that as yet there is no scientific evidence to demonstrate that it is the site of an extinct volcano. Unfortunately, I've run out of time to investigate Trindade and Martin Vaz.I f there's any doubt, I feel this list should be kept, at least pending any downgrading of volcano status at the three listed pages. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately many users use the English-speaking rules in Portuguese and so it continues ... so I believe that the proponent has found that such a list would not be able to continue active in en.wiki, so much so that it was used as an argument in the very discussion of this language in Portuguese.

Despite this, I consider two relevant points to be corrected. (1) There are no active volcanoes in Brazil, it is not necessary to quote "[...] of active and extinct volcanoes." (2) "Nova Iguaçu Volcano" is a supposed volcano, with no scientific evidence, so it should fit in since the little introduction says "active and extinct"?

Finally, I do not consider such a list useful because of the lack of information, it would be eliminated (as it is well under way) in Portuguese, but since I do not know English rules, I prefer not to comment. Le Comte Edmond Dantès ^msg 19:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conde Edmond Dantès (talk • contribs) [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Eugene Peters[edit]

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

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

Has been listed on Forbes 30 under 30, has listed a few non-notable awards, a couple of passing mention but nothing in depth and it's just another WP:PROMO page Edidiong (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 20:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 20:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Simply stating that Gilbert Eugene Peters is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the he may not be notable. I have removed the non-notable awards from his profile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmagaisa (talk • contribs) 21:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - NN individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keeppage can be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.246.53.8 (talk) 22:33, 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 no consensus. Numerically split. Several opinions on both sides need to be discounted as pure votes, etc. The rest are divided regarding the indiscriminateness of the list and the notability of the topic; this is a matter of editorial judgment. Sandstein 08:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of diplomatic visits to the United States[edit]

List of diplomatic visits to the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE/WP:LISTN. A complete list will be excessive, and there's no good way to have a partial list.

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of heads of state and government visits to the Russian Federation, with the additional complication of listing (or not listing) visits to the UN in New York. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles, which are of the same form for different countries:

List of diplomatic visits to the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of state visits to Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of diplomatic visits to India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• “This information could be displayed more sensibly in the articles about the relevant Politicans themselves. Additionally Wikipedia is a not a list of indiscriminate information WP:NOTSTATS.” I personally don't agree but if it violates rules of Wikipedia, then all articles have to be removed, not only the Russian article. There are no exceptions. There are two options: or to remove all such articles, or to restore the Russian article. Norvikk (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG.In Memoriam A.H.H.^{What, you egg?}. 20:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In Memoriam A.H.H. (talk · contribs), the closing admin might give less weight to your AfD comment under WP:JUSTAVOTE. Would you explain your rationale for retention in more detail so that does not happen? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Shahin (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Shahin (talk · contribs), the closing admin might give less weight to your AfD comment under WP:JUSTAVOTE. Would you explain your rationale for retention in more detail so that does not happen? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete . The article violates WP:NOTSTATS. Knobbly (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Knobbly: You destroyed the Russian article. Tell your opinion for other similar articles. Go! Be consistent! Be brave! --Norvikk (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NorvikkI think it's a case of laziness rather than bravey, but I agree it's defiantely not WP:NPOV to favour one nation over another. Knobbly (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete . It is hypocritical to keep these articles about India, Iran, the United States, and the Philippines and delete the article about Russia. AyodeleA1 (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep List of diplomatic visits to the United States per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "diplomatic visits to the United States" has been treated as "a group or set by independent reliable sources".
  
  Sources

  1. Goldstein, Erik (2008). "The Politics of the State Visit". The Hague Journal of Diplomacy. 3 (2). Brill Publishers: 153–158. doi:10.1163/187119108x323646. Retrieved 2018-06-11.

     Here are quotes from the article:

     1. "when President Louis Borno of Haiti indicated that he would like to make such a visit in 1926, he was told that he could, but only at his own expense."
     2. "The first visit to the United States officially classed as a state visit was that of President Syngman Rhee of Korea in 1954, followed by that of President Tubman of Liberia."
     3. "Red carpets are the international norm, but in 1959 the president of the Republic of Ireland, Sean O’Kelly, arriving on St Patrick’s Day, was provided with a green carpet!"
     4. "Presidents Truman and Eisenhower used to greet guests at the railway station or airport, but as the tempo of visits of all categories increased, Eisenhower was convinced in 1957 to move the greeting ceremony to the White House. As a result, the next scheduled visitor, King Saud of Saudi Arabia, took offence and cancelled his visit. In the end Eisenhower had to agree to go to the airport to meet him."
     5. In 1939 US President Franklin Roosevelt invited Britain’s King George VI to visit the United States, having learnt that the king was about to visit Canada. This June 1939 visit was not only the first by a reigning British monarch to Canada, but also to the United States."
     6. "US President Clinton delighted Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma by upgrading his visit to Washington as a state visit, only the fourth of his presidency, in response to Ukraine’s serious economic reforms and adherence to nuclear non-proliferation."
     7. "This led to diplomatic turmoil when the president of the Republic of China visited the United States in 1995. Although President Lee [Teng-hui] was officially granted only a visa to attend a university reunion, Beijing’s government protested vociferously."
     8. "This was one reason why in June 1939 when George VI visited the United States it was decided not to send the foreign secretary, Lord Halifax, as minister-in-attendance in order to avoid any suggestion of Anglo-American collusion. "
  2. Clark, Lesley (2013-10-07). "Pomp of state dinners fading even before Brazil canceled over spying". The McClatchy Company. Archived from the original on 2018-06-11. Retrieved 2018-06-11.

     Here are quotes from the article:

     1. "In 1970, an otherwise well-choreographed visit by French President Georges Pompidou was marred when demonstrators protesting the sale of French warplanes to Libya jostled Pompidou and his wife on a side trip to Chicago."
     2. "That’s a step above the reception accorded Haitian President Louis Borno, who was told in 1926 – before state visits existed in the U.S. government lexicon – that he could have an official visit, “but only at his own expense,” Goldstein said."
     3. "The first visit to the United States officially classified as a state visit in modern times was that of President Syngman Rhee of Korea in 1954, Goldstein said."
     4. "The president of the Republic of Ireland got a green carpet welcome in 1959."
     5. "President Dwight Eisenhower was convinced in 1957 to move the greeting ceremony to the White House from the airport. The next visitor, King Saud of Saudi Arabia, was offended and canceled. “In the end,” Goldstein said, “Eisenhower had to agree to go to the airport to meet him.”"
     6. "In 1976, Turkish President Cevdet Sunay spent 11 days in the U.S., stopping in 11 cities including Palm Springs, Calif., and Los Angeles."
     7. "a lavish state dinner for Mexican President Felipe Calderon after news reports put the cost for the 2010 event – featuring entertainment by Beyonce – at nearly $1 million."
  3. Plischke, Elmer (1974) [1958]. Summit Diplomacy: Personal Diplomacy of the President of the United States. College Park, Maryland: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 55–58. ISBN 0837171997. Retrieved 2018-06-11.

     Per https://archive.org/details/summitdiplomacyp00plis, the "Possible copyright status: Copyright status reviewed by UF staff - out of copyright" (where "UF" refers to University of Florida). This book is in the public domain. A PDF of the book is available at https://archive.org/download/summitdiplomacyp00plis/summitdiplomacyp00plis.pdf.

     The book notes:

     Throughout the history of the United States, there have been approximately 300 visits to this country by foreign chiefs of state, heads of government, and similarly ranked leaders, including foreign ministers. To the end of World War I there were only some 30 such visits. By way of contrast, since 1939 there have been more than 200, accounting for more than two-thirds of the total.

     This increasing hegira of foreign government leaders to the United States in the last two decades is rather impressive. In October 1929 Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald of Great Britain came to Washington and conferred with President Herbert Hoover respecting the proposed London naval conference, the distinguished Briton remaining for a twelve-day visit.⁹ Prime Minister Churchill consulted with President Roosevelt in Washington on at least three occasions during World War II. Between 1939 and 1945 the President was host to about thirty visits. The roster includes the Presidents of Czechoslovakia, Iceland, and several Latin American countries; the exiled-President of Poland the Prime Ministers of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand; and members of European royalty, the latter accounting for about half of the visits.¹⁰

     During the earlier years of President Truman's incumbency, state visits to Washington were occasional, but the tempo increased in his last term, 1949-1953. He played host to approximately twenty visits. Half of these were by chiefs of state, and the remainder included Prime Ministers, a President-elect, Crown Princes and Princesses, the deposed King Michael of Rumania, and General Charles deGaulle of France—all of whom were accorded appropriate state receptions. During the Truman Administration visitors came from Europe (including such countries as Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Rumania, the United Kingdom, and the Scandinavian countries) and the Middle East (including Iran, Iraq, Israel, and Saudi Arabia), as well as from India, Pakistan, the Philippine Republic, Canada, and a number of the Latin American countries. The last (April 1952) and perhaps the most highly publicized was the visit of Queen Juliana of the Netherlands, which included not only the formal visit to the National Capital but also a three-week tour of the United States followed by a brief sojourn in Canada.¹⁰

     Since the inauguration of Dwight D. Eisenhower as President of the United States in January 1953, the state visit to the United States has been employed on an unprecedented scale. If one includes Prime Minister Churchill's pre-inaugural visit of January 1953, there were an even fifty such visits to the United States during the first term, and some fifty-nine by the end of 1957.¹² These embraced nineteen by chiefs of state¹³ and forty by heads of government and comparably ranked individuals.¹⁴ During 1957 there were the colorful state visits of King Saud of Saudi Arabia, of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip of the United Kingdom, and of King Mohamed V of Morocco, as well as those of the President of Viet Nam, the Chancellor of West Germany (on his fifth visit in five years), and the Prime Ministers of France, Japan, and Pakistan.

     ...

     During the five-year period, 1953-1957, nearly all non- Communist Asian countries sent dignitaries on state visits to Washington, as did all non-Communist European states except Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. The President also played host to representatives from all of the British dominions except the Union of South Africa. However, during President Eisenhower's first term none of the state visitors came from any member of the League of Arab States, the Middle East being represented solely by Iran and Turkey. After hostilities broke out in Egypt, King Saud of Saudi Arabia and the Crown Prince of Iraq (as well as the Foreign Minister of Lebanon) arrived in Washington for overlapping visits in late January and early February, 1957. The distinguished guests of the United States Government therefore have represented nearly forty different countries during the past five years. The fact that most non- Communist countries of Europe and Asia were so represented, but only one-fourth of the Latin American neighbors, perhaps persuaded the Eisenhower Administration to promote the calling of the Panama Summit Conference in 1956, obtensibly to commemorate the 130th anniversary of the Congress of Panama.

     Normally an official state visit to Washington entails a three- day stay in the national capital. In exceptional cases a dignitary may be in Washington for only one day or, as in the case of President Syngman Rhee of the Republic of Korea (5 days) and King Saud of Saudi Arabia (10 days), the period may be extended.¹⁶ In addition to enjoying the Washington ceremonials, the visitor may spend additional time in the United States for a variety of reasons—to travel, to visit historic monuments and sites, to receive honorary degrees, to deliver public addresses, or for general good will purposes. Some have remained for as long as a month or more.¹⁷

     A footnote:

     17. The fifty-day visit of His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia, in 1954, was quite exceptional.

  4. Vestal, Theodore (Summer–Fall 2003). "Emperor Haile Selassie's First State Visit to The United States in 1954: The Oklahoma Interlude". International Journal of Ethiopian Studies. 1 (1). TSEHAI Publishers: 133–152. Retrieved 2018-06-11 – via JSTOR.

     The article's abstract notes:

     Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia made six official state visits to the United States between 1954 and 1973. His reception by his American host, the President of the United States, reflected the official attitudes of the United States towards Africa in general and towards Ethiopia specifically during the Cold War era. Each visit is a special story, a strand that weaves a patterned fabric of the history and foreign relations of the two nations. The Emperor’s personal diplomacy during his state visits with Eisenhower in 1954, with Kennedy in 1963, with Johnson in 1967, and with Nixon in 1969, 1970, and 1973 produced varied results that demonstrated the depth of mutual reliance between the two nations as well as the international celebrity of Haile Selassie.

  5. Weatherbee, Donald E. (2008). Historical Dictionary of United States-Southeast Asia Relations. Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press. p. 281. ISBN 0810864053. Retrieved 2018-06-11.

     The book notes:

     …been a theme during the state visits to the United States by President Aquino in 1989, President Ramos in April 1998, President Estrada in 2000, and President Arroyo in August 2002. These visits were reciprocated by the state visits to the Phillipines of U.S. presidents William J. Clinton in November 1994 and George W. Bush in October 2003.

  
  
  The list is not indiscriminate.

  Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information says Wikipedia articles should not be: "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", and "Exhaustive logs of software updates". This article is none of these, so it is not indiscriminate.
  
  The list might never be complete, which is fine.

  It is fine for the list never to be complete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Incomplete lists:

  Because of Wikipedia's role as an almanac as well as an encyclopedia, it contains a large number of lists. Some lists, such as the list of U.S. state birds, are typically complete and unlikely to change for a long time. Some lists, however, cannot be considered complete, or even representative of the class of items being listed; such lists should be immediately preceded by the ((Expand list)) template, or one of the topic-specific variations that can be found at Category:List notification templates. Other lists, such as List of numbers, may never be fully complete, or may require constant updates to remain current – these are known as "dynamic lists", and should be preceded by the ((Dynamic list)) template.

  I do not think a complete list of all the diplomatic visits would be excessive given that incomplete lists are fine.
  
  General notability guideline

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow list of diplomatic visits to the United States to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding List of diplomatic visits to the Philippines, List of state visits to Iran, List of diplomatic visits to India, and List of heads of state and government visits to the Russian Federation (deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of heads of state and government visits to the Russian Federation), it is likely they pass Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists so I am inclined to support retention. But I have not searched for sources for them so do not offer a position for now.

  Cunard (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep List of diplomatic visits to India per the sources provided by Gazoth (talk · contribs) demonstrating that the topic passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists for being discussed "as a group or set by independent reliable sources.

  Cunard (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging significant contributors to List of diplomatic visits to the United States: PatTag2659 (talk · contribs), Jorge Gomez Kito (talk · contribs), and Jprg1966 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have left notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics (diff), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States (diff), Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines diff), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran (diff), and Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics (diff) asking editors to look for sources.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I began writing out a deletion rationale, and realized while typing it that it didn't make sense. The lists actually have a clearly defined scope: visits from heads of state to a sovereign country. There are actually not very many of those. Furthermore, contra Cunard, I do not believe these to be appropriate material for politician/head of state bios. A head of state who holds office for an entire term is likely to make 20+ visits in their career. In their biographies, these become distracting detail (I should know; I've spent a lot of time pruning such material). The only feasible alternatives are "list of visits by [head of state]", or "list of visits to [country]". Of the two alternatives, I find the latter to be a more logical and easy-to-follow alternative, although both could conceivably exist. As an aside, the topic "Diplomatic visits to [Country X]" is quite feasible as an article, but a separate article, which doesn't just refer to heads of state. Vanamonde (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC) I do apologise: the nomination was made by Power~enwiki, not Cunard, as I said above: Cunard was responsible for the notification which led me here. ALSO, I believe we should revisit the Russian Federation list. While there was clearly consensus in that discussion, the discussion itself had only two participants, which isn't enough for a substantive topic, in my view. ALSO re: visits to the UN: it should be fairly straightforward to define article scope in a way that visits to the UN are not considered visits to the US (which they shouldn't be). Vanamonde (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are clear inclusion and exclusion criteria per WP:LSC and each visit is not notable on its own. If the resulting list ends up being too large, it can be broken up by decades. Reliable sources do group diplomatic visits to a particular country such as WSJ's State Visits to India in 2010 gallery, The Hindu's piece on memorable state visits to India, India Today's US Presidential visits to India gallery. Moving the state visits to the visiting politician's article is not a good alternative as it cannot show how a country's relationship with others has evolved over the years. —Gazoth (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Ministerial-level visits to countries are entirely unremarkable (speaking as someone who's organised a couple of them in previous jobs). Leader-level visits are somewhat more notable, but are best covered in the articles on the relations between countries rather than rambling articles which attempt to lump them together in an unmanageable way. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom, per LISTN. I might be able to support inclusion of pared down lists of notable visits, with each entry appropriately sourced, but what we have here are fairly indiscriment lists that will never be complete. I feel bad for the contributors, as clearly a lot of work went into these lists, but this not what wikipedia is for. Yilloslime (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead of List of diplomatic visits to the United States sets the inclusion criteria as "International trips made by the heads of state and heads of government to the United States".

  The lead of List of diplomatic visits to India sets the inclusion criteria as "a list of heads of state and heads of government who have visited India".

  How do these topics fail Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists (WP:LISTN) given the sources Gazoth (talk · contribs) and I provided above that show the topics have each been discussed "as a group or set by independent reliable sources"?

  Cunard (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. I just can't see anyone really using these pages. They are likely to be incomplete and often lack sources, they are a hoaxers gift. A list of Formal head of state visits might have value if sourced but I don't think private visits or ministerial visits are notable Lyndaship (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "I just can't see anyone really using these pages" – per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It's useful/useless, that you "can't see anyone really using these pages" is not a policy-based reason for deletion.

  They are likely to be incomplete and often lack sources, they are a hoaxers gift. – regarding the first point, it is fine for lists to be incomplete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Incomplete lists and ((Dynamic list)), so this is not a policy-based reason for deletion. Regarding the second point, these articles do not lack sources. List of diplomatic visits to the United States has 212 sources, List of diplomatic visits to the Philippines has 226 sources, List of state visits to Iran has 92 sources, and List of diplomatic visits to India has 250 sources. While the sourcing can be improved, it is incorrect to say that these articles lack sources. Regarding the third point, that an article is "a hoaxers gift" is not a policy-based reason for deletion per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Susceptibility to policy violations.

  Cunard (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak delete I feel like the list inclusion criteria will be to difficult to manage. Maybe something like a "diplomatic visits to the U.S. under the Trump Administration" would be more manageable. No comment on other countries' respective lists. (Alerted of this discussion due to Cunard posting at the WikiProject American politics talk page) — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you are only commenting about List of diplomatic visits to the United States, I will address that article only in my response.

  The first paragraph of Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria (WP:LISTCRITERIA) says (my bolding):

  Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item.

  The inclusion criteria of List of diplomatic visits to the United States is "International trips made by the heads of state and heads of government to the United States". This criteria is "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources" I presented above. WP:LISTCRITERIA supports retaining this article, not deleting it.

  Cunard (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree that ministerial-level visits are unremarkable and probably do not meet Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. But I believe that leader-level visits do meet Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists.

  Both List of diplomatic visits to the United States and List of diplomatic visits to India set the inclusion criteria as leader-level visits only. These articles have policy-compliant inclusion criteria.

  List of state visits to Iran and List of diplomatic visits to the Philippines set the inclusion criteria as both leader-level visits and ministerial-level visits. To remedy the concerns about these lists' inclusion criteria being too broad, their inclusion criteria should be changed to include only leader-level visits. That requires a simple pruning of the list instead of complete deletion.

  Cunard (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: List of diplomatic visits to the Philippines and List of diplomatic visits to India were previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state visits to the Philippines. Cunard (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging significant contributors to List of diplomatic visits to the Philippines: PatTag2659 (talk · contribs), Hariboneagle927 (talk · contribs), Christian Mac Juane (talk · contribs), and Sky Harbor (talk · contribs).

  Pinging significant contributors to List of state visits to Iran who have not commented: Princeofpersia1 (talk · contribs), Benyamin-ln (talk · contribs), and GTVM92 (talk · contribs).

  Pinging significant contributors to List of diplomatic visits to India: M.soumen (talk · contribs), Adamgerber80 (talk · contribs), and Vizziee (talk · contribs).

  Cunard (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think there are people here who want this deleted for exactly opposing reasons. The nominator want this delete since they believe that including every visit is indiscriminate but having a partial list is not possible. I wonder how they reach this conclusion. Then there is another editor who supports the delete claiming that a partial list is not useful (implying that a complete list is useful?) and adding that references are insufficient (the last time I checked, List of diplomatic visits to India) had over 250 references and I know because I added a bunch of them even before this page was every nominated. The suggestion by the nominator is to merge the visits with the respective leaders visits which will (as already stated) will lead to unnecessary content inflation on those pages. I certainly believe that many of the events in the lists meet WP:GNG on their own, say the first visit of an American visit to the Indian Republic Day (which was hailed historic and received extensive news coverage) and some of them ever merit individual pages of their own. In addition, these lists provide the reader with a better understanding of each countries overall foreign relations with different countries (this point has already been alluded to before). Yes the lists do need some pruning and overall improvement. There can be a separate discussion on what is entailed during this pruning but I strongly believe that the solution is not an outright deletion of these pages. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the previous "Keep" votes. This data is valuable for students of diplomacy and useful as a historical record.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Nick-D says it best. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and WP:SALT. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

XLAB ISL Online[edit]

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

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

Twice the article ISL Online was removed for spamming and now a new article appears with a slightly different name. Is this version neutral and notable enough? The Banner talk 18:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Might be able to narrowly scoot past WP:NCORP. Page creator isn't the same as the now-deleted version, so contents are probably different this time. There's a number of articles in the company's native language that appear to be about the software ([4], [5]), along with English articles like this (note that this is a press release, and therefore doesn't entirely justify notability), and even an article in Japanese. Only about 3 of the articles I've found through my own searches or through checking the inline citations already in use are properly in-depth, but the others can be used as minor resources for extra content. Nanophosis (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. <RetroCraft314/> 23:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Useful Information Ended up on the article from the Comparison of Remote Desktop Software which I visit often to see if there are any new ones I've missed. I find these pages very useful. I really hope this one and the others from it don't get deleted. If anything lets improve the content not delete articles others find useful.68.119.40.81 (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability This product page represents one of the early international Remote Desktop and Support product entrants and is relevant to the history of that industry and product type. There are others similar to it shown on the "Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software" pages, evaluating those companies wiki articles does not demonstrate on average more notability than this article provides. See the company's Wiki page in another region also Slovenian Wikipedia entry on ISL Online. Wdslwalling

— Wdslwalling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep - WP:GNG is followed through. Along with secondary sources being used throughout the article. The WP:CONTN states that if the source material exists, then even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject’s notability. RoseChella —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article may not be in full potential but I suggest that a reimprove tag be placed on it. CatsloveDogs
  • — CatsloveDogs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete. The article creator has added promotionally-worded statements from dubious sources even since the article was nominated for deletion. Deb (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Currently have improved the article since the article for deletion had been created. RoseChella —Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Also may I add, WP:AUD which states that it is clearly notable to be on the Wikipedia because it has following on social media and has many articles about it in different languages and created outside of the US. RoseChella —Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RoseChella: You do not get two votes just because you created the article. Your changes to the article added promotional wording and are not therefore an improvement. Also, I've opened a sockpuppet investigation to establish whether you are controlling the SPAs that have contributed to this discussion. Deb (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: There is no promotional content, there is informational information about the company. That is the whole point of Wikipedia, is to better it. If pages keep getting taken down about companies then the information in those articles can't help people understand what that company is.

• Comment - I'd also like to point out Deb that taking down or reverting my other changes is in violation of WP:PERSONAL. Comment on the content, not on the contributor. Taking down my R.H Sin article was completely ill-mannered and other people had edited on the article and found that as useful. Along with my Samantha King Holmes article that was up for very short, there was no advertising or promotional content on any of my articles. WP:WIP. RoseChella

"the information in those articles can't help people understand what that company is" - you're talking about advertising the company. Deb (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taking down other articles due to unambiguous advertising is not relevant for this AfD-procedure. Articles are judged on their own merits, so it is the content of the article what decides its fate, not the author. When you take removal for "unambiguous advertising" as a personal attack, it might be that you lack understanding the concept of an encyclopedia. The Banner talk 16:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent with other remote access and support company product pages

I am unclear why this page has repeatedly been tagged for deletion when no other remote access and support company or product pages have been during this period. I have anonymously contributed to the prior deleted versions and also to this one to a lesser degree, this is a real product and a real company producing a product that is notable and heavily used in many European and Asian markets, recently entering the US market.

Wdslwalling —Preceding undated comment added 14:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the whole workings with all the single purpose accounts, the sockpuppet investigation and the rather promotional editing after the nomination is not making the article more reliable. The Banner talk 15:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Request speedy closure as delete conform Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RoseChella. The Banner talk 16:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • and salt! Deb (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt Article topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Sock puppet involvement points to motivations beyond the aims of this project, fails WP:SPIP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Complies with WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. ISL Online is mentioned on many other WIKI pages such as AVG_Technologies and Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software 50.42.46.104 (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no established notability, and Salt (due to repeated re-creation, COI editing and socking). The article's sources consist of press releases, articles in self-published or associated websites, advertorials in trade magazines and PR platforms, blogs and similar low-quality sources. None of these types of sources is sufficient to establish notability. Uninvolved good-faith editors (or non-socking COI editors with a valid transparent disclosure) are welcome to use the draftspace and AfC review process, if additional better sources become available in the future. Currently the article's referencing is tainted with the excessive usage of promotional low-quality "sources". Also, the existance of other articles in similar poor shape is no valid argument to retain this one (see WP:OSE). GermanJoe (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In particular per the Bearcat ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rigas[edit]

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

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

Commissioned spam of a bureaucrat. As such, it fails WP:N by not meeting WP:NOTSPAM. He get's the standard appointment announcement spam that is routine coverage of a government announcement, not counting towards the GNG, but otherwise all we have is quotes. This guy is has no business being in Wikipedia, and the fact that it's spam makes it worse. Delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Deputy director of the Office of Personnel Management" is certainly the kind of claim that could get a person into Wikipedia if he could be sourced over WP:GNG as the subject of media coverage for it, but it is not an "inherently" WP:NPOL-passing role that allows him to keep a badly sourced article just because he exists. The sourcing here is parked on a government press release and an internal civil service newsletter, not on reliable source coverage that's independent of his employer, so it doesn't help to establish his notability. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. No prejudice against having this article, now or in future, if such coverage can be found. Note: This is a different person than the Michael Rigas convicted of financial crime at Adelphia. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I couldn't find substantial coverage, even though Adephia's Rigas family muddies the waters. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15 days[edit]

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

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

The page seems to serve no purpose other than to disparage/belittle the game, only noting the downsides of its gameplay. CheeseCrisps (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note it says this is the second nomination, but the first time was for an album by this name. If the article remains it should be rewritten. A staff writer for Adventure Gamers gave it a detailed review. [6] Might be more coverage somewhere. Dream Focus 22:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to a lack of substantial coverage from reliable sources. While Metacritic does list a few reviews for the game, the only one that is listed as reliable on the WPVG's list is Adventure Gamers. The only other RS I found was a GamesIndustry.biz preview. JOEBRO64 23:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Multiple reviews (it has a Metacritic score) and further sources available in the German article. - hahnchen 09:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Hahnchen. GameStar[7] is a reliable source. Gameswelt has 19 articles referencing it already and looks professional. [8]. [9] The Adventure Gamers review I mentioned before counts a reliable source giving significant coverage. Dream Focus 13:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Hahnchen and Dream Focus. While not a ton of in-depth coverage, it has several, reliable sources mentioning the game. If keep is the result, it should be moved to 15 Days. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Two RS reviews pass notability. wumbolo ^^^ 09:06, 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) The editor whose username is Z0 12:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Nas album[edit]

*Comment: Withdrawn by nominator - as source provided for name of the album and album has been released. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Untitled album - fail WP:N for verification CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC) * Comment - For those who vote keep - those comment are backed without based on any Wikipedia policy/guidelines. If an unamed event/album on working state white white board state some "working names" are considered acceptable, then millions of unknown event / title would be permissible in Wikipedia. WP:TOOSOON.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Album will be out in less than a week, following the release of Kids See Ghosts. The album will be titled within the week as more information comes in (as seen with the release of Daytona too). Deleting this page would just mean recreating it maybe the next day. Nice4What (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The album will be out in less than a week, and it will surely receive a title in that time. No reason to go through the hassle of deleting it just to recreate it. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:V and GNG. If anything, this would be redirect to Nas sans deletion, and when the title comes undo the blanking. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And as the nom is based around getting WP:V from WP:N, then the "not base don policy" argument in invalid as well, I cited GNG, and just re googled it. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (Undecided for now) - As of today, 9 June, the most recent news articles on this album that I can find are from 22/23 April and those said the album would be released on 15 June. But that is six days from now and iTunes, Amazon Music, and Spotify do not have listings for this album as a "coming soon" item. It is time to doubt the accuracy of the release date. It is suspicious to not even have a title at this point, and a supposed blockbuster album like this has not been mentioned in the press for the past five weeks before its supposed release date. The nominator has a good point here and I would suggest deleting or redirecting the article if things don't come together in the next few days. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't really in question, imo. This album is part of a series of releases that began with Daytona, Ye, and Kids See Ghosts, with one album being released each week up to this point. All of the albums have been "surprise dropped", i.e. no set-in-stone tracklist/art before release, and Daytona and Ye did not get titles before very close to release either. You can debate whether it was necessary to make a page (I wouldn't have) but killing it off with less than a week to go strikes me as a bit pointless. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. There is something in the news about an upcoming Nas album but per WP:NOTFUTURE, subjects "pre-assigned to future events or discoveries are not suitable article topics if only generic information is known". Since the album is supposedly scheduled for release in the coming week, I don't see why it shouldn't be draftified and later moved to the proper title. The editor whose username is Z0 15:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC) - Edit: Keep - has been released now. Notable album. The editor whose username is Z0 11:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The album will surely be out in a few days going off of the track record of the GOOD Summer releases so far (Daytona, Ye, Kids See Ghosts). No real purpose of deleting it this close to the release as mentioned above. Ninjinian (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The article has already received 20,000 page views. It's obvious that readers are visiting this page from other West-related articles and looking for information. At this point, I think we should be pushing for a Speedy keep now. Nice4What (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The album has received a title (Nasir) and is set to be streamed tonight. I think this AFD can be declared done now. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just let the article snowball... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Album has been commercially released with confirmed date and producer and album artwork. WereWolf (talk) 11:47, 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. Redirecion at editors' discretion. Sandstein 09:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hitman: Codename 47 / Hitman 2: Silent Assassin[edit]

Hitman: Codename 47 / Hitman 2: Silent Assassin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unnotable soundtrack compilation; both games had their own album releases, why should a compilation that got hardly any press coverage receive its own page? Lordtobi (✉) 14:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ATD-R? czar 14:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Where would you redirect it to? It is literally composed of the names of two separate video games. Lordtobi (✉) 14:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Hitman: Codename 47 ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:XY, don't you think? Lordtobi (✉) 22:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Hitman (franchise) seems like a reasonable target. --Izno (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Or, just throwing it out there, redirect to Jesper Kyd. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Streamr[edit]

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

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

Promotional article about an unremarkable blockchain-related company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Possibly undisclosed native advertising in violation of the terms of use. MER-C 14:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for subject not meeting WP:NCORP. Lately, we seem to be up to our necks with corporate promotions and whatnot. Wikipedia, on account of its very success, has become a source of significant revenue for some folks. -The Gnome (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Gnome. My major concern is the combination of native advertising and an ICO. That's at least one step too far. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw what you did there. -The Gnome (talk) 19:04, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dmarket[edit]

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

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

Promotional article about an unremarkable blockchain-related company. Likely undisclosed native advertising in violation of the terms of use -- creator has no edits outside this topic. MER-C 14:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this highly promotional text, created by a kamikaze account, about a subject lacking notability aside from mentions in a few trade blogs and sites. The first thing they learn apparently is to cram the text with "references". Say "cheese!" -The Gnome (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly promotional, at least the way the article is written right now. And like The Gnome, a quick search online for me turned up no reliable independent sources (only their own site/advertising). Clearly fails WP:GNG by that measure. Tillerh11 (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete promotional, thus fails WP:NOT. ICO and native advertising is a deadly combination. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:55, 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 all. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magnr[edit]

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

Btc.sx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Article about an unremarkable and recently defunct cryptocurrency company. Does not, and will never meet WP:CORPDEPTH. MER-C 13:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Magnr as well as the similar article under the previous name Btc.sx. This is a bit confusing however. Is Magnr/Btc.sx defunct? I can't find any info one way or another, but nothing on their website (still up) or in the news, or anywhere else seems to indicate any form of existence since December 2017. Which is a big problem - whichever choice we take - dead or alive - we're taking a big chance of lying to our readers. Simple solution, since it does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, delete. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Added Btc.sx to this nomination. MER-C 11:06, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Elliott Musician[edit]

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

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

Non-notable singer. The given sources do not establish notability (Xing listing, and ref #2 doesn't mention his name or the referenced song). A google search revealed no in-depth coverage in independent sources (just a few song listings on sales sites and 1-2 promotional gig announcements). GermanJoe (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Can find nothing but basic song listings and promotional info copied from his own website. Note that there are two other Larry Elliott's in WP: one is an author and the other a football coach. Those will complicate the search for info on this musician. The title of this article would have to be corrected if it is kept. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A WP:BEFORE can't find any WP:RS to support the subject. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:10, 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. A redirect proposal can be discussed on the talk page if need be. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qabailistan[edit]

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

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

Not notable. The sources cited are not using this term. A news search shows less than 10 hits [10] I propose redirecting to Federally Administered Tribal Areas, where the content is lifted from. Mar4d (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect per nom. Avg W (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Federally Administered Tribal Areas#Qabailistan proposal, the section already includes the information needed. Everything else in Qabailistan article is a copy/paste of FATA article except the name Qabailistan such as demographics and other details. I tried to redirect the article previously hoping that we would not need this AFD but I was reverted. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please expand it on its own authority (not from FATA) to explain that and it may have a chance of not being deleted. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, please expand it rather than deletion. We also have other articles about proposed provinces in Pakistan, like Saraikistan which exist despite being less sourced than Qabailistan. Khestwol (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saraikistan is not a good example, the proposed area for that covers multiple existing provinces so we cannot redirect it to one province page but here Qabailistan was just a name proposed for one region and that name proposal also just have nominal press coverage, the proposal died in the womb, did not even make it to infancy. There will be no future press coverage as well but we will have an article for it in Wikipedia just because a couple of folks mentioned that name. Also, the article you created presumed that the region of that name already exists if it was not for me to maintain due weight. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per coverage in WP:RS.[11][12][13][14] Lorstaking (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, with very limited content merge, to Federally Administered Tribal Areas#Qabailistan proposal. It was an idea which a tribal elder shared in a single press interview in 2012, later picked up by a few other newspapers. It never gained any traction and can be considered a single event. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:27, 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lorong Boys[edit]

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

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

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. InspectorMikeChin (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is nothing against such "local" coverage in the guidelines, given that coverage of the quintet is national - [15][16][17]. Coverage of individual members of the quintet - [18][19][20][21]. Should qualify under WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Close/Keep All - For all recent AfDs by this nominator. See comments by myself and others at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HubbaBubbas. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:BAND 12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. To avoid confusion WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BAND are shortcuts to the same notability criteria. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Hzh has identified multiple significant coverage in reliable sources including at the national level that shows that the band passes WP:NMUSIC as well as WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:25, 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Steve McQueens[edit]

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

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

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. InspectorMikeChin (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nominator has nominated a few articles based on a false understanding of the guidelines. Local coverage does not preclude a band being notable, and they are covered in national newspaper like The Straits Times - [22][23]. They argument that coverage of the band is only local is in any case clearly false, as they have in fact being covered outside Singapore - [24][25][26]. Please note that it is necessary to perform a check for sources first before nominating an article for deletion per WP:BEFORE. Hzh (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Close/Keep All - For all recent AfDs by this nominator. See comments by myself and others at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HubbaBubbas. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : Irrespective of the nominator's record in AfDs, of which I'm not aware, the text of the article is/was full of promotional verbiage. I tried to somewhat salvage it. -The Gnome (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Hzh has identified significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Strait Times which shows the subject passes WP:NMUSIC as well as WP:GNG and the Gnome has removed the promotional content, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:21, 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 delete. I don't really need to write a rationale, because TonyBallioni has already written it. Just let me know when the inevitable DRV happens. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damezi Anderson[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Talented h.s. player, but that's all. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He is still in high school. Such individuals are very rarely notable, and nothing suggests that Anderson is an exception to this general rule of thumb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Contrary to John Pack Lambert's assertion, he is no longer in high school. He has graduated and is now on campus at Indiana University, where he will play basketball for the Indiana University Hoosiers. He is one of the top recruits in the country and Wikipedia is full of other examples of similarly ranked players with pages. When this was first nominated for deletion, I thought it was a joke by a rival university (and perhaps it is). This easily meets the notability requirements, particularly if you look at the player pages for other similar programs.--IndyNotes (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ample sources available to meet WP:GNG, including [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], and [34]. Also, as mentioned above, he's no longer in high school. I question whether Johnpacklambert even read the article. Smartyllama (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG for notable high school career and recruitment. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Smartyllama's sources above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He may meet GNG but seriously @IndyNotes:, and @Smartyllama: he is in high school this year and begins at IU in the fall. Read here for how his season in high school is going this year and how he was persuaded to commit to Indiana for next year. Very clear, and easy to find in a google search, how much did either of you actually read in making your claims of notability.67.158.64.105 (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• High school is over for the year. He's enrolled at IU now. Smartyllama (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well the last day for students is Wednesday the 6th and graduation is on Saturday the 9th. IU recruits report on June 12 to Bloomington but can't have formal practices with the team until the fall. Perhaps semantics, but since he is still going to play in an all-star game for high school students, well you finish that for yourself. Correction, that game was last night and he skipped it, my bad.67.158.64.105 (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad that you keep nominating things for deletion and only then checking to see if it meets GNG. Either way, I'm glad you seem to now understand your nomination was in error. Let's move on.--IndyNotes (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment either way he has still not played 1 game in NCAA competition, and even playing in NCAA competition is no where near grounds for notability. The school I teach at does not get out until the 21st of June.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The high school calendar depends on the state. I don't know what state you're in, but many states' schools are out already. June 21 is unusually late, but not unheard of by any means. Smartyllama (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is kind of a pointless argument. High school players don’t meet a SSG anyway - the question is does this person meet WP:GNG? Many of the top high school players do. Rikster2 (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless there's a LeBron James level of coverage, high school athletes are not notable; WP:YOUNGATH is an exclusionary standard. The reference listed are insufficient at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, he's not in high school anymore. The Indiana school year is over, he's graduated, he's at IU. Smartyllama (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The evidence that he is now enrolled at Indiana University are numerous, but here's one example of support for that: [35]. That's really unnecessary to support keeping this article -- it should be kept regardless -- but there you have it nonetheless.--IndyNotes (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete I came very close to closing this as delete because not a single policy-based argument has been made for keeping it, and policy based arguments have been made for deletion. I'm !voting instead so when the inevitable DRV occurs, there is more for this deletion to be upheld on: stating that high school coverage becomes satisfactory upon enrollment is not in the spirit of the policy and certainly doesn't make common sense. If we follow this ridiculous logic, every single high school quarterback from middle of nowhere America who becomes a third string quarterback at the junior college suddenly would have all of their local paper's coverage count towards notability.
  The standard here is exclusionary and clear High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. I'm sorry, but high school athletes getting coverage because they signed with a university is the very definition of routine and doesn't simply become exempt from the requirement because 2 months (or less!) have passed. The keeps here are stretching our inclusion policy to ridiculous lengths and should all be ignored as the standard is 100% clear and this person fails it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Keeping /deleting a page should be based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies which after THIS IS WIKIPEDIA and the policies and guidelines are here for the reasons. No double his is talented but have not competed in a game in NCAA doesnt not pass WP:NSPORT. When the time comes and appropriate where subject "meets" the notability guidelines, then a page will be merited in mainspace. As of current stand, it is WP:TOOSOON. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Jerzy Minakowski[edit]

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

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

I removed lot of unsourced content, and what remains does not show evidence of notability. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:Prof with not a single cite on GS. Nothing else. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. I think there is one reason he is notable, and this is because in 2016 he received the Polish government award pl:Odznaka honorowa „Zasłużony dla Kultury Polskiej” (Honorary Award "Distinguished Service for Polish Culture", Decoration of Honor Meritorious for Polish Culture). It seems logical to assume that somebody who has been recognized by the government for distinguished cultural service is also notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've seen many articles nominated for quick closure but allowed to remain, which subsequently turned into worthwhile articles as more evidence came in. No need to rush to judgment. Nihil novi (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but why should this article be kept? This should be determined by coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihil novi: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing that other bad stuff may exist in Wikipedia does not hold water, Nihil novi. -The Gnome (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per “keep" arguments above. I’m almost unsure so please, a weak keep.GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because the award “Distinguished Service for Polish Culture” but I’m not sure about the other things, that’s why a weak keep but “keep”.GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't pass any SNG (PROF is quite far fetched here, the medal doesn't amount to much - it is not a major award). Isn't close to passing GNG. The article itself is a mess, particularly the focus on coats of arms in his family. Founding/co-founding genlogical societes for his ancestors does not amount to much, nor does being a blogger or YouTuber. What we are missing is any semblance of WP:SIGCOV - which this subject quite simply does not have.Icewhiz (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a major award according to whom? You? Polish gov't seems to disagree. The awards are given by the Minister of Culture, the ceremony is mentioned on MoC website, where Minakowski and other recipients are called 'distinguished individuals' [36]. As for WP:PROF, he is mentioned (cited, described by something like 200 works according to Google Books), through he doesn't have much impact according to Google Scholar [37]. His books, while self-published, are held by several libraries ([38]). Lastly, his work and he himself have attracted coverage from major, mainstream Polish newspapers and magazines: Newsweek [39], GP [40] (on Polish-Jewish issues, btw), RP [41], he is occasionally cited in passing ([42]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

he doesn't have much impact according to Google Scholar [43].!? I think you mean zero impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

As may be seen in Orders, decorations, and medals of Poland, the Polish government has a number of much more significant awards, than this ministerial level award, .Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If the Daughters of the American Revolution can have a place on Wikipedia, then why not these sons and daughters of the Polish Constitution of 3 May 1791, the world's second-oldest written national constitution? Nihil novi (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: Arguing that other stuff may exist in Wikipedia does not hold water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Gnome (talk • contribs)

And being a member of the DAR doesn't count towards notability. Any woman who can prove her direct descent from someone who aided the cause of American independence qualifies. DAR members can be notable for other reasons, of course. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on account of subject lacking notability. I'm sure that our fellow, Polish-speaking editors know the subject quite a lot. But that does not count for much. The subject is described in the article as a "philosopher" and a "historian" yet fails WP:ACADEMIC; as a "genealogist" but without any sources demonstrating notability in that line of work; as a "blogger" yet where are the sources to support at least WP:WEB; and as a "YouTuber", in which case where are the hits? -The Gnome (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - on the verge of weak keep but still the sources overall and a Google search indicates notability. The article needs a rewrite though when kept. BabbaQ (talk) 12:56, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IAE Paris[edit]

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

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

No notability. Only a department inside a university with a specific branding it seems. Xuo Tran (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment These are the Sorbonne-related articles nominated for deletion:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorbonne Law School (Ecole de Droit de la Sorbonne)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorbonne name dispute
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorbonne Publishing
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorbonne Art School
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IAE Paris

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are plenty of available sources (though not cited in the article), certainly enough for a section at Pantheon-Sorbonne University. In this case, there seems to be enough for a standalone article. Let's keep for now and have a separate merge discussion. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:49, 25 May 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Cruise[edit]

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

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

Lack of notability, in spades. I tell no lie, I got zero hits on google for this name. TheLongTone (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – In actuality I found quite a few references for Jake Cruise, as shown here [44] that I believe generates enough coverage to meet WP:GNC. However in actually Jack Cruise is just a pseudonym for Ric Alonso [45] a real person. As such, in that Jack Cruise is a fictional character, article should be deleted.ShoesssS ^Talk 14:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sparse coverage there is is not of cruise but of his company, and that would be better covered in a topical article about the issues that lead to his company incuring fines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• How anyone gets "zero hits" on a Google search for this name is dumbfounding. The name by itself gets over TWO MILLION HITS when I do a search on it! With regard to the first delete vote above, having an article under the most commonly known name for a person— whether their real name or a pseudonym— is standard practice on Wikipedia and is not usually sufficient reason to delete an article on a genuinely notable person (cf. "Madonna"). Is "Ric Alonso" notable? If so, then this article about him should stand, regardless of what it is titled. One of the sources I just added to the article describes him as a "Mogul" in its title. He's been discussed several times in reliable published sources, and I have given evidence of this in the article here. If you want to argue he is not notable, please don't claim that you get "zero Google hits" or that the article is "titled incorrectly". Neither of those will hold water here as a reason for deletion. Lastly, if you want to argue that his company is notable and not him, then you should probably be voting for a move rather than a delete, no? (But I stand by my assertion that the man himself is the discussion of the Miss American pageant incident, not his company) A loose noose (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree, it's evident that nominator has somehow messed his WP:BEFORE search; results are close to 2 million. Whether this is significant coverage or not, I can't tell, but it's worth nothing that sources are not only from 2011; never sources have revisited this person. Shoessss's argument does not stand either; many notable people are known under pseudonyms, and pseudonyms are not "fictional characters". (Even if they were, that doesn't address notability either since some fictional characters are notable.) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I apoligize in my wording for delete but will let it stand. My concerns is that I do believe that “Jack Cruise” does meet our current notability guildlines. However, that character is just a pseudonym for Ric Alonso who is a real living person that took great care in covering his real name with concern to his involvement in the porn industry. And as such falls under our WP:BLP policy which states; “…"Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step”. In that Mr. Aloson is involved with an extremely controversial subject and took pains to not to revel his real name I felt it was appropriate to delete this page until a more through rewrite of the article took place. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss the sources, then, Shoessss. Which of the ones currently in the article do you think are not reliable and how many saying Alonso = Cruise do we need to satisfy reliably sourced? There is no shortage of sources out there, now it's just a question of getting them in the article to address your concern. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

reply by nominator Tried it again, still get zero hits; I'm doing this on a library computer so maybe all the hits are too smutty for some block or other.TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? Weird. The articles about his involvement in the Miss America pageant, while they do mention that he is involved in pornography, are not themselves smutty (did you try a search on "Ric Alonso" as well (not "Alonson")? That might show you at least a few hits, maybe enough to confirm that he is in fact Jake (not "Jack") Cruise). It does seem possible that your library computer is blocking all results that contain the words "Jake Cruise", since those words together probably appear in no other context than in relation to pornography. Can you attempt a search in any other location? Also, you may want to try doing a search on some other porn-related name or entity like, oh, Chi Chi La Rue. If you still cannot find her, then it is time to switch computers. A loose noose (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

well I don't know what was going on, but I tried a couple of searches with amended terms and as I say got zip. Really I don't give a rat's ass about the outcome of this afd; I simply came across the page while new page patrolling, thought the claim of notability sketchy , did a quick search. With the (surprising result of zero hits)TheLongTone (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: GNG levels of coverage from almost a decade. No BLP issues. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no evidence of notability, Hasnt won any notable award,s Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Davey, he also doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC, WP:MUSIC, or WP:ATHLETE, but I don't think a person necessarily has to pass PORNBIO or win an industry award in order to warrant a Wikipedia article, and aren't the subject-specific guidelines meant to be a secondary means of inclusion rather than a primary means of exclusion? Also, what part of GNG is not met? We have multiple articles here in reliable independent published sources, no? A loose noose (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Davey2010 is a respected and prolific editor, but if you look at his contributions, he participates a lot in pornography bio AfDs and (almost) always uses that exact same comment. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak rename and redirect to Ric Alonso, his real name. Moderate coverage suggests barely meeting notability, although I'm not sure how notable the scholarship is. [[46]][[47]][[48]][[49]] TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except aren't we supposed to have articles under the names by which the subject is best known? He isn't known (very much) under "Ric Alonso", he is known under his industry-related name, "Jake Cruise" (but I thought I already pointed this out). A loose noose (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:PORNBIO nor WP:ANYBIO. Sources offered above are insufficient to meet WP:SIGCOV requirements for a BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman: Here's a better question: does he meet the GNG? ANYBIO says he has to win an award (he has won no awards) or appear in a national directory of biographies (do you really think that is going to happen to a director of pornographic films?) to qualify under that guideline. I am saying that as a subject, he meets the GENERAL notability guidelines, not some some subject-specific one that other editors decide should be applied to this case (did you see my argument about this above??). I am not trying to qualify him under any such guideline, I am saying he meets the GNG, and that that, in the end, is supposed to be enough (...Isn't it?). A loose noose (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, he does not. Sources offered above are insufficient to meet WP:SIGCOV requirements for a BLP = GNG is not met. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-K.e.coffman: From SIGCOV: ["Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.] The mentions are not trivial ones, and he is the main topic of several. No original research has been added or is needed. Can you explain to me how this means SIGCOV is not met? Thanks. A loose noose (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also WP:GNG not pass. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 23:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siddiqsazzad001: The nominator has admitted that the only reason he nominated this article for deletion was because he could not find the name anywhere on the Internet, which was likely the result of a library filter, because the name gets over 2 million hits (please verify that, if you like). And again, what part of GNG "not pass?" Simply saying it is true doesn't make it so. Which references are problematic? Which shouldn't count here? Why? A loose noose (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the existing sourcing is about the company, not the person. As such, he doesn't meet the GNG. I see no other coverage that meets the GNG: mainly interviews, etc. which are not independent sources and thus don't count for notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to S. A. Chandrasekhar. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic Ramasamy (film)[edit]

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

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

Trailer was released on 5/8/2018. This should be removed until the movie is released. 2Joules (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this one is getting quite a bit of coverage due to a notable director taking a starring role. If the consensus is against keeping suggest move to draft untill its released and reviewed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify or Redirect to S. A. Chandrasekhar untill its released. The creator appears to have COI/UPE issues as well. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is clearly part of the promotional campaign of the subject film. No independent notability is established. Rid us of it. -The Gnome (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No one except nominator supports deletion. Shutting this down also to prevent more personal discussion. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzle Puppers[edit]

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

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

Non-notable. There are millions of such games, and nothing indicates that this one is of any particular interest or importance. It has attracted a couple of routine reviews. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject does not meet WP:GNG by any stretch of the imagination. One is a review in a gaming magazine, the other 2 references are promotional. No in-depth coverage in a reliable source. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck above delete vote in the light of new sources added. I also thank Sergecross73 for his guidance and withdraw my hyperbole(ic) comment. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• They are not promotion, those are reviews in independent reliable sources. Polygon (website), Destructoid, and Nintendo Life are used as references in thousands of gaming articles. Just click on their links and select "What links here" and then click to list things by 500 at a time, and keep clicking next page and count. These have long been established as reliable sources. Dream Focus 17:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't tell if this is a failure of WP:BEFORE or hyperbole. Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sergecross73, are you referring to my comment above? I ask this as a question for no other reason than to improve my skills as an editor. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm talking to you. There are six third party sources that dedicate entire articles to the subject. I know people all have their own interpretations and standards for meeting the GNG, but to say that this situation doesn't meet the GNG "by any stretch of the imagination" is ludicrous. That is not a good assessment of the situation here. Sergecross73 msg me 22:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck delsort above: It's a video game. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Every gaming article on Wikipedia has coverage in media that reviews games. It clearly passes the general notability guidelines. Significant coverage was given, not just brief mentions of it, these detailed reviews. Dream Focus 16:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: You specifically stated in your user space that its significant coverage was not the reason you created an article on it, but that your kid niece is a fan. My brother when he was younger was a big fan of the Kellogg's mascot character CD-ROM game Mission Nutrition that came free in certain cereal boxes, in which the player could play as Tony, Snap, Crackle, Pop or Coco (with Smacks as a secret unlockable character), and honestly the sources discussing that are probably far more numerous and in-depth, but you don't see me writing an article on it and finding one or two game reviews to prop said article up on. And no, I did not just make that game up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found multiple reliable sources giving it significant coverage, so made an article for it. I would not have created it if I didn't think it met the notability requirements. Dream Focus 21:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found multiple reliable sources giving it significant coverage is what you said about Mottainai Grandma, and you weren't lying then -- the sources you found were so detailed that they told you the short picture book was a "bestselling novel", a factoid you added to the article and then tried to deny you had. Please stop trying to rewrite history in your userspace, by the way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with you? A minor mistake, I already explained, using the word "novel" when I meant book, and I didn't deny anything, I just remembered I had changed it to something else, but the edit history was blocked so I couldn't tell that after I changed it to something, someone else changed it to something else which was the current version. And I did not try to rewrite history in my userspace. Also why are you bringing that up here? Comment on the sources I found and this article, not something unrelated. Dream Focus 22:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The diff is right there (actually it's behind the other diff): you denied, then argued your denial back and forth with me and another editor for hours before the revdelling admin stepped in and pointed out that you were wrong and I was right. And when trying to find the diff of your claiming you created an article on a game a relative of yours enjoyed based on similar cursory research, I noticed you had more recently posted a permanent piece of revisionism denying the plagiarism that resulted in the revdel -- do I need to ask Tony to tell you you are wrong again and that you had several full sentences almost identical to the source? I know I already told him I'd avoid bringing up the plagiarism unless it's relevant, but in this case it is because you are actively denying it (and attacking me) in your userspace. As for why I'm bringing it up here -- well, it's relevant because your talking about the creation of this article (Puzzle Puppers) in your userspace was apparently not noticed by the nom, and on top of that I don't really have anywhere else to politely ask you to remove it lest I MFD it; you've banned me from your talk page, and when I ping you on my talk page you ignore it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not argue for hours. I didn't post that much at all. It was an honest mistake about something no one but you seems to care about. And I never had any plagiarism, I just didn't paraphrase things well enough, some minor changes made. I ignore anything you say on your user page, since you are out of your mind, always playing the victim and convinced everyone is out to get you. Now then, are you going to comment on the reliable sources in the article and significant coverage they provide or just whine about unrelated nonsense? Dream Focus 00:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen users get indefinitely blocked for less overt personal attacks than you are out of your mind. You should retract it (along with the rest of the above post) before this AFD is closed, or there will definitely be consequences. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to happen. You refuse to stop following me around and saying the same lies every chance you get, distorting everything, then trying to play the victim. Now kindly focus on the subject at hand and stop ranting off like usual. The wikiproject for video games says those are reliable sources, and they are giving significant coverage, so this article clearly passes notability requirements. Dream Focus 12:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 16:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 19:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per OP: trivial, arbitrarily selected one of millions of such games, and the fact the article's creator admitted this arbitrary selection here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been adequately improved to at least make a reasonable claim to notability, and even if it hadn't this AFD wouldn't be going anywhere, and I'd have put up with far too much personal abuse for the above !vote for it to be worth digging my heels in. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this edit summary is inaccurate to what I've written here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't admit to anything, I stated I became aware of the game because my niece enjoyed it. I then looked up information, found reviews for it, and created an article. Millions of games don't get significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as this one has, otherwise they'd have articles as well. Dream Focus 21:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

STOP, STOP, STOP! @Dream Focus and Hijiri88: this is not the forum to argue about your differences of opinion over past matters. This is the forum discuss whether Puzzle Puppers should be kept or deleted and notability is the nominated issue to be discussed. Hijiri 88 please limit your to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Dream Focus may have made errors in the past, but that does not make their argument invalid on this occasion. Dream Focus please limit your responses to Wikipedia policy and guidelines and do not continue the irrelevant argument. If you both want to continue this take it to the appropriate forum; see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and limit your arguments to whether or not Puzzle Puppers is notable! 8==8 Boneso (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Boneso: What do you mean by please limit your to Wikipedia policy and guidelines? Pointing out that the article creator has admitted on-wiki to their having created the article based on an apparently cursory source check because their niece likes the game is directly relevant to the notability of the topic since his niece could like all sorts of non-notable garbage that might have received superficial review in online gaming publications, like the Mission Nutrition example (which currently exists on-wiki only as a redirect to a completely unrelated topic). The rest was in direct response to DF's honing in on something I said on my user talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My source checking was thorough. The video game wikiproject has a list of what are considered reliable sources. And these reliable sources are in the article, and give significant coverage. It clearly passes notability. Thousands of articles use these same sources, as I have mentioned before. And your ridiculous Mission Nutrition example makes no sense at all, so bringing it up a second time serves no purpose. It has nothing at all to do with this. Dream Focus 01:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to get drawn into your argument. I will disengage. Hopefully you can both focus on content and resolve your differences.8==8 Boneso (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - regardless of why the article was made, and whatever beef there is between these two feuding editors, there is enough third party coverage to meet the WP:GNG here. The following sources are entire articles dedicated to the subject, all found usable/reliable per consensus at WP:VG/S.

1. https://www.polygon.com/2017/7/1/15906276/puzzle-puppers
2. http://www.shacknews.com/article/103177/puzzle-puppers-slinking-onto-nintendo-switch
3. https://www.destructoid.com/review-puzzle-puppers-491643.phtml (Written by the website's "Features Editor" staff.)
4. http://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/02/04/nintendo-switch-doggos-puppers-puzzle-game/
5. http://www.nintendolife.com/reviews/switch-eshop/puzzle_puppers
6. http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/review/46488/puzzle-puppers-switch-review

Yes, the game looks like cheap bargain bin stuff, but that is not a criteria for whether or not it's notable in the Wikipedia sense. Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there have been enough reviews added/mentioned. StrayBolt (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Can you add the missing reviews that @Sergecross73: mentioned above? StrayBolt (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the two not in there and not knowing what I could say. [50] and [51] don't really give any information not already referenced to the Polygon article, and they don't really give an actual review when talking about it. Dream Focus 23:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They can easily be implemented. I'll take care of it if you can't. Sergecross73 msg me 01:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep THe independent reviews included are enough to prove notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've expanded the article with the new sources found. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it has reliable source. Mayamaya7 Poke! 05:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC

• Keep as a notable video game passing WP:GNG with multiple independent in-depth sources, namely WP:VG/RS. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable enough to pass GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 15:06, 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 redirect to Concealed carry in the United States. Content can be merged form history. Sandstein 20:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right-to-carry law[edit]

Right-to-carry law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page is an unnecessary fork from Concealed carry in the United States. All the content on this page mirrors content that already exists on the Concealed carry in the United States page, so I'm not even sure that there's anything left to merge. It should just be deleted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on account of the subject's contrived claim to independent notability; then Merge whatever can be salvaged into the main article. -The Gnome (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pure content fork; no objection to redirect if desired. Neutrality^talk 15:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Concealed carry.|Vorbee (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Concealed carry.--RAF910 (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This page cannot be deleted because doing so would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R, because this page could be merged and redirected to its parent topic (concealed carry). This article is not a content fork, it is a sub-topic (see WP:SPINOUT: in principle, we could move the material from the concealed carry article to this article if we wanted to). If this topic is not independently notable, it should be merged to its parent topic. No comment on notability at this time. James500 (talk) 07:45, 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 merge to List of fictional aircraft mostly as a procedural closure. Even though this AfD wasn't added to the logs until a few days ago, the merge has stood for over a month (AfD tag on the resulting redirect included), so I don't see any point in keeping this discussion open. ansh666 00:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional military aircraft[edit]

List of fictional military aircraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Portions of the article lacks notability and is a duplicate of the page - FOX 52 (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Only in the opinion of the nominator does it lack notability. I will see if I can add some sources to it, but if the nominator will continue on removing information so that it will be deleted quicker he got everything wrong. I propose merge at least. I also would like to ping @AHMED XIV:, a person who had some dialogue with this editor in the past to sort out this, unethical, in my opinion nomination.--Biografer (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof lies with editor who's adding content per WP:PROVEIT - further as stated "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source" per WP:BURDEN The article clean up tag has been there since 2010 - FOX 52 (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I was doing before you did another 7 edits after you put that tag. I don't care if the tag is there or not. As I said earlier merge proposition without PROD would have been a better solution, but you just want to start a discussion via this template instead of discussing it on the article talkpage. In fact, nobody had a problem with the article, only you did.--Biografer (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's not a duplicate of that page. List of fictional aircraft is all fictional aircraft. This article is an expanded List of fictional military aircraft, this being the main article of the section at List of fictional aircraft. Furthermore, portions being non notable don't mean delete the entire article. Vermont (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all the relevant cited information can be or is included in List of fictional aircraft no need for a seperate list for military related fiction. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @MilborneOne: Maybe not, but Wikipedia do have ((See also)) and ((Main)) templates for a reason.--Biografer (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cant see the relevance to this discussion they would not be needed as they would not have or likely to need a target article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MilborneOne: It currently does use a ((Main)) template in the List of fictional aircraft. On the overall list, each topic is a sentence, where on the article up for deletion here, each topic is a paragraph or more. Vermont (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont: and @Biografer: - As a solution to this problem I recommend we take all the relevant content from this article and transfer it over to the List of fictional aircraft page, and that way everyone get to keep their input - FOX 52 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Vermont (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan.--Biografer (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of fictional aircraft, since this list is a duplicate. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This discussion was created without the ((afd2)) template and nver transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 09:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The contested article meets the standards for an independent article in Wikipedia but, since a List of fictional aircraft exists, the best way forward is to merge this text, with almost all content intact, into the bigger list. -The Gnome (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Like parent article List of fictional aircraft, it has been WP:BOMBARDed with "sources" but few to none of them are reliable or actually about the aircraft in question. Pure listcruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:47, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie Rintala[edit]

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

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

A different, Autobiographical version of this new page has been repeatedly rejected at AfC by various reviewers as failing GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL see Draft:Jennie Rintala. Either this player meets inclusion criteria or they don't. Legacypac (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also propose that Draft:Jennie Rintala be deleted as part of this nomination because it can't be approved if this goes delete. I'd redirect it but I want it visable for this discussion. Legacypac (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and lacks substantial coverage from reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also agree to delete the Draft User:Hobbes Goodyear? Legacypac (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for the same reasons. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Look at her profile, she is playing for Australia SBL (State Basketball League). You can review State Basketball League, List of State Basketball League champions. Her name is also present in these Wikipedia pages 2018 WSBL season, 2017 WSBL season, Kalamunda Eastern Suns, Perth Lynx as notable players.Lyuba.Dzhioeva (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet so should not be voting here evidently Legacypac (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both the draft and the article on the main space on account of subject failing WP:NBASKETBALL. -The Gnome (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:39, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coloring India Foundation[edit]

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

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

Barring some quasi-promotion-ally written news-pieces in local metro-editions, which may be PR stuff, nothing resemblant to significant coverage that makes it pass the stringent requirements of WP:NCORP and distinguishes it from the numerous NGOs, sprouting here and there with innovative ideas/aims..... ~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep two independent sources on the subject make this an easy keep. Egaoblai (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's your requirements for a hard keep?~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As far as i know article have two independent reliable news references Like the Hindu and Indian Express both are reliable national news source and i did bit research on google and i think it's notable Heshiv (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – fails WP:ORG & WP:GNG. Both of the previous !votes are based on the two cited sources – [52] & [53]. But both of these sources are advertisements of the organization's workshops & they are filled with promotional statements from the organization's founders. In short, they fail WP:ORGIND. We need independent & in-depth coverage for notability which is totally missing here. In fact, leaving behind these two adverts, I couldn't find any coverage of this organization in reliable sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Even if we ignore the fact that the two aforementioned sources aren't independent, they hardly contain any information about the organisation. Here's the relevant quotes from the two sources:

First source: "Pencil and Chai, a fine arts gurukul by Colouring India Creative Arts Centre, was started more than three years."...."They also organise monthly workshops with eminent artists from across the country."....."The institute also issues certificates at the end of the year-long course."

Second source: "Organised by Color-In India, this is the sixth edition of ‘Hues of Watercolours’, a series of workshops focusing on this beautiful technique." Other couple of relevant lines from this source are just the repeat of the first source.

So, we have basically around four relevant lines, which is surely nowhere close to what we require for a standalone article.

Egaoblai, can you tell me how the above 3–4 lines from the two non-independent sources are sufficient for meeting WP:ORG or WP:GNG?

Heshiv, you mentioned that "i did bit research on google and i think it's notable". It seems you've found some extra sources. If so, please share them here. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete for subject lacking clear notability, per WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Only two sources dug up, one of which, The Hindu, reports on Colour-in India, the same organization. Most of the text reads like infomercially-placed promotional material. Hopefully, though (since the outfit seems to be doing valuable work), a case of WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - toosoon - per the Gnome. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chindu (organisation)[edit]

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

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

Barring trivial mentions of a film produced or that of an art exhibition held by the organisation, zero coverage in reliable independent sources or other scholarly stuff.Fails WP:NCORP. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- Can any Indian speaking editor help improve the sources? In the current shape this article doesn't seem good enough. Cheers! Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on account of subject's unverifiable claim to notability:

The Independent Catholic News article is about the first Christian album to focus on the Dalit community in India and contains a comment on the album by someone from Chindu. That's the extent of it.

The reference in The Hindu is nothing more than an announcement of an upcoming Chindu event, in the paper's routine listing of events.

The other Hindu article is a review of the film Mahadiga, The Man Descending from Above, and "Chindu" is twice mentioned as a side note.

We have no sources. -The Gnome (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Social Research[edit]

Centre for Social Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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