< 30 May	1 June >

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

The result was keep. Looks like the overall consensus is to keep, especially now that the article has been vastly improved. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Fugate[edit]

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

This film director fails WP:NBIO, as tagged since October 2008. No reliable secondary sources could be found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, remove notability tag, and tag for sourcing. Her career was 20 years ago, so a gNews search won't get us there. I ran a Proquest news archive search on her relatively unique name. Her 1999 documentary film The Girl Next Door (1999 film), was extremely widely reviewed (typical headline: Documentary humanizes porn superstar Valentine.) and would easily support a page. So would her 1998 film Tobacco Blues, NYTimes review: When Good People Grow a Dangerous Plant], by Walter Goodman. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep: Per HEY because of editor involvement and improvements --AND-- I stand corrected: This is a BLP that is held to a higher standard of sourcing and the subject is not notable enough to pass any form of Wikipedia:Notability (people) especially any of the criteria of "Creative professionals". The book had reviews on Listopia that is user generated and finding sourcing circled back to IMDb that is also user generated and not acceptable to use for referencing. The article uses inline links to IMDb. I removed some and added references but these are not subject specific. The "External links" section is used for sourcing and this is not acceptable. I trimmed that section. I could moved one link up to a reference. I opened 12 tabs trying to find sourcing and found a Goodreads source but the subject/editor (compiler) listed as an author is listed there as a Goodreads Author so this would be considered a primary source with COI. The book is for sale on Amazon but that does not give inherent notability. I have attempted to make improvements but there is still the notability issue. The notability tag and referencing tags are appropriate, arbitrarily removing them would be egregious, and the unsolvable issues of notability seem only to be remedied by deletion. Otr500 (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please encounter the argument that I made, which is that at least two of her films were so widely reviewed that each would pass WP:NFILM. And Note that although we do consider a WP:CREATIVE professional notable even in a case where we nothing about the life, but the work is notable, in this case the biographical part of the article has some WP:RS. Plus I have just added 4 review in major daily papers to each of two films. Lots more reviews out there. WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just click HighBeam, Scholar, or NYT on the search bar to quickly verify notability. Or this gBooks search [1]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like there is a reasonable amount of stuff out there; just found a New York Times review for another one of her films. oh, and there is some personal detail about her in this article, again the New York Times [[2]]. And I havent even really started looking yet. Curdle (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added a few more citations, and from a HighBeam search I see additional articles in Boston Globe, Curve, Washington Post, and Variety. I think this meets WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor 20:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: With these vast improvements, and the nominator may agree, this article might qualify for a snow keep. Otr500 (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Automotive Components Holdings. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ACH Saline Plastics Plant[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Particularly WP:BRANCH. I'd say merge and redirect, but where? John from Idegon (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused as to what this is - is it a plant? Is it a company that owns a plant's principal place of business? A subsidiary of Ford? Are there better searches that can be done to find reliable secondary sources? One possible non-notable source in the article - Bloomberg - mentions the company (ACH) went under in 2014. SportingFlyer talk 23:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete I think a redirect to Automotive Components Holdings is the best possible solution here, as the plant itself does not appear notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingFlyer (talk • contribs) 23:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Automotive Components Holdings -Haikon 23:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to Automotive Components Holdings as a catogorized ((R from predecessor company name)) sounds sensible. Sam Sailor 13:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. G11 by Vanamonde93 (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shohada-e-Kargar High School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shohada-e-Kargar High School

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability. Not even considerable sources in native Persian are available. Pahlevun (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as full of promotional verbiage (note all the "we" and "our" language) and then Redirect to List of schools in Iran#Tehran where the article could be recreated later if found to have some notable sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in Iran#Tehran. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daneshmand Secondary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Daneshmand Secondary School

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability. Not even considerable sources in native Persian are available. Pahlevun (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Iran#Tehran where the article could be Drafted if found to have some notable secondary sources. Also could be confused with the other Dameshand. No sources provided except a possible single external link. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AngusWOOF if at least one reliable, independent source can be found, or otherwise delete. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Iran#Tehran or delete as no WP:RS is found. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in Iran#Tehran. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daneshmand High School, Narmak[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Daneshmand High School, Narmak

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability. Not even considerable sources in native Persian are available. Pahlevun (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Iran#Tehran where the article could be Drafted if found to have some notable secondary sources. Should also be combined with the other campus if recreated as there appears to be several schools under the Daneshmand name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AngusWOOF if at least one reliable, independent source can be found, or otherwise delete. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Iran#Tehran . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Iran#Tehran. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are Daneshmand High School and Daneshmand High School, Narmak different schools? I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daneshmand High School, not sure what to do here. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in Iran#Tehran. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daneshmand High School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability. Not even considerable sources in native Persian are available. Pahlevun (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Iran#Tehran where the article could be Drafted if found to have some notable secondary sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AngusWOOF if at least one reliable, independent source can be found, or otherwise delete. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Iran#Tehran or delete as no WP:RS is found. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Iran#Tehran . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 22:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dana School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dana School

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability. Not even considerable sources in native Persian are available. Pahlevun (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient content to know if it would even pass inclusion per existing established precedents for schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of independent, reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in Iran#Tehran. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parvin Etesami Private High School & Pre-University Center[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Parvin Etesami Private High School & Pre-University Center

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability. Not even considerable sources in native Persian are available. Pahlevun (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Iran#Tehran where the article could be Drafted if found to have some notable secondary sources. At this point only one statement is made about the school being in Tehran. There are no sources, so this easily goes to the list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AngusWOOF if at least one reliable, independent source can be found, or otherwise delete. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in Iran#Tehran. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emam Javad High School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Emam Javad High School

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability. Not even considerable sources in native Persian are available. Pahlevun (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Iran#Tehran where the article could be Drafted if found to have some notable secondary sources. At this point only one statement is made about the school being in Tehran. There are no sources, so this easily goes to the list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AngusWOOF if at least one reliable, independent source can be found, or otherwise delete. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in Iran#Tehran. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danesh High School[edit]

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability. Not even considerable sources in native Persian are available. Pahlevun (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Iran#Tehran where the article could be recreated if found to have some notable secondary sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AngusWOOF if at least one reliable, independent source can be found, or otherwise delete. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Enigma^msg 22:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latin phrases (full)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Citing WP:SPINOUT, For non-mainspace articles, consider splitting and transcluding into the split parts. This is a mainspace article, and transclusion is not an option. wumbolo ^^^ 22:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already have lists of Latin phrases listed alphabetically (ie List of Latin phrases (A). This list is just an amalgamation of all the phrases and duplicates content that already exists. The other option is to keep this one and delete the rest. Ajf773 (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This humongous list has been properly split up into sublists and delanda est. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or in the spirit of the page, servandus est numerus. This list has actually been nominated for deletion four times in the past (see here and here, not included above), and on the last occasion was speedily kept per WP:SNOWBALL, with hardly anybody voting to delete it. As a matter of fact, the list clearly states that it consists of the individual contents of (currently) twenty individual pages (on the previous occasion, it seems to have been divided into three), the contents of which were transcluded. However, since Latin phrases can, like English phrases, be worded differently, begin with different words depending on what someone thinks is important, or be easily confused (especially by non-Latin speakers), it makes a great deal of sense to be able to search for them in a single list; not to mention it provides an easy way to look for familiar phrases that might or might not have a Latin origin, or for which the correct or most familiar Latin is unknown (you can't use a Latin dictionary for that as easily). It would have been more difficult to do so without this article with the individual contents divided into three separate pages, and it would be far less useful now that one would have to search through twenty when one isn't sure what the exact phrase is. So really, this page is perfectly useful, and deleting it produces no benefit whatever to readers. P Aculeius (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
wumbolo ^^^ 12:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume that you mean that users can simply use a search window to find what they're looking for, which simply proves that you've never needed to spend time browsing through a list of phrases to find what you're looking for because you don't know exactly what it is. But as you couldn't be bothered to reply with words, that could simply be my tendency to ascribe rational meaning to the otherwise inexplicable again. P Aculeius (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And while I think the above point is still valid, I apologize for the hostile tone, having had some time to reconsider it. P Aculeius (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know when an editing guideline, here the subsection WP:SPINOUT that is part of Wikipedia:Article size, became a WP:DEL-REASON (policy). The list was kept in 2005 (the list was at List of Latin phrases and was unsplit), it was kept again in 2007, and it was WP:SNOW early closed as keep in 2008 when the list was at List of Latin phrases (full), looked like this and did contain transclusions. I do not see what has changed, and I do not see an explicit rule against transclusion, let alone one that supports a deletion rationale. Sam Sailor 18:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sam. I don't see how this article fits under any deletion criteria. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this were an article separate from the various lists of Latin phrases listed alphabetically (e.g., List of Latin phrases (A)), one could make an argument that this article was unneeded, & it causes a maintenance problem because it could not be kept synchronized with the other lists of Latin phrases. However, this is not an independent list, but a transclusion of these other lists. Maybe it is redundant to have a "Full" list & shorter lists for each letter. However, that is an issue of User Interface design, an issue the nominator fails to usefully address; citing a guideline without explaning how it applies does not convince. -- llywrch (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Sam and Llywrch. It is beneficial, doesn't have a viable delete reason, and without better arguments than have been seen in the other AfDs (and rejected) this one seems to add nothing new, or, summa summarum, questio quid iuris?. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if WP:SPINOUT was a policy (it isn't, it's just a guideline), the fact that it says splitting and transcoding is an option for a non-mainspace article does not forever foreclose the possibility of doing so in mainspace. We're doing it here, and it seems to be a benefit for the reader without hurting anything. Vadder (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per all Keepers, especially llywrch and Nosebagbear. Lists are in mainspace, but are treated a little differently than regular articles as they are a different type of page. It's easier to find all instances of a certain Latin word on this page, for a variation on P Aculeius' theme. Everything else has been said. I was surprised to see the notice on the Full List when I opened it after spending some time on List E. Thanks, Geekdiva (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giga Pudding[edit]

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

Old silly internet-related phenomenon, poor sourcing and no notability. I think it's easy to see that none of the sources listed on the talk page are RSs. $ɱ$ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything to include in the article. Perhaps merge the one sentence into the manufacturer's page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if it had sources its not the sort of thing which should feature in an encyclopedia, its plainly not notable Lyndaship (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in sources cited on talk page: [3], [4], [5], [6] ~Kvng (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Those are not WP:Reliable sources.

ɱ

(talk) · vbm · coi) 13:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are neither self-published, press releases nor other such primary sources. They are also clearly not as reliable as Reuters so can't be used to verify a controversial statement. This is not a controversial subject so I believe they are adequate to source an article from. Readers do look up silly stuff on Wikipedia (22 times a day for this subject) and if we can satisfy those searches with verifiable material, why not? ~Kvng (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think those nobody blogs largely with no authors and no serious content are Reliable Sources, you should not be editing Wikipedia. Inventor Spot, WeirdAsiaNews, and Asiajin lack Wikipedia articles because they're low-tier entertainment "news" with no professional journalists, editorial boards, or any sort of integrity. 20 Minutes is okay but it's a puff entertainment piece, not news, written by an entry-level journalist. And the daily average page views of 21 per day is the lowest tier on Wikipedia. Virtually nobody is reading this, especially when compared with the 13 million daily Wikipedia readers, and the highest individual page views of about 1 million per day.

ɱ

(talk) · vbm · coi) 22:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to your opinion and I will keep editing. That is all. ~Kvng (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His opinion is also supported by policy and guidelines - see WP:RS HighKing⁺⁺ 13:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with WP:RS and reviewed it as part of preparing this !vote. There is a gray area between proper journalism and self-published poop. I believe the sources I've cited fall in that area. I don't claim these are excellent sources but I do think they're adequate to build an article. ~Kvng (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor is it an alternative Yellow Pages. References fails the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG ~~and WP:NCORP~~ HighKing⁺⁺ 13:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is this one sentence stub promotional? Does WP:NCORP apply to products now? ~Kvng (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might be an idea to sign your posts. I've struck WP:NCORP as it does not apply to products. In this instance and in my opinion, the one sentence stub is entirely promotional. There is zero attempt at describing notability. The article is therefore intended to confirm its existence and point to the company that produces it. That is promotional. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stretched but fair point. I have added a cited description of the meme to the article. The product is not what's notable here, it's the 4chan-originated meme derived from it. ETA: Ɱ might be interested to know that new sources include 20 minutes (France) and Know Your Meme both have WP article so could be considered more reliable than others I've offered previously. ~Kvng (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to be careful with that argument. 4chan and Reddit both have Wikipedia articles, but they're far from reliable. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, necessary/sufficient and all. We will each make our own call. Ɱ indicated above that lack of a WP article for a source was an issue for them. ~Kvng (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that in terms of news sources. Most reliable newspapers or even only-online newspapers and magazines, like 20 Minutes, have Wikipedia articles. Know Your Meme is not a news source. It is significant for itself, but is not significant or reliable for relaying information about an encyclopedic topic.

ɱ

(talk) · vbm · coi) 18:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of mammalian alien species[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AFD was closed as "merge", but page was never merged. It doesn't even have anything TO merge, seeing as it's unreferenced listcruft. It should just be deleted as an overly broad and unverifiable list that encompasses a vast swathe of fictional aliens (and many which aren't necessarily mammals, just look similar to them). _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per nom ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some related articles that are equally listcrufty and that I have added to the nomination:
- List of fictional ancient extraterrestrial species
- List of fictional aquatic alien species
- List of humanoid alien species (sources listed are few and unreliable)
- List of arthropod alien species
- List of non-sentient alien species
- List of plant and fungi alien species (the source for the last entry reads like a PR for the game and does not mention "xenofungus"; no others are in the article)
- List of reptilian and amphibian alien species
- List of robotic alien species

Perhaps List of parasitic alien species is listcruft, but I'm not sure that the three sources are unreliable as to not prove notability. There exist some corresponding individual lists (e.g. List of mammalian aliens) that are also problematic for similar reasons. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. including the several additional AfD's added here. The merge was obviously the wrong outcome for the first AfD as it was never executed. Nearly six years later and nothing has been done. All of the lists are WP:LISTCRUFT and obviously not valuable enough to merge elsewhere. Ajf773 (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for being too broadly defined (assuming these Earth-based definitions could apply at all). The world of fiction is too broad to have such vague lists. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of fictional extraterrestrials by form as per the first AFD, this is relevant material for science fiction researchers and therefore useful content. Collapsible lists can be used to aid page loading and if it is merge result I'll volunteer to do it, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- List of fictional extraterrestrials by form is equally crufty. A merge into cruft is still cruft. That article should likely be deleted as well for the exact same reason as the preceding pages, classifying aliens as such is largely WP:OR and using Earth-based criteria for non Earth-based creatures._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 22:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee Square[edit]

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

Non-notable shopping center. Contested prod. This is just a WP:ROTM shopping center with just 30,000 sqft and a complete lack of in-depth independent coverage in RS. The one ref appears to be written by the subject, reading like a press release. MB 21:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Too promotional in tone and style.TH1980 (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ROTM shopping center and WP:NOTGUIDE. Acnetj (talk) 18:44, 1 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. The article has improved since the AfD was started and consensus is that it should be kept. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 01:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete as advertisement. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur. This reads like an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timoluege (talk • contribs) 19:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would say stubify, and keep. But can understand if it gets deleted.HandsomeBoy (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This nomination is silly. The nominator evidently failed WP:BEFORE. There are countless of references in several RS sources with detailed coverage [7]. If the nominator bothered to check before making such a foolish nomination they would have found out for themselves. This is also a government organisation with great coverage, and as such, very notable. Any advertisement (as commented by one above) should be removed/edited. However, that in itself does not warrant deletion when the subject is covered in great detail by multiple RS. This is a silly nomination. If I earn a $ for every silly nominations brought to AFD just this week alone I'd be super rich. Perhaps we should start charging for silly nominations as this is getting ridiculous and rather time consuming. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your keep !vote, but please be calm about it. Thanks.HandsomeBoy (talk) 06:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting fellow editors will not get you very far, Senegambianamestudy, if you must know. And neither does it lend support to your arguments. Quite the contrary. Try and be more civil, please. -The Gnome (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome - Referring to a silly nomination as "silly" is not a personal attack, but calling out the nomination for what it is (silly). I suggest you familiarise yourself with Wiki policy. Your condescending remarks can be viewed as a personal attack. If you have something of value to contribute to this discussion I suggest you do so. I have sat here and watched countless of African related articles brought to AFD on silly grounds which had the nominator bothered with WP:BEFORE would have saved us all a hell of a lot of time. Even as recently as last week where the nominator had to revoke their nomination when editors kept pointing them to numerous sources simply because they didn't do BEFORE. If you want to go back and forth with silly nominations or irrelevant stuff knock yourself out. I do not have the time. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that you continue down the same path. Warning you that you engage in personal attacks can never be considered as attacking you personally. Deny it if you want but do not claim that my warning was an attack!

By the way, your response reveals the source of your anger. You're frustrated with what you perceive as the unjust treatment of Africa-related articles in English-language Wikipedia. I won't discuss whether or not your viewpoint is correct. I will only repeat that going about it the way you do will not get you anywhere. It'll only get you isolated, at the very least, while you need consensus to put across your views. So, it pays to be civil. -The Gnome (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If we assume that indeed too many Africa-related articles ar being deleted, then the reasons for it are potentially two: One, there's a bias against Africa-related subjects that dominates English-language Wikipedia. Or, two, a lot of Africa-related articles are created that do not meet the criteria required by the English-language Wikipedia. One of the two; or possibly some mix of the two: If you lean towards the first explanation, then you're essentially saying racists dominate Wikipedia; if you accept the second, then you agree that we have a lot of enthusiastic contributors from Africa. More power to them, I say! Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with Senegambianamestudy response here. Poor AFD nominations are indeed "silly" in fact, that is a pretty tame word in my opinion compared to what they warrant. incorrect AFD nominations especially ones done by users who didn't WP:BEFORE are the single worst thing infected this encyclopedia, as not only to do eat away valuable time, but they lead to articles and knowledge being deleted.Egaoblai (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, there is something very wrong with Senegambianamestudy's response, Egaoblai. The response implies there is bias and most probably racism or some kind of anti-Africanism in the actions of fellow Wikipedia contributors. And if you find such accusations "tame" then you too you're in the wrong place.

Senega's supposed to have "sat here and watched countless of African related articles brought to AFD on silly grounds." What, pray, are those "silly grounds"? I've also participated in many AfDs about Africa related subjects and the typically common difficulty was locating sources. The rest is noise, raised by misguided emotions. There is no "agenda" here. If you think there is, take it upstairs. -The Gnome (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just stop insulting a fellow user who did nothing more than said an AFD was silly and criticized the lack of WP:BEFORE? Egaoblai (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The words speak for themselves. Criticism of ideas and opinions is entirely legitimate and, as for me, I don't mind it getting quite strong. But insinuating bias and racism is crossing the threshold into personal attacks. When someone objects to the existence of this article they're biased and a racist?! Give us a break! I'm not "insulting"; I'm suggesting: Both you and Senega better simmer down and leave the emotional verbiage out of the discussion. Concentrate on this AfD. If you had some past experiences with Africa-related AfDs in the past, take it upstairs. End of story. -The Gnome (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As it happens, i suggested that we "keep" this article up. I'm pointing that out just so that you can realize how silly your viewpoint is. -The Gnome (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome - Your behaviour is now getting out of control. Consider this a warning. If you continue with this unacceptable behaviour you will be reported. If you want to engage in nonsense keep it out of an AFD discussion and put it on your talk page and stop wasting our time or clogging this AFD with your foolishness. I explained my position very succinctly above and don't need to explain my position again just because your lack the capacity to get it the first time round. This is AFD. If you cannot stand the heat get out of the kitchen. I'm sure the closing admin will ignore your foolish remarks when closing this AFD. Again, you have been warned. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reject, of course, your accusations, your threats and your "warnings" in their entirety. If you care to report and register some kind of complaint, by all means go ahead. You have accused editors of anti-Africa bias, with all that this implies and I called you on it. That's all there is to it. You're on your own now. -The Gnome (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R ⁺ 10:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The text is full of bad English; the style sucks; the whole thing stinks. Yet this is the only state organisation that deals with tourism in Nigeria on the federal level. It's almost a ministry of Tourism. The sources prove it exists. That's enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. The quality of the article is another matter, which needs serious attention. -The Gnome (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The attempt to improve content continues. -The Gnome (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:ADVOCACY / WP:TNT. There may be a notable topic here somewhere (of which I'm not convinced) but this article's ain't it. No value to the project. No sources to demonstrate that this meets WP:NORG. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article itself is a bit of a mess. I've cleaned it up a bit in case it's kept, though it needs more work. Based on the available sources I've found, there's definitely enough here to pass WP:GNG, including the news sources discussing the political appointents already in the article. It didn't seem to me to come off as an advertisement, and in any case it's easily fixed. SportingFlyer talk 00:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, but delete everything about Folorunsho Coker except his name and position. Also protect the article so it can't be easily reinserted. Deb (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent article improvements by The Gnome; has been sufficiently revised to demonstrate notability and reduce promotionalism. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was a promotional mess when this AfD started, but since we have improved it, it now meets WP:NPOV and is clearly a notable organisation. Edwardx (talk) 09:56, 3 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kavita Shah[edit]

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

No idea about how she passes our general notability guidelines or any of our subject-specific guidelines. I've no idea as to how this was accepted at AfC. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two albums in Spotify. scope_creep (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that one of the WP:NMUSIC criteria? Dom from Paris (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(jumping in) Presumably alluding to #5: Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels. The record labels are apparently CD Baby and Dot Time Records. If having an article here equates to notability, or if - as it appears - CD Baby is a self-publishing site, it would appear that particular clause is not met. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to aforesaid issues acknowledged and addressed as per edits and citations upon Kavita Shah. Woojy4 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 30

May 2018 (UTC)

Clear Keep performances at the Kennedy Center and the Vermont Jazz Center are indications of "having made it" in the Jazz space -- the article is written with sufficiently reliable sources for GNG. Additionally, the newcomer awards further reinforce the GNG case, Sadads (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source that supports these claims throws back a 404 message. Were you able to look at it? Normally newcomer composer awards are not taken into account for notability as per WP:COMPOSER Dom from Paris (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral tending slightly towards delete. Apologies for the lame recommendation - the reason for it, and why I am commenting at all, will become apparent. This article originally came to the nominator's attention when I alerted administrators to the undisclosed paid editing which I saw taking place - details of which are at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Undisclosed paid editing at Kavita Shah. As the article has been nominated for deletion because of that, I feel obliged to comment. Not only was the article recently expanded by the subject's own staff in a not-entirely neutral way, it appears that was also created in the first place by an editor with a similar COI, having been done by an SPI named Kavitamusic. At the very least that makes it hard to make any judgement on the notability of the subject from the article content alone; my view from independent research is that the subject probably does meet notability guidelines but as the genre is not my scene I do not feel well qualified to offer an assessment. However, the real question I have is whether the COI editing warrants blowing it up and starting over and, with no disrespect to the uninvolved editors who have also contributed, it probably is. I would wholeheartedly recommend delete-and-create-stub if I thought it would achieve anything, but the liklihood is the same paid editors would come back and place the same content anyway. So, in practice, cleaning it up and keeping an eye on it is probably all that can be done. I do recommend that if it is kept it is pared back to only the content which is or can be referenced and that what remains is reviewed for impartiality. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Keep (see my comments below) this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. She doesn't quite scrape through #5 WP:MUSICBIO with just 1 album [8] on Naïve Records and as a composer she is not shown to have filled #4 of WP:COMPOSER as the prize is a newcomers prize which is excluded. As a singer there are claims of having performed at prestigous venues but when you scratch away they seem to have been as part of an emerging artists season notably at Vermont [9]. The coverage is too weak to pass GNG. There seems to be only 1 in-depth source that is really a puff piece/interview mix. The other 2 that are 404 links seem to be an events page to back up a claim to having played at a particular venue and a report on having been one of the winners of the newcomers prize. There are no reviews of her performances or recordings. For me it's not quite enough. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete: I don't know why you didn't see about page creator user name. That name was for promotion but don't worried about this. I reported at UAA. And this article must to delete per WP:G5. Also, I don't see any reliable source about this artist. This AfD will be close soon. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 05:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC) (moved to keep)[reply]

Note: I have removed the G5 speedy deletion tag from the article because the user was not blocked or banned at the time they created it. Despite the username the article was created via WP:AFC - but as the nominator said, "I've no idea as to how this was accepted at AfC". Dorsetonian (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dorsetonian: Well, but this article needs to delete because there is no significant source about this person. WP:NMUSIC fails. She had just done two album. Is this enough for WP:BLP article? - Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 07:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing as such is not a reason for deletion and neither is autobiographical editing. What is a motif is undeclared paid editing which this is not. The article went through AFC and was cleaned up by some very experienced editors and was accepted as a draft submission by an administrator who has since retired I believe. The article is a borderline case which IMHO doesn't quite make the grade but I don't believe it needs blowing up as it is not excessively promotional. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Dom from Paris :), no. I put the keep based on the WP:GNG standard, which superseeds WP:NMUSIC. Two albums out in the UK, seem to be one out in France, but she is notable. And there seems to be third album in the work as a Duo. scope_creep (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for making that clear. I'm not sure the sources are enough to pass GNG there seems to only be 1 in-depth source and GNG requires multiple sources. The all about jazz is a press release about a performance by the subject. For me it's too weak. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, could be because Jazz and Blues are not as popular as they used to be, although there was a resurgance in Jazz about 10 year ago. That could be the reason that there not much coverage. But I think that three albums means she is an established artist and means she is notable. scope_creep (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are the albums on major labels or notable independent labels? Dom from Paris (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't tell you unfortunately. But two different countries on two labels would indicate a sustained career. Third album as a duet. I don't see anything that is not good here, and it may be WP:TOOSOON, but two albums completed so quickly indicate talent. scope_creep (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding your reasoning but it appears that there is nothing based on WP policy in the argument being advanced. We're not here to decide whether the subject is talented enough for an article, or even notable according to some standard we devise ourselves; the criteria for inclusion are laid down for us and I'm pretty sure that neither being talented or having released albums on any label (no matter how many or how quickly) are accepted indicators of notability. Both of those things may indirectly lead to indicators of notability, such as awards or news coverage - but then, some awards and news coverage qualify and some don't, and we would still need to identify them here in order to make a convincing argument. Dorsetonian (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is the exactly reason we are here. If somebody doesn't have some facet of the psyche that makes them stand out from the crowd, then they we woudn't have WP:BIO articles on here. Talent and creativity are the two primary drivers for the advancement of mankind. And the primary driver for this encyclopedia. Both are prerequisites for notability. Note to Closing Admin Please leave the Afd open, until I can comment further, on Monday. scope_creep (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was sceptical initially, but there's actually quite a lot of coverage out there now. Both of her albums as leader/co-leader were reviewed by DownBeat (I've added the second one to the article). More generally, there are two reviews in The New York Times [10] [11], a review in the Ottawa Citizen [12] and in PopMatters [13]. There's good biographical coverage at Harvard magazine [14] and Berkeleyside [15]. There's also stuff in French on her tour there (maybe someone else can judge how good these and others are [16] [17]). There's also a WNPR piece [18], although that looks largely promotional, so might be best avoided. Including more from the other sources mentioned would be enough for WP:MUSICBIO notability criteria 1 and 4. EddieHugh (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both French sources are more than enough on their own. Jazz magazine and Télérama are very reliable sources. I'm changing my !vote to keep following the above sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this notable singer and songwriter. gidonb (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think I need to comment. I created a large half page rationale, but I dont think wee need it. scope_creep (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - quite a few of the sources suggested by Eddie Hugh are too focused on the actual album/song etc and fail to cover the actual subject, however there are certainly sufficient that do and thus this is a clear keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the present circumstances. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 14:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

/noinclude> ·

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AirVPN[edit]

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

A VPN site with some sources, however, many are blogs or WP:ROTM coverage, a WP:BEFORE also didn't came up any significant depth. Hence, WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:ORG/WP:GNG not met. Quek157 (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points. Although I created the article, I'm now on the fence about whether it should be kept or not. However, a precedent seems to have been set regarding articles about VPN services; there are multiple articles about VPN services with various notable computer magazines as its only reliable sources (see Category:Virtual private network services). So if AirVPN is deleted, I guess many of the other articles should be deleted as well. Therefore, maybe instead of only discussing the deletion of AirVPN, it would be better to have a more general discussion regarding articles about VPN services? The list Comparison of virtual private network services has survived a nomination for deletion. TunnelBear and VPNBook have both survived a deletion request since editors argued that the computer magazine sources were enough to demonstrate notability.--Stempelquist (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

not willing to list those. not all or nothing. point is that ncorp is strengthened from then, so those may fail. all are non consensus or keep or via non admin closure. fyi only Quek157 (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 10:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete (possibly Soft Delete). The article is just a summary of product reviews, and I doubt the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jowane Masowe Chishanu[edit]

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

Unreferenced junk. It's been tagged with issues for years with no improvement. "Jowane Masowe Chishanu" gets 16 Google hits. Google asks if you mean "Johane Masowe Chishanu", which gets a grand total of 100 Google hits. Mentioned in a handful of places, but the only decent reference I can find for it is this article: [19]. It's *possible* it's deserving of an article, but this one is so bad it should be nuked from space. Bueller 007 (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We ought to have a biographical article about Johane Masowe (1914-1973), an eminently notable figure in the history of Christianity in southern Africa, see e.g. discussions about him in scholarly books [20][21][22] as well as more contentious content in religious works such as [23][24][25] However, the article under discussion here is not that bio, but rather is about a church that followed his legacy, and the sources I've found on line, including news reports like [26], present more challenges for any effort to create a substantive, policy-compliant article about any particular church or group of his followers without violating NPOV. Thus, based on what I was able to find online, this article may be an appropriate candidate for a severe stubbing and retitling, or for WP:TNT as the nominator implies. Other editors may have better access to sources, of course. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless more reference is found. Truthspeakerknows (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 10:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arxiloxos; Johane Masowe is clearly notable but this church probably isn't. Having "six million followers" is unsourced and likely false, and the existing content is both un-sourced and non-encyclopedic in tone. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to [of assets owned by The Coca-Cola Company]. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Beverages Pvt. Ltd.[edit]

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

This is a wholly owned subsidiary of Coca-Cola. The sources don't support a standalone article and it doesn't seem likely anyone will search "International Beverages Pvt. Ltd." to try to get to Coca-Cola so a redirect is unnecessary. A merge is unnecessary as there's not enough reliably sourced to merge. Wolfson5 (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge anything worthwhile into Coca-Cola. This topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of assets owned by The Coca-Cola Company, since this company isn't mentioned in Coca-Cola or The Coca-Cola Company. I don't necessarily think there's anything worth merging, but redirects are cheap and this leaves the door open if anybody does fancy it. – Joe (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 19:32, 31 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 keep. Sandstein 11:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atomically precise manufacturing[edit]

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

Challenged redirect without discussion (Ticket:2018052210013241). Not sure if the topic area has received enough coverage at the present time, however without doing research it seems to be mainly external links with no real context. Mdann52 (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic meets WP:GNG seeing news articles from Forbes, The Guardian, and Wired as well as government reports and technical papers. I thought the stub article also had little content and too many external links (EL) so I notified all past editors of APM on Talk:Atomically_precise_manufacturing and said I was planning a merge into Molecular assembler. There was a large overlap of the EL between the two. I tried to clean up the EL, fixing broken links, improving names, adding dates. I didn't get back to deleting redundant or seriously outdated links, but I did say "many should be removed". StrayBolt (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient independent substantial writings exist on the topic to pass WP:GNG. It does appear to be a variant from nanotechnology. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vizhinjam International Seaport[edit]

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

proposed project that is not supported by any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. 2Joules (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – I am sorry if I missed something here. But a well written – well sourced article with abundant references. Additional information, concerning the port, from secondary – independent and reliable sources can be found here [27]. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The project has so many reliable sources. The project even generates news articles on a daily basis. AG47 ^Talk 19:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is a well referenced article stub, although it could do with a good cleanup and a bit of a trim. There may also be a case for a merge with Port of Trivandrum, but I haven't investigated in depth. But its a keep. Fob.schools (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 1 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming Realms[edit]

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

I'm unable to judge notability, as the references are entirely announcements about financing and the like. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick WP:BEFORE search finds loads of suitible references [28] Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Care to post some links? None of the ones in the article meet the criteria for establishing notability and I can't locate any that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I did leave a link to the news link above, but SBC News, Gamingintellegence.com, Gaming Business, The Daily Express, mention in the Evening Standard Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response None of the links you've provided meets the criteria for establishing notability. The link you posted in your first !vote was to Google. See WP:GHITS. This SBC News reference is based on this company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND. The Gamingintellegence.com reference is based on this company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND. The Gaming Business reference is based on this company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND. The Express reference provides no in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and is also a joint company announcement with the Health Lottery relying on quotations from company officials, therefore not intellectually independent and also fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, this Standard reference is a mention-in-passing at the end of the article to highlight the fact that the company announced it had launched a number of gaming sites for Ladbrokes Coral. Fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill company (with a marketing department) going about their business. Not a single one of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. None are intellectually independent and they rely either on company announcements or quotations/interviews with company personnel. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many non-trivial references in reputable publications, including some of those listed by Lee Vilenski. Also see [29]. There are also a number of detailed independent analyst reports about the company - see [30] and [31]. As a public company, there is a strong presumption that Gaming Realms is notable, which is bourne out in this case. -Mparrault (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Thank you! The Shares Magazine reference is based on this company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND. Normally, a research firm is indeed an acceptable reference as they can provide independent coverage of firms. In this case though, the disclaimer at the bottom of the page clearly states Gaming Realms is a research client of Align Research. Align Research & a Director of Align Research hold interests in the shares of Gaming Realms. Therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, the Simply Wall St. reference is not an independent research firm but a startup stockbroking firm. It is also *not* a reliable source as the website clearly states The opinions and content on this site are those of the contributing authors and not Simply Wall St. Apply to become a contributor here. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Sources are in passing and / or WP:SPIP. The content is corporate 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 3 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 11:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man's powers and equipment[edit]

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

Comic book WP:FANCRUFT that is more fit for Marvel Wikia than Wikipedia. Predominantly referenced to the comics themselves besides some minor links. Already described succinctly in the main Spider-Man article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a spinoff or split from the main article Spider-Man and that's reasonable because that's a big topic. Deletion is never appropriate in such a case because we can just merge back into the main article per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. The topic is notable as there's an entire book about it: Spider-Man's Amazing Powers. Andrew D. (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the F word. The succinct summary in the main article is sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the problem here is the original research and WP:SYNTH of many of the claims, taking statements in various primary sources (the comic books) to make conclusions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this article has too much specific detail. Maybe some of it could be merged into other articles, but the bulk of it would only be interesting to a very specific audience and is better suited for a Marvel Wiki page. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon Danis[edit]

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

Doesn't meet nobility standards. WP:MMABIO suggests 3 top tier fights, which this doesn't have, in fact only one fight at all. Notability is low at this point. TBMNY (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator.PRehse (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I used to IBJJF website to correct the results given at BJJ Heroes and originally used in the article. He has never won a medal as a black belt at any IBJJF world championship. As best I can find he has 2 wins and 3 losses at those events while having 1 win and 3 losses at the ADCC. I don't believe anything here is sufficient to meet WP:MANOTE. I focused on his BJJ records because it's clear he doesn't meet WP:NMMA with only 1 fight (and that wasn't a top tier one) and I don't see the coverage as sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Papaursa. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IndieBio[edit]

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

Promotional article on a non-notable company. Coverage largely is of the startups, not of IndieBio itself. There also has been some whitewashing going on, with parts of the company's history (particularly getting founded by an Irish organization) being suppressed in order to more strongly promote others (particularly the person now named the sole founder). COI editing through and through. Huon (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, total spam, fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 12:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no comment on notability (I have an acquaintance who worked at a startup funded by this group), but the current article is blatantly promotional. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mangrove Capital Partners[edit]

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

Delete A run-of-the-mill VC company with no indications of notability in their own right. While they may have invested in several well-known firms, notability is not inherited and this article is little more than a platform to promote their services, failing WP:SPIP. None of the references are intellectually independent and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HighKing (especially source independence). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Dane ^talk 02:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zemanta[edit]

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

Delete A run-of-the-mill technology company with no indications of notability in their own right. This article is little more than a platform to promote their services, failing WP:SPIP. None of the references are intellectually independent and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Just a directory listing & corporate 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BaseKit[edit]

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

Delete A run-of-the-mill technology company with no indications of notability in their own right. This article is little more than a platform to promote their services, failing WP:SPIP. None of the references are intellectually independent and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per G11, or alternatively delete simply as not having independent sources as required per WP:GNG 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. just another NN business listing. does not serve the purpose of buiildng an encyclopedia.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Ventures[edit]

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

Delete A run-of-the-mill VC company with no indications of notability in their own right. While they may have invested in several well-known firms, notability is not inherited and this article is little more than a platform to promote their services, failing WP:SPIP. None of the references are intellectually independent and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, NCORP failure and no credible claims to significance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems inactive Misterpottery (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There seems to be a coordinated effort by HighKing to delete Venture Capital firms (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mangrove Capital Partners and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoxton Ventures, for other examples). Not much thought has gone into it - HighKing has just copied and pasted the same filler comment. This attempted mass-deletion seems to be an abuse of the AfD process, since it does not allow defenders time to respond adequately. I suggest that the closing admin close none of the AfDs for delete, due to the attempted abuse of process. -Mparrault (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passion Capital[edit]

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

Delete A run-of-the-mill VC company with no indications of notability in their own right. While they may have invested in several well-known firms, notability is not inherited and this article is little more than a platform to promote their services, failing WP:SPIP. None of the references are intellectually independent and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Yet another venture fund that is using Wikipedia as an extension of a corporate website, such as with sections on "Transparency initiatives" (?). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Misterpottery (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There seems to be a coordinated effort by HighKing to delete Venture Capital firms (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mangrove Capital Partners and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eden Ventures, for other examples). Not much thought has gone into it - HighKing has just copied and pasted the same filler comment. This attempted mass-deletion seems to be an abuse of the AfD process, since it does not allow defenders time to respond adequately. I suggest that the closing admin close none of the AfDs for delete, due to the attempted abuse of process. -Mparrault (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: HighKing has suggested quite a few more as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hoxton_Ventures for one.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey McKinney[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of notability, Google Scholar suggests relatively few cites for her work [32] compared for example to other notable philosophers (e.g. [33]), even someone she has worked with but without an article has far better citation count [34] She fails all the criteria of WP:NACADEMICS, and as there is little independent coverage of her, she also fails WP:GNG. As the writer of the article has created a number of articles on poorly cited academics, I'd suggest starting new articles with more notable ones. Hzh (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't find much source-wise.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also have not found much in the way of good sourcing so far. However, I suspect that Google Scholar is not very indicative in general for academics working in philosophy (and comparing anyone's citation count to one of the most famous philosophers of the twentieth century means basically nothing). This is a case where scholarly book reviews, for example, would be important for passing WP:AUTHOR and/or WP:PROF#C1. XOR'easter (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this case Google Scholar might be more useful as I can't find any review article. Presence of reviews is certainly useful for showing notability, but not being able to find reviews does not equal absence of reviews, since it's harder to prove an absence without access to academic database in university. One of the example in Google Scholar I gave is actually not someone well-known but still has high number of citations [35]. Hzh (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability must be shown, it is not neccesary to disprove. There is nothing showing it here. The positions and activities mentioned in the article, and the sourcing, do not rise to a level of passing the notability guidelines for either academics or writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think getting the Presidential Award and founding the largest philosophy MA program in Texas can show notability. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the award given by the President of Texas State University, that is too localized to be notable. The founding of any MA program in Texas is also not notable. Hzh (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect both, to Sanath Jayasuriya and Sachin Tendulkar respectively. If anyone wants to WP:MERGE any history into the main articles, that history will still be there in the redirect, so feel free to copy material across, while maintaining attribution of course.. — Amakuru (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International awards by Sanath Jayasuriya[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related page for the reason below:

Listcruft. Just a collection of stats with no real context and/or notability. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another AFD regarding a WP:SPLIT that should have been addressed through normal editing and discussion. Both Sanath Jayasuriya and Sachin Tendulkar have articles, and these lists explain who they are. So I'm not sure where the "no real context and/or notability" claims come from. The only question I see here is whether this level of detail is appropriate so as to merit standalone articles for these athletes' awards; if it isn't, then WP:SMERGE and redirect back to the parent articles would seem to be the proper outcome. postdlf (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator also deserves a WP:TROUT for not using an edit summary when nominating either article for AFD, which undermines proper notice of this discussion to anyone who had the pages watchlisted.[36],[37] postdlf (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are not mandatory. The addition of 465kb of text should make you take a further look, if needed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"not mandatory" is far from an argument for its omission being justifiable, let alone good practice. Not doing it makes it appear as if you're trying to do it under the radar (see WP:FIES). And regardless of your excuses, it is actually part of stated deletion nomination procedure at WP:AFDHOWTO. postdlf (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone deserves a trout, it's you for failing to WP:AGF. The nominated page has fewer than 30 people watching it (my guess is it is just one, the person who started the article). I did however, notify the Cricket Project (here), which has 258 page watchers. A bit rich of you to go on about edit summaries for AfDs, when your record in this area is limited to just the automated summary of using a tool to close them. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to their player articles. A very, very selective merge may be appropriate - perhaps a sentence or two from the lead might belong in their articles. The Tendulkar list relies on two lists from CricInfo - one of which is dynamic and requires significant synthesis to make any further use of and one of which is now very old (2006 is a long time in ODI cricket) - and begins to rely upon the use of individual match-by-match reference to scorecard information. The Jayasuriya list relies totally on scorecards and any lead section in that seems to be entirely based upon synthesis. None of that, in my view, generates enough proper, in depth coverage to suggest that a stand alone list is a good idea here. I remain utterly unconvinced as well that being named a "player of the match" in most games of cricket is a notable thing in and of itself. In a final, yes, probably; for a particularly noteworthy performance that sets a significant record, yes, sure. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to their respective articles per BST. Störm (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Ponzi Factor[edit]

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

Can't find enough to establish that this book is notable. TheLongTone (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Ponzi Factor was featured twice on Redacted Tonight (eps. 194 and 196), which is funded by an international news network. The author will also be doing more interviews for radio, TV, and print in the weeks ahead, which is why this page was created. Additional sources and citations for the information listed will be added over the next week. --Quantstyle (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see anything here to merit inclusion. Author appears non-notable, much of the content of this article sounds like original research. Deb (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Well written article, kudos to the author. We can use your talents here at Wikipedia. However, an e-book that has not generated any coverage in secondary sources, at this point. Hopefully it takes off. Until that time, only a promotional piece that is self-serving and not encyclopedic worthy.ShoesssS ^Talk 18:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By well written I assume you mean prolix?TheLongTone (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Hey you are talking to the longest winded editor here…..I can’t say hello in under 20 words. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not notable as per WP:NBOOK nor WP:GNG. Even if the author features in interviews the book will not automatically become notable. --Count Count (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It meets condition one of WP:NBOOK The Ponzi Factor was featured twice on Redacted Tonight (eps. 194 and 196). It has also been on the Amazon bestseller list: Ranked #7^[1] for the Economic Conditions category for Kindle books, and ranked #5^[2] for the Public Policy category for print. This page should remain. The author will provide more notable sources by the end of June. --Quantstyle (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - One !vote only, please. -- Smallbones_(smalltalk) 9:48 am, Yesterday (UTC+9)

Delete - the book is WP:OR which is fine, but our article is as well. RT is not a reliable source, especially in finance. The Russian state has been proclaiming the ultimate popping of the capitalist bubble is just around the corner since 1917. I find the book's (apparently) statement "Most companies never pay dividends or buy back their shares," just wrong. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment NOTE: The objection from Smallbones is irrelevant. The purpose of this article is to briefly describe the content of the book. An agreement or disagreement with the content is completely irrelevant. This is not a debate about how he thinks the stock market works, his personal opinions about finance, or RT. The author is Chinese American. He has no affiliations with the Russian government. To suggest something like that is ridiculous.--Quantstyle (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only one bolded recommendation on a bulleted line per editor please. See WP:AFDFORMAT. --Count Count (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being featured on an international television show seems to pass notability. Arguments about the content of the book are irrelevant to this discussion. Egaoblai (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Quantstyle: Please don't not add a WP:!vote to each post you make. Even though the outcome of an AFD discussion is not based upon which side has more votes and editors can comment more than once, multiple !voting is not allowed. My suggestion to you would be to go back and strike-through two of the three "keep" !votes you added. (You just need to strike-though the word "Keep"). Also, please don't edit comments left by other editors like you did here to a post by Smallbones as explained in WP:TPO. Even if your intentions are good and you're just fixing a typo or other minor error, editing/refactoring others posts should only be done under certain specific conditions such as when a major policy violation, etc. needs to be addressed. Finally, your choice of username is the same as the company which published this book. Is there any connection between you and Quantstyle LLC? If there is such a connection, please carefully read through Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and also Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. A conflict of interest doesn't mean that this article automatically needs to be deleted, but it does mean that you will be expected to adhere to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines for such editing. Even if there is no connection, you should still change your username per WP:ORGNAME because users aren't allowed to use names deemed promotion or to represent a particular group or organization. Users who do try and use such usernames often find their accounts WP:SOFTBLOCKed until a change is made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Marchjuly: Apologies. I'm new to this and researching the policy pages, and practices as people in this discussion are posting them. I was not aware that I was voting multiple times. I used the word "keep" because it is an antonym to "delete." I didn't know it was a vote. I switched the word "keep" with "comment." I will review what you wrote carefully later and make sure I'm contributing properly. Thank you.--Quantstyle (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can find out more about how to participate in these types of discussions at WP:AFD#Contributing to AfD discussion. Just for reference, you don't need to add a bolded header/statement for every comment you make. If you'd like to respond to something someone else has posted, do so directly below their post using indentation like I've done here and to of your other "comments" above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

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. czar 01:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cruz Beckham[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No notability other than for being the son of David Beckham. Sources found are press releases and not significant. The editor whose username is Z0 11:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing more than name dropping. He is clearly not yet a notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - His Christmas song got noticed in the press thanks to his famous parents, and there are many more reliable media sources covering that song beyond the one already used in the article. That may appear to be confirmation of his notability as a singer, but actually the song got celebrity-obsessed coverage before disappearing without a trace amongst the music-buying public. To be charitable, it is too soon for an article as a musician. His media notice can possibly be mentioned at his mom's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Hzh (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Like You (Maroon 5 song)[edit]

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

Repeated attempt to remove a redirect without improving sourcing, and few sources could be found to suggest notability. Article fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. AfD is therefore necessary to gain wider community consensus. Hzh (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:42, 31 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Rouas[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Promotion of a company. Paid Users SaiLeeKom (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to understand why my articles are being nominated for speedy deletion? I'm a huge fan of Michael Jackson. Part of what I do is find everything important revolving around him making sure his millions of fans stay knowledgeable of Mr. Jackson as he is one of the most popular public figures of all time. I have no connection to the Jackson Family, Frank Rouas, or anyone listed in any of my articles. This is important news about Michael Jackon's cologne which has been hugely successful product and company. Frank Rouas played a huge role not only in Michael's life but the Jackson as well as the fragrance world with his contribution to the king of pops only fragrances ever created. This is huge and important. Once again I am not associated with anyone in this article. Just a fan of the subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 09:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to add that SaiLeKom is attempting to say that I have been paid to create such articles which are entirely untrue. Michael Jackson, The Jacksons, and their business partners are notable people. This is public information and is backed up by credible sources. I have do not know anyone and this is an untrue accusation and flat out lie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promoting a company using the name of the great Michael Jackson and his family Jackson family. Resources are also weak and not justified the subject.SaiLeeKom (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatantly promotional article, could have been speedy deleted as spam, but it was a good idea to bring this and JRP Collection Paris on grounds of notability. No indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:GNG, and no significant coverage online in WP:RS, just passing mentions in connection with his company's notable customers, and WP: Notability is not inherited. See also speedy deletions of Franck Julian Rouas and Franck Rouas, and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Charliee123/Archive. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Are you kidding me? Articles are from legitimate sources. Yahoo, Reuters for example so saying resources are weak when Reuters and Yahoo are worthy sources doesn't make sense. Once again this qualifies as a stub page. All the sources are notable. But the true fact is the reason why it's been even considered are based upon accusation that this has been paid for, which in fact has not. No payments nothing. Stick with the reasons. Also, who is Charleen123. Once again you're pointing out pure assumptions. Nothing based on facts. Only facts are in the references I created for this Stub article as a fan of Jackson and his perfumer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 10:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator can be forgiven for thinking that there's a WP:Conflict of interest here, especially as you've uploaded his accompanying posed portrait File:Frank_Rouas.png as your own work, and declared yourself to be the copyright holder.

Promotional tone can be fixed, and that on its own isn't a reason to delete. The real problem here is notability. Yes, there are several reliable sources cited, but they only mention him in connection with his company, and there's nothing to indicate that he's notable enough outside of it for a separate article. All owners of notable companies aren't necessarily notable themselves, and it's not that unusual for articles on CEOs of notable companies to be deleted. What's needed is significant coverage of Rouas himself from the reliable sources. You can read about what this means in WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the issue. There are 11 or 12 references made by reputable magazines about the guy. That's not the real problem. The only issue is from SaiLeeKom's whose only reason he stated for tampering with my article was completely based on his false accusations that I'm connected in somehow with the Jackson's or their employees. That's the only reason why I'm even going through this. It's all because I didn't upload a photo right? Come on... I don't have that much experience uploading photos. That was an honest mistake which I can correct by reuploading the photo under copy write. The dude is acting like I'm sitting here next to Janet, Tito, Latoya, Jermaine and Frank and I'm writing it with them..lol. Maybe I'm typing this with the glitter glove as well if he believes that. Maybe I'll moonwalk my ass back home from Never Never Land in the process. This is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 12:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if 12 or 1000 references are added, from the finest sources in the world, if they're not specifically about the subject of the article.

Also, please note that Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment, and we don't WP:OWN the articles we create.

You said above that uploading it as your own work was an honest mistake, and that's fine. But if the photo's not your own work, may I ask where you found it? The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was found doing a simple google search. It's public domain. Once again. This page isn't under scrutiny due to it's sources. The only reason is because someone is saying I'm being paid. Let's address that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 17:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't find it in a Google search. Can you please find it again? An image on a publicly accessible website isn't necessarily public domain, and you've uploaded it again as File:Perfumer of Jackon's.png with a very vague claim for it being public domain: Wikipedia is legally obliged to take down copyrighted content as soon as an editor is aware of the problem. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, go to Google Image search and type his name. It's right there. https://www.google.com/search?biw=1654&bih=827&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=nzQQW6y8BeaM0gKL5JjQBQ&q=franck+rouas&oq=franck+rouas&gs_l=img.3..0i30k1.93029.93029.0.93493.1.1.0.0.0.0.87.87.1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.1.86....0.oc68_k3jn0g — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 17:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, all I can see is this image from his Twitter. Similar, but not identical. It's a cropped version of the larger image you've uploaded twice. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting... on my google search it leads to a Facebook page from Joe Jackson [38]. RevengeOfTheRobots (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well then it will have to be taken down: Facebook content is not public domain, in fact it's clearly labelled copyright on that FB page. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Facebook "public post", which this is, is public domain. You're wrong about that one! Read it here buddy — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 19:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed the unsourced birth date per WP:BLPPRIVACY. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Mr. Rouse has not generated enough secondary in-depth coverage of the person Franck Rouas as an individual. All the coverage I found was a brief spat between Joe Jackson and the company Mr. Rouas runs with concern to the introduction of a line of perfume with Michael Jackson name on it and supposedly not authorized by the Jackson family. Only if and when more detailed coverage can be obtained concerning Mr. Rouas, the individual, the piece should be deleted.ShoesssS ^Talk 13:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I believe the references used are from reputable sources making the subject of the article and his work prolific enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justjulesjustjules (talk • contribs) 23:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per their contributions [39] Justjulesjustjules has made few edits outside of this AfD. Indeed, their first ever edit was to this AfD.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The references used in this article are from trusted sources and I believe that this article is accurate and very reliable while not looking like a paid piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benprecious (talk • contribs) 23:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I find it unusual that both User:Justjulesjustjules and User:Benprecious accounts were just created today and their only contributions are to this particular AFD. WP:Sock puppetry in play? ShoesssS ^Talk 00:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment" - oh yeah, well that just goes to show you the strength of the subject in the article - Frank Rouas - and the Jackson brand. I literally have gone 30 years of my life without ever feeling the need to make a wikipedia profile until now- that's how completely ridiculous this entire argument is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justjulesjustjules (talk • contribs) 00:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frank Rouas and the Jackson's family brand have millions of fans across the globe. Michael, is the biggest superstar both living and in death and you're wondering why people are finding this article on the guy who created his celebrated scents? RevengeOfTheRobots (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per their contributions [40] Benprecious has made few edits outside of this AfD.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails WP:ANYBIO due to a lack of in-depth coverage in secondary sources. WP:PRIMARY is also a concern, as some sources feature small snippets of quotes by Rouas (or his company), and thus are not independent. Most of the sources cited (which in themselves for the most part do not concern Rouas) mention Rouse in passing; rather, they cover the subject's company and the Jackson family. This is a major issue as (per WP:NOTINHERITED) Rouas does not inherit notability from the famous Jackson family, nor his company.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI'd like you to bring to note the false accusations...and the reason why we are having this discussion based upon lies that I have been paid to create this article which no such proof can be found. You keep talking about everything but what this article is being reviwed for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 01:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI'd also like to include this is a stub article and should be treated as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 01:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RevengeOfTheRobots: Pardon? I left a note to you about removing maintenance templates and filed an SPI concerning some editors at this AfD, but conflicts of interest and potential paid editing are never grounds for an AfD. Rather (as I hope my comment above demonstrates), I am voting to delete the page based on notability concerns, namely WP:NOTINHERITED.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SamHolt6:You act as if digital news perodicals such as Yahoo News, Reauters, and The Hollywood Reporter publish articles about some anywho. As if it was just by pure coincidence that Mr.Rouas happend to have articles written about him by 3 of the biggest online magazines in the world, lol... bro..please stop this and lets move on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs)

Again, Wikipedia policy is the issue. To begin, the Yahoo News article [41] was not written by Yahoo news (it is attributed to MarketWire, and thus is immediately dis-countable as a press release), is focused around the perfume company rather than Rouas himself (I.E a trivial mention), and is built around quotes from Rouas and his company (thus it is WP:PRIMARY and not independent of the subject, nor in-depth). The Hollywood Reporter article ([42]) likewise is centered around the Jackson family and not Rouas (trivial mention), and as before is built around quotes (again, not independent of the subject). The Reuters article ([43]), as before, focuses on Joe Jackson and perfume, not Rouas, and again only pays passing mention to Rouas by way of two quotes. This is a running theme with the article's sources, which are all either trivial, constructed around snippets of quotes, and lacking in depth.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SamHolt6: I didn't know having articles written about you and the company you started was trivial. Also, Yahoo picked up that article as it's an aggregator of highly reputable newsworthy content. It's not a press releas it's an article Yahoo chose to aggregate through their highly developed alogorithm that only picks up highly newsrated sources. I thought you knew that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs)

None of the articles cited are about directly covering Rouas, per my earlier comments. Indeed, all sources, even those from reputable outlets, need to be judged on their veracity. Even if you disagree with my views on Yahoo reposing the Marketwire (which is by their own description a generator of press releases), my other points regarding that article's content (as well as the other two articles) still stand. Policy (WP:RS, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NOTE, WP:GNG, WP:PRIMARY) is clear when it comes to establishing independent, in-depth coverage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepFrank Rouas is a reputable figure in the fragrance world and the references used are from high end sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidWay (talk • contribs) 02:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per their contributions [44] DavidWay has made few contributions outside of this AfD.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of this article has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I note that the subject's real name appears to be Julian Rouas. The only source that is actually about Rouas is Nice-Matin, which appears to have done no fact-checking at all and retells what Rouas has to say about himself. (À Nice, où il est venu passer les fêtes avec ses parents, Franck la raconte… ) Vexations (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations:His real name is not Julian.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs)

SamHolt6 (talk) Accused me of sock puppetry. I want everyone who reads this to know that those claims have been refuted by Wikipedia Admin and that his witch hunt needs to be stopped immediately. His sockpuppetry accusations being denied shows the user lacks judgment in keen areas regarding this article and he is not mentally ambigous enough to make judgements based on this article. He is conducting a witch hunt. I repeat, it's a witch hunt and he needs to be stopped.SPI — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs)

@RevengeOfTheRobots: For the record, the SPI I filed (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RevengeOfTheRobots) remains open, and the reviewing admin (pinging @Bbb23: the involved admin, if they want to comment) concurred with my assessment that meat-puppetry was a possibility. Note that a key principle of Wikipedia is that editors should assume good faith when dealing with one another; it could be inferred that I violated this when I filed an SPI, but I feel that I am justified in my suspicions when considering the four new editors that have found their way to this AfD and its subject article. But I digress; this AfD is concerned with content, and my actions against you have little bearing on Wikipedia's policy for notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SamHolt6: Let it also be known that in the sockpuppet investigation you conjured against me that it states impossible for one and unlikely for the other. Please, when you refer to that give our fellow Wikipedian community members full transparency in your responses. Also, I see you are continuing to leave suspicious notes in an attempt to get my article deleted. Even conspiring with the notation that I've been paid. In your good faith philosophy, you've done nothing like that and instead have attempted to disband and disdain the Wikipedia community with you auspicious behavior and witch hunt methodology. The argument is based on are my sources notable and if I was paid, which numerous members of the Wikipedia community have added to to the conversation that references are notable, the person of subject is worthy, and that this does not look like a paid article nor have I conspired to do any sock puppetry. You are making the joy of being a member of the Wikipdia community dampened and almost cringe-worthy at least.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs)

@RevengeOfTheRobots: Yes yes we both linked the open SPI for other editors to access at their leisure, but this page is an AfD and is to be used to discussing the article being considered for deletion. If you wish to have my actions reviewed by other editors, then please pursue appropriate channels on Wikipedia for doing that. For now, I am sticking to my delete vote on the basis of a notability guideline failure.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First of all, remember all are welcome here at Wikipedia and more importantly any and all honest opinions are wanted here, be they be from an established editor or the Newbie contributing for the first time. Do not feel put upon if another editor has a different opinion and expresses their view point as passionately as you have done. Remember, it is only a difference of opinion. Each and every editor has their own standard with regards to which articles should be included here in an encyclopedia and which pieces have not yet reached the level of compendium to be included. My opinion, for inclusion, is that the piece has enough, more than 2 or 3, Independent – Secondary – Reliable – In-depth coverage of that particular subject before inclusion here at Wikipedia. Another editor may say 1-2 mentions in the local newspaper establishes Notability, while a third editor may have an established criteria of 5 or more references that must be meet from well-established institutions like the New York Times or the Daily Express. The process of AFD is to establish consensus among all the editors if the piece should or should not be included. Either way this AFD goes, hope to see you around editing more pieces. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to add/clarify, regardless of the opinions of each individual editor, there are POLICIES and GUIDELINES which provide in-depth details on the barest minimum standard for inclusion (it differs depending on the topic). Editors may have higher or more stringent standards but it is extremely unlikely (practically, it never happens) that a topic will be considered for inclusion if is does not meet the minimum standards. Discussions/arguments at AfD should refer to the policies/guidelines in their reasoning as justification for their !vote as it greatly simplifies the process for closing admins. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even close to meeting the requirements of WP:BASIC. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor a substitute for a CV or personal website. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant coasting on Jackson notability, without in-depth specific coverage. Clearly promotional. The aggravating meat/sock-puppetry in this discussion in no way improves matters. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can use say sockpuppetry when the results are unlikely and unrelated... — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 12:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JRP Collection Paris[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Promotion of a company. Paid Users SaiLeeKom (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. The argument is that I have been paid to make this article in which there is no proof revolving around these accusations whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 09:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article also qualifies to be a stub article. I read through every provision that explains what a stub article is and this was created specifically following those guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 09:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stub articles are great (for example, the vast majority of articles I have created are stubs), but classification as a stub does not disqualify an article from being considered for deletion.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promoting a company using the name of the great Michael Jackson and his family Jackson family.SaiLeeKom (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Actually, this company was started by Michael and the Jackson family. Get your facts straight. Both are his colognes he created but he passed away before the launch. The Jackson family still put them out because fans like myself demanded for it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs)

Keep Not sure I'm seeing this as a paid article. The sources show notability, So this seems like an easy keep to me. If the submitter is concerned about tone, they are welcome to change it, but that's not a reason for deletion.Egaoblai (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.. please close this discussion and leave my article alone. I've already noticed several other pages that have no references that are up and running well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 13:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's argument could have been better, but looking at the article's sourcing, there is no real claim to notability once WP:NCORP is considered. The first source [45] was produced by Marketwire (and is thus a press release), is built around quotes from Julian Rouas, and the only descriptor of the company is taken directly from the company itself (quoting, "We are a luxury perfume design company that manufactures signature fragrances from Grasse, France."), so WP:PRIMARY is a major concern. The second source [46] likewise features quotes from Rouas, does not directly focus on JRP and its perfume line (it mentions various business ventures being undertaken by the Jacksons, like a hotel chain and amusement parks), and mention of the perfume company is limited to one line, "Julian Rouas in Paris is involved in creating the scents.", nothing else. The third source [47] is ostensibly the best, but again it is not independent of the subject as it is centered around direct quotes from Franck Rouas, the chief executive of JRP Paris. The article also quotes a representative of Michael Jackson's estate in saying that said estate is not involved with the perfume scents, though this is moot given that WP:NOTINHERITED already prevents the Jacksons from conferring notability on JRP. Source four [48] is found at Purplepeople.com, but is actually a repost of an article in Var-Matin, a french magazine (the article needs to translated for this reason). Said article is once again, constructed around quotes from Franck Rouas describing his business. The sixth source [49] is a list of colognes, and the article does not mention JRP, Franck Rouas, or Julian Rouas (in) Paris. In short, every one of the sources cited feature information from primary sources (thus they fail they are not independent from the subject) or make only trivial or in-passing mentions of the company. In my view, NCORP and CORPDEPTH criteria remains unmet, and even WP:RS has to be brought up given the extensive use of primary quotes in the article's sourcing.--SamHolt6 (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Egaoblai (talk) these are reputable sourced information. this isn’t a paid article.DavidWay (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per their contributions [50] DavidWay has made few contributions outside of this AfD.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created for pay are discouraged, but neither WP:UDP nor disclosed paid editing are grounds for deletion. The nom's point could have been stronger, but that does not disqualify other editors from raising concerns about other issues the article may have.--SamHolt6 (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article claims that "JRP was founded in 2008 by the singer Michael Jackson, his family, and Rousas". The sources don't support that claim. But just let that sink in for a minute. Michael Jackson starts a fragrance business and decides to name it after Julian Rouas? The actual name of the company that Rouas started in 2008 appears to be, per https://www.nevada-register.com/887895-julian-rouas-paris-inc and https://www.nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/PrintCorp.aspx?lx8nvq=grFZc2YrWh1r%252f6AOCVJMSw%253d%253d&nt7=0 JULIAN ROUAS PARIS, INC. Vexations (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I find it important to look at the facts based in the references whereas you're not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 03:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the sources do not support that claim. Neither does the subject himself. According to Rouas, he met Joe in Las Vegas after he gave two kids who were looking for a pen to get an autograph from members of the Jackson family two bottles of perfume to present to her.^[1] By that time he had already established his company and created a parfum. The claim that Michael Jackson co-founded Julian Rouas Paris, Inc. is not credible, not supported by sources and contradicted by Rouas. Vexations (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Le parfum de Michael Jackson est niçois". archives.nicematin.com (in French). Retrieved 1 June 2018.

Comment The Beverly Hills Courtier article cited [51] by this article contains a quote reading "In Los Angeles, a spokesman for Michael Jackson’s estate said the perfume venture was “a Joe Jackson deal” in which it was not involved." While this is WP:PRIMARY, its seems clear that the Michael Jackson's estate is not connected to JRP.--SamHolt6 (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the strengthened WP:NCORP guideline and WP:CORPDEPTH. The article lacks the in-depth, independent coverage needed to establish notability, as per WP:NOTINHERITED it does not inherit notability from the Jackson family or Michael Jackson himself. Per Vexations above (who fruitfully cited a source to back their point), the claim that Michael Jackson co-founded the company are not verifiable. Note the sources cited also hinge on interviews with either members of the Jackson family, Rouas, or with JRP itself, and thus most of their content is coming from primary sources (WP:PRIMARY) that violate NCORP mandate that coverage be independent from the subject. Other articles cited are standard press releases announcing the launch of perfume products, make only passing mentions of the company, and, once the company is divested from the Jackson family (again, per NOTINHERITED), there is no real claim to significance. Indeed, the one source cited outside of 2011 [52] (the year the perfume line was founded) does not concern the subject in depth, but rather mentions it as part of a list of perfume lines, thus violating one of the core components of NCORP to not cite articles that list multiple products; it also does not mention JRP at all. In short, the article subject company (once separated from the Jackson family) fails to establish why it is significant due to a lack of in-depth, independent, or even verifiable sources. SamHolt6 (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. SamHolt6 has also provided excellent reasoning. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NCORP and GNG. I was on the fence about this one, but per Samholt6, the RS cited don't actually demonstrate notability of this company, and I don't see significant coverage in RS online. The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stereolizza[edit]

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

There are no reliable secondary sources about the subject in the article. I couldn't find anything substantial either. Many editors seem to SPAs and the reference section appears to be a case of WP:REFBOMB. wikitigresito (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC) wikitigresito[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikitigresito I think it probably squeaks by WP:GNG, mostly for the unique and very searchable name. But absolutely no justification for the huge page and 46 references. Someone needs to cut all that out. change it to 2 lines about their music and ethnic heritage. ChalkDrawings33 (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChalkDrawings33: I think you mistook me for nominator, but I am not. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, sorry. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga. My mistake ChalkDrawings33 (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On-Topic: Could you point me to the sources that make this group pass WP:GNG? wikitigresito (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Krishna Chaitanya Velaga Wikitigresito thank you for your input. I've considerably condensed the article, cleaned up for neutrality, as well as removed all bad references. Hope this helps. Cheers!Sashagb2017 (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure why having a unique name would make this pass WP:GNG, but it doesn't appear to pass, and it doesn't pass WP:NBAND either. Even after trimming down the references, we are left with non-notable radio airplay charts (referenced to a website to avoid per WP:BADCHARTS), links to user-generated content from iMDb and the like to prove the band's songs have appeared in TV shows (no big deal, almost every band in the world has had their music used as TV background music at some point or other), links to the band's website, record company and Amazon to prove you can buy their records, and awards won at a non-notable and dubious award ceremony (you have to pay to enter your video). Just about the best RS I can find is this passing mention in an article in The Guardian, but it doesn't tell you anything about the band at all. Richard3120 (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:55, 31 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rabiah[edit]

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

PROD was removed by an anon IP who is hopping the border between vandal and COIN, Artilce does not have any coverage in media. It cannot satisfy GNG. 2Joules (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any major issues with notability: subject has many parts in major films; nominated for a big award; admittedly there are relatively few biographical articles about him online, but there seems to be enough to justify notability [53], [54]. I would say this individual meets WP:ENT. BubbleEngineer (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that just one article is enough to get an article on wikipedia. He has no indepth coverage. 2Joules (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are doing personal attack on this actor he played a role as Hakim in Face to Face film (big Australian Flim) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1saint rp (talk • contribs) 05:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC) — 1saint rp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His parts in Safe Harbour and Face to Face are both significant roles. That satisfies WP:ENT. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My concern is that there is a lot of content in this article that has been added by sockpuppets and paid editors who have not disclosed their positions. I am aware that editors like Duffbeerforme have been diligently working on the article but that doesn't change the fact. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed to TNT. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Subject has coverage but very very little truly independent and reliable. Difficult to get in-depth. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Not sure at all that Safe Harbour (Australian TV series) meets notability guidelines, but Face to Face (2011 film) probably does, not sure that WP:ENT is met. See WP:NFILM. Aoziwe (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aoziwe, Safe Harbour is notable, see [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Safe Harbour is also probably notable. (Better if all those refs were in that article.) No quite comfortable yet though changing to a weak keep. But I am still open to it. (Notability is not inherited but WP:ENT#1 is an inherited notability - go figure?) Aoziwe (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a paid article to me created entirely for the purpose of promotion rather than something that should be on Wikipedia. Robert is more of a created "Celebrity". FrederickWinchester (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but block the paid editors (as they show up). Notability has been met, as amply demonstrated, but the larger issue is with the payola that is going on, all of which has thus far been undeclared. Given that there are non-conflicted editors working to try to get this article up to speed and that the conflicted ones, as far as I am aware, have failed to disclose, the latter need blocked ASAP. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That list thus far, based on contribs, is: 45.116.233.36 (talk · contribs), Cinema777 (talk · contribs), Films001 (talk · contribs), Whizbangwang (talk · contribs) (stale), GeistFright (talk · contribs) (stale), and Simohicks (talk · contribs) (stale). There is also an existing SPI at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Joeltmpayne; the named user has already been blocked. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: in the event that this article is kept (which seems likely at this point), I have indef-semi protected the article to prevent further sockpuppetry. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, but the paid editing farm has also edited related pages, if you'll look at their contributions. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If they're blocked, that doesn't matter. Semi-protection will prevent edits from new accounts they create. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ones I listed above are not blocked. I didn't list any that had already gotten blocked. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of those you listed, the last three are stale and not actionable. The IP cannot edit. That leaves Films001 and Cinema777, both of which are now blocked. Any new socks won't be able to edit the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I still cannot decide; one the one hand, he has appeared in a lot of productions, some of them notable, but on the other hand, none of them have been major parts, or attracted that much attention except for one or two lines about roles in Face to Face and Safe Harbor. I spent a bit of time searching, and while I found quite a few mentions, it was all just name check stuff- cast lists, award nominations etc. Theres a few writing credits earlier in his career (small films, nothing really notable) that could go in. Couldnt find anything about Sunrise films and the music stuff though. There is really only the one in depth article about him, so not WP:GNG, no major award, so not WP:ANYBIO. WP:ENT the films are significant, but are his roles in them?. Curdle (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has prominent roles (at least 3) in notable productions so passes WP:NACTOR, the sockpuppets problem is being addressed Atlantic306 (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional living planets[edit]

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

While maybe the article on genius loci could be expanded to encompass living planets in speculative fiction, this is just an example of unreferenced listcruft. AFAIK, a list is supposed to branch off from an article rather than just be created whole cloth with no sources to speak of. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- unreferenced listcruft with little to no navigational usefulness. Reyk _YO! 09:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although the future edit war over whether Doctor Moon was really a living planet would have been glorious. Seriously though, that illustrates the problem with this particular list article. Lacking good sourcing at this article over the concept of what a "living planet" is, it would be difficult to ever make this list encyclopedic in the sense of contributing to a coherent sense of where to learn more about living planets in fiction. Each entry is probably just going to reflect the opinion of the editor who added it that the entry is a good example of a fictional living planet, and that's not good enough to hang an article of this kind on. Vadder (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the entries are not living planets, but organisms that cover a planet (such as Father and Solaris). Some aren't planets at all, such as Fannie Mae. This variety, actually, is a good reason to keep the article (with discussion about this variety), or to make it part of the Genius Loci article. In either case you'd have to rename it something like "Sentient planets, stars, and planet-wide organisms in fiction". ShawnVW (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. under criterion G11 Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sivananda Yoga Teacher Training Course[edit]

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

The article is promotional without any references. Yoga teacher training is a huge business. Went unnoticed for more than 12 years. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Nukable mess.... Absolutely no reliable sources — F R ⁺ 11:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, only trivial passing mentions in a few RS. I'd have probably gone for redirect to Sivananda yoga but I can't see that page staying around for long either. Cesdeva ^(talk) 17:04, 31 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 speedily deleted per G4. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kirthana Fanning[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kirtana Fanning

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

The subject of this article is not notable enough. 2Joules (talk) 06:50, 31 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 keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lakers–Pistons rivalry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable rivalry. May have been a notable rivalry in years past, but has not been in recent years. Also missing RS to support its case for a notable rivalry. Natg 19 (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability isn't temporary. "may have been a notable rivalry in years past", even nomination acknowledges it's past notability. Cavaliers–Warriors rivalry is the most notable nowadays, but 20 years from now they may not even care about each other anymore and that won't reduce the notability that it has earned currently. In terms of missing RS, the first source in article is from ESPN and discusses the history of the rivalry, and there are other sources out there[61] [62] that rank it as one of the higher ranked rivalries in NBA history. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it was a notable rivalry in years past, it's still notable as notability is not temporary. Smartyllama (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kinda put your foot in your mouth by admitting this May have been a notable rivalry in years past because notability is not temporary. The article could use a good clean-up but that is not a knock against notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WikiVirusC. Cbl62 (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTEMP and all above, as even the nominator appears to acknowledge that this is a historical rivalry. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability isn't temporary. Dammit_steve (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soumya Sanathanan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject of the article is not notable enough. 2Joules (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep-Lots of coverage from reputable Indian newspapers such as The Times of India, Deccan Chronicle, The Hindu. My concern is that most of the articles are not in-depth coverage rather they are based on interveiws — F R ⁺ 11:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it should be deleted let them improve the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.227.233.99 (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC) — 110.227.233.99 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — F R ⁺ 05:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the articles that meets either WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. JackTracker (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG for now.Upcoming at best.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and move to Chaires School. There is rough consensus that the school is notable enough for an article right now. Decisions about gutting it down to stub level or possible merger with Station One School can be had separately outside of this process. — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Chaires School[edit]

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

Non notable elementary school. Unsourced and no claims of significance or importance apart from raising chickens and churning butter. Redirected uncontetiously to its locality per policy recommendations, but the redirect was reverted without discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect, if that can be assured. Apparantly the school closed in 1967 due to "disintigration"; I'm afraid the sources are of equal solidity.
It has a paragraph in what is probably a good source (Arcadia Publishing?), hardly the depth of coverage required, and the remainder of the sources in the literature are passing mentions, directory, list, catalogue or meeting minutes and entries. News sources are even sparser, considering that local news providers can usually be relied on to document local history. So although I would hope that offline sources can be found, I doubt it. There is, therefore, no persistence of coverage required to meet the most basic of the notability requirements. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 11:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Jacona (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per Kudpung กุดผึ้ง; At first I thought this was the same school as the older Chaires High School, mentioned [63], among other places, which would likely be notable, but it appears this is not the same school. All the references I could find to Chaires High School were pre-1927. Jacona (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, though it could be shortened. It is a school that a small community is proud of. (I don't know this firsthand, this is just my impression from reading it.) It's the largest and most important building in Chaires. I don't see what harm the article is doing. There are other schools that have their own pages. Deleting articles discourages contributors, in this case whoever wrote the article (not me). What is particularly notable is that if you look at it in connection with Station One School, there is a nice lesson in how separate but equal did not exist in Leon County schools, at least at that time. In fact, it's alluded to in the third paragraph of the Separate but equal article. I'd be very disappointed to see such a clear example disappear.

See https://www.floridamemory.com/solr-search/results/?q=%28Chaires%20school%20OR%20tt%3AChaires%20school%5E10%29&query=Chaires%20school It documents how the school goes back to the nineteenth century — not many Leon County schools do — and at one point was a comprehensive school. It is the same school just mentioned by @JaconaFrere, though it stopped being a high school in the 1920s. deisenbe (talk) 1:36 pm, Today (UTC−4)

I don't think I have ever seen a high school deleted if it could be proven to (have) existed.Jacona (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sheffield Private School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quaid School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace School System (2nd nomination), amongst others, JaconaFrere. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Both of those were for-profit schools. Do you have any examples of a public high school? Especially one that existed for over a century in one form or another?Jacona (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not off the top of my head, JaconaFrere. I seem to remember public schools having been deleted, but I'm not confident enough to say for certain, and I doubt any were as old as 100 years. It would take some digging through the recent page history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools to say for sure. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a modern day elementary school, I'd happily redirect. But as a former high school with a lineage that dates back to the 19th century it's another matter altogether. The article definitely needs work, after AfD I'd like it to be moved to "Chaires School", dropping the word "The" from the title. It's extra work to find sources for "colored schools" due to systemic Bias. We have at least a start on this one, I'd like to see it improved.Jacona (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with deleting The. There is a 12 minute video from Florida State television (WFSU-TV) about Chaires and the school is the first thing shown, and not briefly. https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/252937 deisenbe (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Chaires School and WP:TNT That's great that someone has written a detailed history of the school, but without any sources to back it up, it's original research and unverified. I would TNT the article to leave only the basic information that is sourced. If that's just a paragraph then it should be Retarget to Chaires, Florida#Chaires School ~~There are local newspapers that describe the school as being one of the most segregated schools.~~Sorry, my bad, it's the exception Get rid of the "The". It was never part of the school's name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC) updated 18:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:AngusWOOF, please don't call for wp:TNT unless you actually mean it, which I don't think you do. This may be just a distraction. From the way you write, I think you mean you want the article pared down, and you want to express that emphatically. "TNT" means you want the article to be entirely deleted so that all past versions and edit contribution history is deleted. See wp:TNTTNT, an essay i was involved with, for several reasons why some think that is not a good idea, including that you are asking for us to violate the terms of Wikipedia. If you do want "TNT", please say so, and explain why you want prior editors' contributions permanently deleted, etc. And I will listen but then I will probably want to OPPOSE that. --Doncram (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that with such detail, it's either original research by someone who knows a lot about the school itself or a copy violation from some local paper. If it can be supported and referenced by reliable sources then you can keep the verbiage around to merge into the history of the town. Also this was regarding the version proposed at the start of the AFD [64] so the content has changed to clean out much of that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you queried earlier, it is by far the largest building in Chaires. Look at the satellite pictures. I’d be grateful for the references to newspapers deacribing the segregation at that school. deisenbe (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I stand corrected. It is one of the schools that is NOT among the most segregated which are the other schools in Leon county [65] [66] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has a past as a segregated school, both as whites-only, and as blacks-only, as you can see from the old newspaper posts (url's starting with "chroniclingamerica")Jacona (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/12433 says that it appears in Leon County School Board minutes "as early as the 1870s", and that it was a grades 1-10 (not 12) school. deisenbe (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I personally do not think every high school deserves an article, but that's the established consensus. However, the article needs to be gutted (and probably reduced to a stub unless more sources are found). There are some serious isuues with WP:V--Rusf10 (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have shortened the article by almost 50%, removing unneeded detail. deisenbe (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks more like promo than a relevant article. Fails WP:GNG. Redirecting to the school district might be a reasonable alternative for deletion. The Banner talk 12:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is probably never going to be big, and the material largely overlaps with Station One School. I've continued to review this, and am coming to a the conclusion that it is wiser to merge the two and leave one as a redirect to the other. By the way, there are several historical newspaper sources available but not in the article that verify the existence of the school (and it's past status as a high school) from back into the 1870s to the present under one name or the other.Jacona (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Marie Garcia[edit]

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

no major roles. the references are either PR, or listings DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article looks like a PR package. It should be removed. 2Joules (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NACTOR – only has one "significant" role: on the TV series On My Block where she's main cast, apparently. Liv and Maddie was a recurring role, and so does not count towards NACTOR. (Recurring roles only very rarely get enough coverage to merit counting towards NACTOR – think Newman on Seinfeld. But most recurring roles, even "big" ones, do not get secondary coverage...) I think subject needs at least one more "major" role, either TV or film, in order to be considered to be NACTOR-compliant. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:38, 3 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prin Goonchorn[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on an unsupported claim to general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY and nothing currently in the article meets WP:GNG. I do know user Paul_012 helped with a previous deletion that was saved (Yotsapon Teangdar) as they can read Thai, so if there is articles out there that would help it meet WP:GNG I would suggest they are added otherwise I stand by the delete. I note there maybe some articles by a simple google search but they are all in Thai [67]. NZFC^(talk) 20:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first page of Google results include in-depth profiles by FourFourTwo, Goal.com, SuperSubThailand.com, and an evening news scoop from PPTV. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul_012, while that is good there appears to be more coverage of the player. This is English language wikipedia and none of us can read that information and can only go with what is on the article. Unless you want to add that information to the article its hard for us to say keep just because there is more information that we can't add out there. NZFC^(talk) 20:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NZ Footballs Conscience & GiantSnowman, I've rewritten the article. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tier 2 Soccer player in a Thai League is not notable even in their own country. Peter303x (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies the GNG, per the above given sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow more discussion since article has been modified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A tough one to vote on as there are few English-language sources. A google search of his Thai name brings up several articles which we'd generally consider WP:MILL (signing for Thai Honda, U-23 articles) along with the other articles above. Language barrier aside, I'd like to see more sources to show WP:GNG (he fails WP:NFOOTY, though if his old team was professional he may have played in a cup match between two fully professional teams). That being said I can't discount the sources shown above, so I'm a neutral "vote"/simply commenting here. SportingFlyer talk 03:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People, the article has four sources in it. From what I read nobody has really discussed them, right? We can't just shrugg them (and possibly other sources) off because they are in Thai. That would be a horrible bias towards foreign language sources. Can we get someone here who knows the language before making decisions? wikitigresito (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitigresito See above, the sources where only added recently by Paul_012 who can speak Thai. So a lot of the votes where based before they added these new sources. The player doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY but I'm not sure even with the new sources if it is enough to pass WP:GNG. NZFC^(talk) 02:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recently added sources. Thanks for explanation NZ Footballs Conscience. - wikitigresito (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul_012 sources. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. I cannot, in good conscience, place blind faith on text in a non-English language, which I do not speak ~~written by a Wikipedia contributor who supports the article's inclusion~~. Even after examining the sources provided as much as I could and with the help of online translators, I find them to be profiles that are typically promoted by interested parties, e.g. agents. Nothing there to satisfy the aforesaid criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Google Translate is rubbish with Thai. I don't know, however, what you're referring to when you mention "text (in a non-English language) written by a Wikipedia contributor". Maybe you could clarify? --Paul_012 (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You are a Wikipedia contributor and the articles were written in a non-English language. Didn't you state above that it was you who wrote those articles? Didn't I understand you correctly? -The Gnome (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had nothing to do with those Thai sources. What I said was that I rewrote the Prin Goonchorn Wikipedia page, which was previously a one-sentence stub, into an actual article. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing this up. I'm striking off the relevant portion of my comment, above. -The Gnome (talk)

Comment: In order to have our suggestions considered, they must be based on some rule or policy. We cannot just declare "I like it!" The criteria of fooballers' notability are indisputably not met by the article's subject. This player hasn't played in any Tier 1 International Match, in a competitive senior international match at confederation level (regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA, or the Olympic Games), and he hasn't played in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional, notable leagues. So, that's it for football. Nothing Wikinotable.

Now, about the much suffering general notability guideline. The key instructions are as follows (emphasis in the original): If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Underline the last bit: We are not supposed to have here indiscriminate listings of people, such as pro athletes, who do not meet their respective notability-criteria just because they have received lots of coverage in their local press! This is just not done; it's as far from the spirit of the guideline as possible. -The Gnome (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the prose of The Gnome comment above. Kid hasn't not done anything worthy of note. Fails all SNG and I have never interpreted the GNG to mean create an art le for everyone who gets a few write ups in the paper. Particularly so for sports pages. ClubOranje^T 12:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure pass whether WP:GNG or not so I need more people comment. Hhkohh (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Snowball keep. Stronger consensus within a day than is achieved on most AfDs. Only nom supports deletion. (non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arkady Babchenko[edit]

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

Clearly not a notable person and created under fallse premises [68] and other updates [69]. Someone mentioned in MSM is not notable enough as there are many mentions not with WP articles (even authors/academics/journalists). Further if he needs to fake his own death to get publicity that in itself shows how non-notable he is and even then discredits WP for keeping this here. Lihaas (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The circumstances of the article's creation are irrelevant for the present purposes. The claim that he "fake[d] his own death to get publicity" is supported by no evidence and would be immaterial even if it were true. (A successful fraud is still a success; we have a whole list of notable forgers, after all.) Coverage of his work from years past [70][71][72] means that WP:BLP1E is inapplicable. XOR'easter (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he's not just someone who has been mentioned in the "mainstream media" he's somebody who has caused/plays a central role in causing a major diplomatic incident between Ukraine and Russia which is ipso facto significant (i.e. even if you disregarded the current tensions between the two countries). Wingwraith (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apparently the staging of his death bothers you, but that does not give you a policy basis for deleting the article. Prior to the revelation that his death was staged, Babchenko was the subject of obituaries in WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS (e.g. [73], [74], [75]) and therefore meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Zazpot (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, huge media coverage. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lihaas is clearly part of the Russian internet troll army. 207.161.212.123 (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Opinions of this aside, this is objectively a major news story and objectively is receiving significant coverage as a diplomatic incident between Russia and Ukraine. Subjective opinions about Babchenko are not grounds for deleting his article.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment why then was such a notable person's article created before the "assassination"? WP:NOTNEWS vs. "receiving significant coverage" does not constitute encyclopaedic nature thereof. Which of the alleged RS sources verified what they published?

I did clean up the article from POV but it setill is not notable. Lihaas (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nomination is ridiculous. The subject passes GNG by a wide margin (dozens of sources already in the article), and, in addition, is notable as a journalist and as a writer (references have been in the article before the nomination).--Ymblanter (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the talk page discussion demonstrates, the nominator was well aware of the fact that the subject of the article received numerous prizes for his journalist and literary work. I do not think this is a bad-faith nomination, but a trout will be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable by a wide margin even prior to current events, if only for their well received book One Soldier's War that has been published and re-published in multiple languages. Lopifalko (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Clearly Mr. Babchenko is more than "someone who faked their death for attention". Lihaas seems purposefully ignorant on the subject matter, and his motives should be questioned. 94.214.188.129 (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What very strange logic in the nomination. I don't think I've ever seen that before. I can now imagine a new nomination for John Darwin disappearance case. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC) p.s. what exactly is MSM?[reply]
Keep It's an important moment to illustrate Russian aggressive politics and operations in Ukraine. Definitely needs to be keeped. Goo3 (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this argument is invalid.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But the article is presently badly written, and needs a thorough revision. Thomas Peardew (talk) 11:27, 31 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Desserts[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

unsourced advert Wolfson5 (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, in its present form it fails WP:SPIP and WP:NOT. References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Sourcing is hyper-local and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only sourced to company's website since 2008. Tera TIX 03:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jun Kusanagi[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Being called "one of Japan's most prolific and popular photo model/AV stars" by a nn website is an insufficient claim of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable performer of pronography. To be fair Wikipedia is cluttered with articles on such non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree there doesn't seem to be significant noteworthy information cited or available about this person. Misterpottery (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG & all that shizz. –Davey2010^Talk 02:28, 1 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 Richard Marx discography#Compilation albums. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now And Forever: The Ballads[edit]

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

Non-notable album. This album is a compilation album only released in India. Should probably be a redirect to Richard Marx discography#Compilation albums. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep I see no reason for this page to be deleted at all. Plus deleting this page would screw up the chronology links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyeyork (talk • contribs) 22:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremyeyork, you need to show how this record passes WP:NALBUM, not just state your point of view. The chronology links can easily be fixed if this article is deleted, so that's not an issue. Richard3120 (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Existence ≠ notability. So little coverage, a redirect is not necessary here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. A redirect is not useful as the search term "Now and Forever" is likely to be for the song which the album is named after, and the album is unavailable outside a single country. Richard3120 (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Life debt[edit]

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

Wikipedia isn't TVTropes. There's no significant reference material about the concept of a "life debt" and this is just an original research dicdef. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing but original research, and there's no significant coverage of such a concept, or even proof that the term exists outside of Star Wars. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. And, actually, the TV Tropes page is much better. XOR'easter (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The "life for a life" or "I owe you my life" trope is extremely widespread and it seems silly to contemplate gathering all of the places where it has been used into an article. At a minimum, this article needs to be blown up and restarted (possibly under a new title) to discuss this general theme and any scholarly attention it may have received. We encounter it most often in fiction sources; is there evidence that some real cultures had a variant? question asked on stackexchange-history For now, though, this article needs to go. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the StackExchange link found by User:jmcgnh, which demonstrates well that IF this concept occurs outside of fiction and IF such a thing has been documented elsewhere, the documentation of it is hard to find, and we don't have it yet. Vadder (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; this is TVTropes material and there are no references that suggest otherwise. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Andrejić[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Many of the references are just links to their music. Fails WP:NMUSIC. -- Dane ^talk 00:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Falls quite short of notability guidelines. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-promotional article with no evidence of encyclopedic relevance. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 00:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as Drewmutt's reason QuickWittedHare (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Drewmutt. ((u|zchrykng)) ^{T|C} 03:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--IndyNotes (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NMUSIC. 10^Eleventeen 19:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do you even understand Serbian or are you judging it only by all the rest of it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carbotan (talk • contribs) 22:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Striking sock comment -- Dane ^talk 23:07, 1 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.