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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People United Center[edit]

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

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

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 18:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Comment Added find sources AFD template for Spanish name. Bakazaka (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Look to adding this recent notice by a legal foundation in support of Pueblos Unidos Center's efforts, as also this report of the Center's legal actions, by an independent source, and this notice from Europa Press. Jzsj (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "recent notice by a legal foundation" is actually just an event announcement, not an endorsement of any kind. it's publicity for an event.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read on and you'll see the credit that is given (in their bold letters: "This guide is the result of the Foundation's network work with the Pueblos Unidos Center of the San Juan del Castillo Foundation and Pro Bono lawyers,..."). Jzsj (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS, as it is very clear that you do not understand what a reliable source is in this context. An event listing that talks about a publication being launched is not a reliable source. The source in question is reliable support for a claim that the event happened, and that the Jesuits have published a certain book. It lends no notability to the organization itself. While the source includes "Pueblos Unidos Center of the San Juan del Castillo Foundation and Pro Bono lawyers" in a few sentences, it does nothing to establish that the org is notable, as it goes into no depth at all about the org. It is an event listing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:RS do you find comes closest to supporting what you say here? Are you speaking of reliability or notability, since WP:RS never uses you word "depth" and is not a discussion of "notability"? Jzsj (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. (from Wikipedia:Notability). See also Wikipedia:Verifiability for the demands for proper sourcing. And from WP:RS: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The Banner talk 11:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look again at the excerpt and see that others will disagree on whether it fails the criteria you mention here. The mention hardly seems trivial and the source seems reliable. Jzsj (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, are you really unable to understand the meaning of these policies? The Banner talk 15:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Drmies:. Are Banner and I wrong about this?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can tell. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-No reliable independent source that discusses the topic significantly.Mere name-mentions aren't sufficient.∯WBG^converse 11:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Search does not find enough material in independent reliable sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. Bakazaka (talk) 19:37, 7 September 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Brown (internet musician)[edit]

David Brown (internet musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Totality of independent coverage for this YouTuber appears to consist of one third of a Vanity Fair article. Does not meet any applicable notability guidelines. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Boyinaband article has been on my todo list for a while now, and I think there's plenty of independent coverage of him out there, for example, [1] [2] and [3]. I agree that David Brown (internet musician) as it stands currently relies too much on primary sources and doesn't make any indication of notability, but that can be improved. (Note also that the page content of David Brown (internet musician) has previously appeared at Boyinaband, which is currently a redirect to You and What Army, the band that Dave is a member of.) Ahiijny (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. There's more coverage that could be uncovered and added. I do think he's a notable YouTuber. Obviously not on the same level as say, Shane Dawson, but his collaboration with iDubbbz and "Don't Stay in School" got him covered to a degree in news sources. Ss112 18:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect somewhere. Not far from being notable, but there are not enough sources with significant coverage to say that it is at least borderline. I'd like a redirect because it prevents new editors wasting their time on creating an article which already existed, and if I'm not mistaken, Boyinaband used to redirect to You And What Army, I think. I do not know how Asian Jake Paul merits an article, but it's not the focus of this AfD. wumbolo ^^^ 21:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to You and What Army. Sources I could find, and the ones linked above by Ahiijny fail WP:SIGCOV, and it appears WP:TOOSOON for him at the present time. Borderline, but not notable I think. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to You and What Army. Even though his video Don't Stay at School passes WP:GNG, that does not mean that he is notable. Also, if you search up 'Boyinaband' on Google. It just brings up primary sources, which fails WP:RS. The Duke of Nonsense^{What is necessary for thee?} 18:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Ahiijny. Three independent, reliable, secondary sources is just barely enough to pass WP:GNG as well as another source in the article [4]. 344917661X (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It is clearly a "keep". Further discussions related to renaming or content can be taken to the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter suspensions[edit]

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

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

This list of accounts suspended from Twitter isn't notable (and this does not convince me). Thousands upon thousands of accounts have been banned on Twitter, and many tiny incidents have generated a little bit of buzz, mostly routine coverage. Some of the suspensions on this list might belong at Shadowbanning. wumbolo ^^^ 18:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Twitter is unusual due to its high-profile in culture (Trump, George Zimmerman, etc). It's not like getting banned from YouTube or Wikipedia. The list is of notable cases, not every case. At least, the notable cases randomly added. -- GreenC 19:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename - If the rules were being more aggressively followed - in the sense that only blue-linked individuals (etc) who had a reliable source about their banning then I can fully see this is being both a workable and a not unreasonable list. I do however think the list name is a little confusing as-is. "High-profile Twitter suspensions" would make more sense, as well as some needed clean-up. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be much better. And I would still like to be a bit more convinced of the list's notability. wumbolo ^^^ 20:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As touched on on the talk page, if you limit scope to notable individuals only, you exclude high profile purges on e.g. Russian bots etc Deku-shrub (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deku-shrub: Yes, sorry I should have clarified that that statement referred to individuals (I saw the alt-right mention - which clearly has lots of coverage, but would be an odd distinct article) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What "rule"? -- GreenC 23:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Plenty of continuing news coverage regarding Twitter’s policies especially Alex Jones’s permanent suspension from Twitter makes this article extremely relevant and valuable.The lorax (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a valid topic with Twitter actions to suspend accounts (or not) being frequently covered. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that the list should be limited to blue-linked entries, but after reading this entry, I reconsidered:

@nemuismywife | Japanese man | August 2017 | Uses new account | Account permanently suspended for making death threat against a mosquito. The man started a new account.[52][53]

That's too funny to remove :). K.e.coffman (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Nicholls[edit]

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

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

Not a notable newsreader - as the article about her says, she only works part-time. Also, the article has had the tag saying "May not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines" for quite some time now. Vorbee (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY. A Google News searched turned up only one article from Radio Times. Basically little to no coverage, so that fails WP:SIGCOV as well. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 16:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Easy Delete Being a stub is not an issue, but per WP:BLP and WP:GNG article fails on both counts. Shushugah (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lack of reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of source. Even a stub cannot be expanded. GenuineArt (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. News anchors are not handed an automatic free pass over our notability standards for journalists just because their existence can technically be referenced to a staff profile on the self-published website of their own employer: the notability test for a journalist depends on receiving independently-given coverage in media outlets that don't sign her paycheque. But there are literally no other sources being cited here to boost her notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not every news anchor is default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Too few sources. Fails WP:GNG —AE (talk • contributions) 03:25, 8 September 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. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sambhaji Bhide[edit]

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

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

I don't think I've ever seen a more perfect example of WP:BLP1E or WP:NOTNEWS. Zero notability apart from single brouhaha. He does not hold any office of significance nor a major politician. fails WP:NPOL Accesscrawl (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:GNG due to WP:SIGCOV received in multiple media outlets including the BBC. He was already a local leader in the state. Now got highlighted in national news. The person has enough notability that BBC has covered the subject in detail^[1]. BLP1E does not apply here, as the subject has got coverage over a period of several months.-- DBigXrayᗙ 21:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly notable political leader with SIGCOV - per even a cursory search.Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subject passes WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subject passes WP:SIGCOV indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Weak because no official political recognition, keep because coverage looks OK . [5], [6] , [7] . --Adamstraw99 (talk) 16:12, 5 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Verma[edit]

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

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

No assertion of notability for this actor, simply an assertion that he exists and works. (Also an apparent autobio, but that's not grounds for deletion.) Orange Mike | Talk 16:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The two sources cited are not reliable. Also, I did a lot of searches on the subject and was unable two come up with anything that would establish his notability.45.64.242.124 (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article fails WP:NACTOR and is essentially a list of productions he has been in with no evidence of notability, and a link to his personal website. All we know is he exists and that he works in the entertainment industry. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:21, 9 September 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AlterYouth[edit]

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

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

Non-notable startup. Of the cited sources, SD Asia ("creates content about startups", and a co-sponsor of Grameenphone Accelerator) is a press release that contains one sentence about AlterYouth, a startup going through the accelerator. The New Age and The Daily Star articles are based on this press release and add nothing to its one sentence about AlterYouth. Youth Co:Lab (a UNDP initiative) says AlterYouth won a non-notable award. The Ministry of Education pdf supports a general statement about education in Bangladesh. It doesn't mention AlterYouth.

Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, and ProQuest found no independent reliable source containing a depth of coverage that passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Worldbruce (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. A promo page on a startup just going about its business. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too soon. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete likely promo piece, fails NCORP. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above —AE (talk • contributions) 04:33, 8 September 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Villas in Naples[edit]

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

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

Indiscriminate list, not meeting WP:LISTN. Hitro talk 15:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:ATD, no issues that aren't fixable through ordinary editing or redevelopment. I can only guess at the way in which the nominator thinks this is indiscriminate as no explanation is given. Not passing LISTN doesn't mean deletion is necessarily merited unless it's an oddball classification; WP:LISTPURP is more relevant when we have an ordinary list of things by place. Looking at this list's potential as an index, we have five articles apart from this list in Category:Villas in Naples, which may or may not be enough, but many more if we go the next level up by place to Category:Villas in Campania, or even to the country level at Category:Villas in Italy, neither of which have a corresponding list. So this really is the kind of list that shouldn't be brought to AFD, but instead per ATD should be evaluated in terms of either further development at this scope or more broadly. Editors may decide there is justification for listing these at the Naples level because of existing or possible articles, and/or that it should also include entries that don't merit articles, or that it should be expanded to a wider geographic area. A further comment to the nominator: next time you list an article for deletion, don't leave it to the commenters to do this work for you, but instead walk us through the application of the guidelines to the content, and explain if, as here, there are related articles or categories. See WP:BEFORE as well as ATD. Otherwise it looks like a drive-by nomination rather than a thoughtful analysis. postdlf (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what kind of keep !vote was that. Category:Villas in Naples is enough to list notable villas. Still supporting delete. This one is nominated on notability grounds and notability does not require fixation. WP:LISTN is a notability guidelines. Hitro talk 17:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, I'm gathering that you're not understanding. So please take more time to read through the policies and guidelines I cited before responding here, as well as WP:NOTDUP regarding what is "enough" when it comes to lists and categories. postdlf (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fails WP:LISTN, that is my argument, you brought everything else here. I hope you are understanding this. I am resting my case, let the community decide. Hitro talk 18:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pure WP:listcruft(1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 12), this is the only one of it's kind. We are not a directory and we don't need to have a list of this. It's utter garbage and so is the keep argument on this one. For god's sake, stop with the ATD arguments. Would you like it to be blanked instead? Also, the list is incomplete. » Shadowowl | talk 18:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing there showing it passes WP:LISTN (mentions in secondary sources.) If kept, should be moved to List of villas in Naples. SportingFlyer talk 19:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LISTN WP:NOTIINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of non notable places, particularly if they are remotely linked to a business. Ajf773 (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTDIR prohibits directory services, which is a computing thing which has nothing to do with this. A list of notable or noteworthy villas is not indiscriminate by any stretch of the imagination. James500 (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Which ones are notable?? The entries that have articles? I don't see any. This is one thing WP:NOTDIR covers, and not just limited to business contacts. Ajf773 (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of them do have articles here. The article for Villa La Sirena is Villa Donn'Anna, for example. They all have articles on the Italian Wikipedia, as far as I can see. See the corresponding category and page over there. Looking at those articles, I think it is a safe bet that they are all notable. James500 (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. List of cottages in Dorset would make about as much sense. Zoopla might be interested though. SpinningSpark 00:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• if there are books/journal articles out there that discuss Dorset cottages (especially if WP has a number of articles on some individual Dorset cottages:)), by all means create List of cottages in Dorset ditto articles on houses/cottages/villas of other regions/areas. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic certainly passes WP:LISTN. A selection of sources follows. Andrew D. (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Romans on the Bay of Naples: a social and cultural study of the villas and their owners from 150 B.C. to A.D. 400
2. Designing for Luxury on the Bay of Naples: Villas and Landscapes
3. Pompeii and the Roman Villa: Art and Culture Around the Bay of Naples
4. Rambles in Naples: An Archæological and Historical Guide to the Museums, Galleries, Villas, Churches, and Antiquities of Naples and Its Environs
5. Palaces of Naples
6. Roman villas on the bay of Naples
7. Roman Villas in Central Italy: A Social and Economic History

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is near-identical to Andrew's refuted argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of giant animals in fiction (2nd nomination). If he wants to use those sources to create a separate article called Neapolitan villa that perhaps includes a list but is, like those sources, more focused on prose discussion of history, architecture, etc., nothing is stopping him, but he really doesn't seem interested in building the encyclopedia so much as preventing the rest of us from maintaining it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that I haven't read those sources, but I can tell from their titles that, if they are published books, they do not consist purely of a list of names of villas. The reason all of them include titles like that is no doubt that Andrew, as he did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suppression of dissent, also has not read any of them, and simply Googled up a list of scholarly-looking books with titles that sound like they discredit his favourite of the dozen or so valid reasons for deleting Wikipedia pages. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. A list of Roman villas is certainly appropriate: [8]. It satisfies LISTN and every site would be notable. List of Roman villas in Italy should not be red linked. It can be populated to begin with from Category:Roman villas in Italy, and then from the many other sources that exist. Medieval villas would also be appropriate: [9] [10]. As would more recent but historically important villas (there are, for example, in the Category:Villas in Naples a number of palatial examples from the early modern period to nineteenth centuries which look appropriate). And even if Naples was to small we could just expand to a wider area. James500 (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't a list of Roman villas. I suspect that the majority of them are not. I tried googling a couple at random and they both turned out to have articles on Italian Wikipedia; Villa Chierchia and Villa di Grotta Marina, and both of them say they are 17th century. SpinningSpark 13:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Looking at the coverage of those two in GBooks and elsewhere, and at pictures of the buildings, and bearing in mind the later is more commonly "Villa Grotta Marina", I would say that both look suitable for inclusion. The Chierchia looks like a palace, and if these buildings were in England, I would expect them to be listed from their age (pre-1700) alone: [11]. I am under the impression the Italian equivalent to listing is the vincolo: [12]. James500 (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• TNT delete I'm not sure if this topic could, in theory, merit an article, but what is there is pure crap: practically unsourced, terrible English prose, etc. If they really "are many hundreds", then why were these 28, none of which are blue-linked, selected? Is it just a copy-paste job from Carbonaro and Cosenza? Baku really should be cautioned about leaving stuff like this in the mainspace, and perhaps their attention drawn to List of Man'yōshū poets, which spent two months (128 edits) incubating in the user space. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with draftify as well. Or userfy. (Although the fact that the article was created by an it.wiki editor with hardly any history here, and a hilariously anachronistic userpage given when their en.wiki account was first auto-created, might make the latter option paramount to deletion.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lists are usually reserved for lists of notable topics, which this is not. And the topic itself fails GNG. Bradv 16:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't have an opinion on whether or not the topic of Villas in Naples is notable for our purposes, but I find it interesting that the page is not titled as a list page. As such, there could be a case to make that it should be kept but rewritten. In other words, change it into a regular text page that might have an embeddded list at the end, but would be primarily written about the topic, in regular paragraphs. There is certainly no reason that it must be a standalone list. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: If you look closely at the article and its creator, it's pretty obvious that they would not have been capable of writing a prose article on this topic. What little prose is there looks like MT, and the list might very well just be copy-pasted from the one cited source. There are native English speakers with high levels of education arguing "keep" at this AFD, but they just don't seem willing to do the heavy lifting and fix this article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is already significantly improved since the nomination, and whatever can be fixed in any event should not be deleted. postdlf (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TBF, the expansion was a unilateral action by Mortee, several days after the AFD was opened, and only a few hours before I wrote the above (and several hours after Tryptofish wrote the comment to which I was responding), and Mortee wasn't one of the editors I was referring to anyway (I hadn't noticed their "keep" !vote until just now). My original suspicion that the specifically cherry-picked list (are these the only ones that have articles on it.wiki?) was copy-pasted from a copyrighted source still stands, even if Mortee's first edit fixed it by changing the order around. I haven't examined Mortee's expansion of the article otherwise, so I have no opinion on whether my "TNT delete because the article that's there is pure garbage" is still valid, but the validity my reply to Tryptofish is not affected by Mortee's expansion at all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. At this point, I'm persuaded that the page should be kept, and improved to be a non-list page that may contain an embedded list. I don't think that the creator of the page should be determinative of a deletion decision, because a flawed page can be fixed, and I'm seeing enough evidence of coverage of the history of architectural style that I'm satisfied that the topic is notable and encyclopedic. I think the problem here is that the page started out looking like a standalone list page, which is something that it should not be. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article itself referenced a book dedicated to the subject of villas in Naples, so I don't see a notability problem. I've added some blue links and some prose on the ancient history, sourced to another book. No doubt someone with access to the original reference can add a section on the later history. I may expand it further myself from other sources. Having a list appended isn't a good reason to delete a stub on a notable subject. Some surprising hostility in a couple of !votes above... it's just an encyclopedia. › Mortee _talk 20:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fine as category, but as an article it doesn't really work. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep, meets WP:LISTN, as "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" ie. some books that discuss napoli villas include: Designing for Luxury on the Bay of Naples: Villas and Landscapes - "Through an analysis of five villas from around the bay of Naples (c. 100 BCE - 79 CE), the volume shows that in designing for luxury, Romans developed a sophisticated interplay between architecture and landscape, an interplay which is still seen in architectural design today." (could probably have a wikiarticle on this book with reviews here, here, here, here), Italian splendor : palaces, castles, and villas (discusses 2 Napoli villas), Palaces of Naples - "Thirty estates and palaces are featured here, each with its own style and its own story.", Romans on the Bay of Naples; a social and cultural study of the villas and their owners from 150 B.C. to A.D. 400 (another wikianotable-enough-for-an-article book, with reviews here, here, here, here), Italian villas and palaces, and Leisure & luxury in the age of Nero: the villas of Oplontis near Pompeii. ps. i'm not sure why some editors suggest that a category is a good replacement for some list articles, i thought they are generally only useful for/used by editors and not readers (if i am wrong please send me a fish or three:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A list of notable (or even itwiki notable - this being the sort of thing one would expect better coverage of in Italian) villas in Naples most certainly meets NLIST, and is discussed as a set.Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article fails WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:GNG. There are no sources demonstrating this is a notable topic or evidence that such a list is necessary or appropriate for the given topic. This list is really just a list of fancy houses of a particular style in an arbitrarily chosen urban setting. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand on why the sources given don't cover the GNG? These include a book on current villas in Naples as a collective and two on the Roman villas there, which is part of the subject of the article. 'Listcruft' is an essay and 'listen' suggests you think other !voters are disruptively failing to pay attention to an existing consensus; I take it that notability is your main deletion argument. › Mortee _talk 14:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article violates WP:Listcruft (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 12), and I don't feel there are significant reliable sources demonstrating this is a notable topic, including the books you mentioned. Ancient Roman fancy houses aren't exactly relevant to a list of modern fancy houses in Naples. It just gives the article a veneer of notability, when there are villas all over the world and we don't have tons of lists of them on Wikipedia. It's also pretty much a WP:SYNTH argument to try to connect ancient villas and modern villas as far as I can tell. Including the Listen policy was a mistake and I apologize for including it. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have numerous articles on individual villas. Some are in Naples. So we categorize them under Category:Villas in Naples and list them here. That seems very straightforward and simple to me, particularly when we have such a basic list of things by location. The essay LISTCRUFT gives no useful guidance; the relevant consensus-supported guidelines are WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN. And that's all without even getting into WP:LISTN, though a credible argument has been made that this would also get a pass on that guideline too, which is sufficient though not necessary. postdlf (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: meets WP:LISTN; all entries are Wiki pages (en.wiki / it.wiki). Sources are sufficient for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 10 September 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. Cunard's thorough analysis of sources has not been rebuffed by the earlier !voters. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Health Insurance Innovations[edit]

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

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

Promotional article, all references are mere notices, listings, or PR sites DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article fails WP:NCORP and is nothing more then a promotional piece for the company. Being listed on a stock exchange doesn't automatically make a company notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --MarioGom (talk)`

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  
  From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

  There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

  
  
  Analyst reports
  
  
  1. This 3 April 2013 article^{Internet Archive} from Investor's Business Daily notes that Health Insurance Innovations "specializes in 12-month Short-Term Medical plans, or STMs." It notes:

     As demand for STMs rises, Health Insurance Innovations should see opportunities to grow its business, analysts say.

     ...

     "However, it does offer healthy individuals a way to protect against major claims at a fraction of the cost of other insurance alternatives," [Carl McDonald, an analyst at Citigroup] noted in a recent report initiating coverage on Health Insurance Innovations.

     ...

     "The company has a timely opportunity to strengthen and build its network of distributors, while navigating the looming changes from health insurance expansion in 2014," Credit Suisse analyst Glen Santangelo noted in a recent report on the stock.

     ...

     Analyst Santangelo cites its "highly scalable" proprietary technology, a competitive edge in pricing and distributor economics, and a low market share of the individual insurance market that allows plenty of room to grow.

     The company also has "a large cross-selling opportunity with core customers and ancillary products, and a significant runway to add distributors," Santangelo said.

  2. This 11 September 2017 article^archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:

     Cantor Fitzgerald analyst Steven Halper again defended Health Insurance Innovations (NASDAQ: HIIQ) after a negative article was posted at moxreports.com.

     ...

     He added, "We believe the weakness in HIIQ shares today is mostly unfounded. Moxreports published a negative article on HIIQ today. The article attempts to extrapolate from past settlements, what the company's liability would be ."from a "tidal wave of fraud investigations, lawsuits and cease and desist orders." Much of the concern relates to an ongoing 42-state investigation into operating practices, which was previously disclosed. The other issue relates to the company's license as a third-party administrator (TPA) in Florida. The company's application was denied on June 1. In its public filings, the company has indicated that "a final hearing on the matters has been scheduled for October 17-20, 2017, but the company is working with the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) to reach a mutually agreeable resolution of the matter prior to the hearing, including discussing whether the OIR will require the Company to hold such a license at all." We agree that the letter from the OIR does not read well and highlights several shortcomings by the company during the licensing process. Finally, the article indicates that insiders have been selling stock despite these issues. We note that the company's CFO, Michael Hershberger has a pre-arranged 10b5-1 plan in place to sell shares which mostly removes any discretion from the timing of sales. We have spoken to the company and management intends to host an investor/analyst call later today."

  3. This 1 March 2018 article^archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:

     Cantor Fitzgerald raised its price target on Health Insurance Innovations (NASDAQ: HIIQ) to $60.00 (from $38.00) while maintaining a Overweight rating.

     Analyst Steven Halper comments "We expect HIIQ to continue to benefit from solid demand for its alternative individual health insurance products. We believe the recent HHS rule proposal, which aims to lengthen the maximum period of short-term policies, is positive as well."

  4. This 12 February 2018 article^archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:

     B.Riley/FBR initiates coverage on Health Insurance Innovations (NASDAQ: HIIQ) with a Buy rating and a price target of $38.00.

     Analyst Randy Binner commented, "We are initiating coverage of Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. (HIIQ) with a Buy rating and a 12-month price target of $38 per share. The target is based on a peer multiple of 16x on 2019E EPS of $2.35. This target equates to an 8.7x EV/EBITDA multiple on 2019E, compared to peers at 9.4x. We believe the stock is set up to deliver on several positive regulatory and financial catalysts. Because of the regulatory overhang, valuation is very attractive on a risk/reward basis, in our opinion, with a 4:1 upside/downside outlook."

  5. This 12 September 2017 article^archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:

     Canaccord Genuity analyst Richard Close reiterated a Buy rating and $39 price target on Health Insurance Innovations (NASDAQ: HIIQ).

     Close said the company should win back confidence as regulatory issues resolve, although it will take time. The analyst says closing these items of concern ought to win back investor confidence.

     This 12 September 2017 article^archive.is from TheFly about the same analyst report notes:

     Canaccord analyst Richard Close believes Health Insurance Innovations' outstanding regulatory issues will be resolved without a meaningful impact on the business, but said it could take time and remain an overhang until this is settled. Close maintains a Buy rating and said the next likely catalysts for shares would be a resolution to the Florida third-party administrator license application situation.

  6. This 10 October 2017 article^archive.is from TheFly notes:

     Canaccord analyst Richard Close noted the Wall Street Journal reported President Trump intends to sign an executive order to roll back certain insurance regulations, which could have a direct benefit to Health Insurance Innovations' business. The order would seek to reverse the Obama-era rule on short-term medical insurance, which limited the duration to no longer than three months, and revert it back to the previous duration of one-year. Close reiterated his Buy rating and $39 price target on Health Innovations shares.

  7. This 15 February 2018 article^archive.is from TheFly notes:

     Canaccord analyst Richard Close noted Health Insurance Innovations received a third-party administrator license in Florida, which he said removes a key risk to its story. The analyst said it removes the question as to whether the company can continue to operate in Florida and views it as a significant positive with respect to investors' sentiment. Close expects the shares to react positively and he reiterated his Buy rating and $39 price target on Health Insurance Innovations shares, which are up about 7.5% to $29.10 in pre-market trading.

  8. This 1 March 2018 article^archive.is from TheFly notes:

     Lake Street analyst Mark Argento raised his price target for Health Insurance Innovations to $50 citing the company's "strong" Q4 and fiscal 2018 guidance. The analyst recommends being an "aggressive buyer" of the stock due to Health Insurance's "strong fundamentals, attractive relative valuation, and a positive regulatory environment." He reiterates a Buy rating on the shares.

  9. This 3 August 2018 article^archive.is from TheFly notes:

     Raymond James analyst C. Gregory Peters reiterated his Outperform rating on Health Insurance Innovations and raised his price target on shares to $55 from $38, saying he is encouraged by management's views that an agreement with regulators related to the multistate examination may potentially be reached in Q3. The analyst added that he believes the company is positioned to handle a potential fine, given its substantial cash position.

  https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NASDAQ/HIIQ/price-target/^WebCite contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

  Date	Brokerage	Action	Rating	Price Target	Impact on Share Price	Details
  8/16/2018	Cantor Fitzgerald	Reiterated Rating	Buy	$65.00	High	Paywall link
  8/7/2018	B. Riley	Boost Price Target	Buy ➝ Buy	$45.00 ➝ $56.00	Low	Paywall link
  8/2/2018	Canaccord Genuity	Reiterated Rating	Buy	$55.00 ➝ $62.00	Low	Paywall link
  3/1/2018	Lake Street Capital	Boost Price Target	Buy	$50.00	Low	Paywall link
  3/1/2018	Craig Hallum	Reiterated Rating	Buy	$38.00 ➝ $45.00	High	Paywall link
  3/1/2018	Raymond James	Upgrade	Market Perform ➝ Outperform	$34.60	High	Paywall link
  3/1/2018	UBS Group	Upgrade	Neutral ➝ Outperform	$38.00	High	Paywall link
  10/17/2017	Northland Securities	Reiterated Rating	Buy	$37.00	N/A	Paywall link
  3/3/2017	First Analysis	Initiated Coverage	Overweight ➝ Overweight		N/A	Paywall link

  
  
  Other sources
  
  

  1. Dieterich, Chris (2013-02-08). "Health Insurance Innovations Slips Post-IPO". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-09-08. Retrieved 2018-09-08.

     The article notes:

     Investors appeared hesitant to bet on big gains for low-cost insurance provider Health Insurance Innovations Inc. HIIQ 5.67% Its shares slid in their public trading debut.

     ...

     The Tampa, Fla., company sells short-term health insurance plans online using health questionnaires that allow it to make immediate acceptance and rejection decisions.

     ...

     Health Insurance Innovations' focus is fixed-term, 12- or six-month medical-insurance plans, lower-cost alternatives to traditional insurance plans, which are renewable. Its products are underwritten by insurance carriers including Cigna Corp. , among others, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

     The company's customer base is the uninsured—about 50 million people in the U.S. in 2010, according to the census bureau—as well as those that require stopgap insurance options, such as new graduates or the recently divorced.

  2. Cariaga, Vance (2013-04-03). "Health Insurance Innovations Eyes Boost From ObamaCare". Investor's Business Daily. Archived from the original on 2018-09-08. Retrieved 2018-09-08.

     The article notes:

     One of those specialists, Health Insurance Innovations (HIIQ), is an online insurance company that connects insurance carriers, brokers, agents and consumers to its portfolio of health-insurance-related products.

     ...

     Although Health Insurance Innovations was founded only five years ago, its management team, including Chief Executive Mike Kosloske, has decades of experience in the business.

     The company had about 58,000 total policies in force at the end of 2012, including those that did not involve STM enrollment. That figure was up from 30,000 the prior year. In a fourth-quarter earnings report, management said its distribution network at the end of the year included 46 licensed agent call centers, 262 wholesalers and more than 8,275 licensed brokers.

  3. Trigaux, Robert (2016-06-13). "Will an Obama policy change squeeze Tampa's Health Insurance Innovations out of its key market?". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2018-09-08. Retrieved 2018-09-08.

     The article notes:

     Shares in an 8-year-old Tampa insurance company that administers short-term medical plans dropped to an all-time low Monday following last week's proposed change in federal rules governing its business, as well as an analyst's downgrade.

     Health Insurance Innovations, which went public in 2013 and now employs nearly 200, saw its shares top $15 early that year. ...

     The company's latest trouble began last week when the Obama administration said it wants to limit short-term health policies that allowed healthier consumers to purchase 365-day plans as a cheaper substitute for plans offered by the Affordable Care Act, or ACA. A proposed rule setting a three-month limit that would go into effect in 2017 was issued Wednesday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

     A day later, Raymond James analyst Steven Schwartz downgraded the stock of Health Insurance Innovations to market perform from strong buy, prompting an additional 20 percent drop in shares. "We expect significant industry pushback and believe that an industry legal response will be likely if the proposal is adopted in its current form," Schwartz said.

  4. Pear, Robert (2018-08-06). "Trump's Short-Term Health Insurance Policies Quickly Run Into Headwinds". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-09-08. Retrieved 2018-09-08.

     The article notes:

     Lori Wing-Heier, the director of the Alaska Insurance Division, received complaints from consumers in 2015 about telephone solicitations by a Florida company offering short-term plans. At the time, she said, the company, Health Insurance Innovations, and agents selling its products were not licensed in Alaska.

     Insurance executives tried to reassure regulators. Gavin Southwell, the chief executive and president of Health Insurance Innovations since 2016, told commissioners on Sunday that “we have invested tens of millions of dollars to ensure that consumers” receive good service and accurate information.

     The company said last year that it had retained former Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a former chief executive of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, to provide advice on compliance.

  5. Manning, Margie (2018-06-08). "Founder of Tampa health insurance company is out". Tampa Bay Business Journal. Retrieved 2018-09-08.

     The article notes:

     Michael Kosloske, the founder of Health Insurance Innovations Inc., no longer works for the company, according to a regulatory filing.

     ...

     Kosloske founded Health Insurance Innovations (NASADQ: HIIQ) in 2008, and was chairman, president and CEO until 2015, when he gave up the president and CEO roles. He stepped down as chairman in November 2017, but remained chief of product innovation at the Tampa company, which develops, distributes and administers cloud-based individual health and family insurance plans and supplemental products in the United States.

     It is one of the smaller public companies headquartered in the Tampa Bay area, but has a high-profile stock and was the area's best-performing stock in 2016. Its stock price increased as its products were seen as an attractive alternative to Affordable Care Act health plans.

  6. Manning, Margie (2016-12-29). "How a health insurance provider became Tampa Bay's top stock performer in 2016". Tampa Bay Business Journal. Retrieved 2018-09-08.

     The article notes:

     Health Insurance Innovations (NASDAQ: HIIQ) stock closed Dec. 23 at $17.50 a share, up $10.83 from the opening price of $6.67 a share on Jan. 4. The 162.4 percent gain made Health Insurance Innovations the best-performing stock of 2016 among Tampa Bay public companies.

     ...

     HII, headquartered in Tampa, develops, distributes and administers cloud-based individual health and family insurance plans and supplemental products in the United States. It takes no insurance risk and pays no claims, an investor presentation said. (See the presentation embedded below.)

     Instead, the company works with insurance carriers to design and structure the products and markets them through an internal and external distribution network.

     The stock started to pick up steam after a late October announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services that limited short-term health plans to less than three months, effective Jan. 1. HII’s short-term medical plans cover individuals for up to 12 months.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Health Insurance Innovations to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The analyst reports from Cantor Fitzgerald, B. Riley (FBR Capital Markets), Canaccord Genuity, Lake Street Capital, Craig Hallum, Raymond James Financial, UBS, Northland Securities, and First Analysis are sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations.

  Cunard (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I reviewed the article and do not consider it to be particularly promotional.

  Cunard (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the article includes none of the sources above that offer any criticism oft he company, and carefully avoid using the phrase "short-term" insurance. That's why I listed it here, as it seems entirely the product of PR, and not very subtle PR at that.. It would require a complete rewrite in order to be nPOV. That's even reason for deletion by Speedy G11. In Cunard thinks it isfixable, this is best shown by fixing it.

and the statement above about publiclly traded corporations has been shown to be inaccurate by the tens of thousands of deletions here. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Coverage in Bloomberg and Reuters among others. Article surely needs work done on it, but the subject appears to pass WP:GNG. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to remove WP:CRYSTALBALL material and original research. No consensus for a rename. No consensus for a specific maintenance/cleanup tag to note that the article contains original research and/or crystal ball material. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 15:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secession in Russia[edit]

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

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

Wikipedia does what-if articles now? Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Entirely crystal ball-ish article, with the little info it presents being mostly synthesis material. Only four sources are used (all of them in Russian), and the various statements they seem to reference are seemingly forcibly put together in the article to try to imply that this is an event which is more relevant and likely to happen than it actually is. Not notable as per WP:NEVENTS either. Impru20^talk 17:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I considered AFD-ing this article when it was created, but instead moved it to its current title (from the more-CRYSTAL "Dissolution of Russia"). I think an article similar to Partition and secession in California could be written on the topic (beyond simply repeating content about the Dissolution of the Soviet Union), but I don't have sources; the existing article may have enough POV/SYNTH issues to justify deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably keep as the topic of seccession is notable. The treatment is almost entirely CRYSTAL and there is very little salvageable, but I'm generally not a fan of the WP:TNT argument. Wikidata leads to ru:Распад России ("Breakup of Russia"), which is obviously the source of the what-if scenarios -- a much better article could be written on the basis of ru:Сепаратизм в России ("Separatism in Russia"), which doesn't have an en.wp interwiki link. Hopefully a Russian speaker will step in and get it done. Daß Wölf 02:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but perhaps rename to Dissolution of Russia. This is notable concept; passes GNG. There is nothing wrong with futurology subjects. Page exists on three other languages. My very best wishes (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. According to WP:Crystal, Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions.. Not only this subject is perfectly verifiable (can be sourced to multiple RS), but it is also not a speculation/presumption, but a scientific hypothesis. My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable and verifiable. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL. I was not able to find sufficient reliable sources that discuss the hypothetical dissolution. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources are largely scholarly and ref [1], which is directly on this subject, has a section "Review of recent literature" (google translate) which shows that there is a body of scholarly literature on this. Those participants who have failed to find sources in Engish should read WP:NOENG. SpinningSpark 00:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Spinningspark's and L3X1's arguments. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 19:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Mine's more a statement of what I perceive to be facts than an argument, though. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, I've corrected. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 11:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep due to passing WP:V and WP:GNG overall – but remove anything that is WP:OR, unsourced, or WP:CRYSTAL. Redditaddict69 09:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable topic, meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:30, 7 September 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. czar 23:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Freire Institute, Malta[edit]

Paulo Freire Institute, Malta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, looks like a fundraising page The Banner talk 16:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is an organization that provides vocational training and other community classes, not a regular academic school, so it needs to meet WP:ORGCRIT AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Analysis of existing sources, which demonstrates the promotional natrue of the article and its complete failure of GNG or ORGCRIT{:

1. Routledge book source that has half a sentence on the centre offering cooking classes. Fails ORGCRIT
2. A Word document called "Parents Education and Counselling Project Socrates - Grundtvig 2, Learning Partnership". Fail ORGCRIT.
3. Dead link.
4. Local shopping guide "wowCity" that shows the address of the institute. No coverage at all. Fails ORGCRIT
5. A separate non-profit progam description that included three words: Paolo Feire Institute. fails ORGCRIT
6. A news article relating to $700 raised for the institute by runners.
7. A Jesuits in Malta page... not independent, so fails WP:ORGCRIT.
8. Another Jesuits in Malta page.
9. A news article about how Vodaphone is supporting a book published by the institute. Minor coverage.
10. A few sentences in a Malta government report that mentions the institute. Not in-depth, fails ORGCRIT.

ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which CSD criteria would you apply here? TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G11, unless I am wrong about speedy. this is because the glowing text of the article has been produced from probably less than 200 words of actual source coverage. It's advertising copy. It's obvious the emperor has no clothes.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article fails WP:ORGCRIT as explained source by source by ThatMontrealIP. The article is heavily promotional and has the pretty overt air of trying to solicit donations to the origination. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:19, 8 September 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. czar 23:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Hollis[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG. Only source providing significant coverage is The real stars of LaVar Ball’s league are the players chasing a dream. Other sources provide trivial coverage, like stat lines, passing mentions, or at most one quote from Hollis. Runningibis (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG. In addition to the SB Nation article, which is significant coverage, there is also the Chicago Sun-Times piece, which isn't specifically about Hollis but gives him some attention. Also there is this. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Editorofthewiki: The Chicago Sun-Times article just briefly mentions Hollis, with one quote and three total sentences about him. The Unique Sports article should not even be considered, because it isn't reliable and often publishes puff pieces for the JBA and the Ball family (examples: [13] and [14]). So to me, the only article providing significant coverage is the SB Nation piece, which isn't nearly enough coverage to warrant an article. Given that info, please provide some additional justification for keeping this article. Runningibis (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don’t see significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Everything I see is routine (game summaries, etc) or non-independent. Rikster2 (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:NHOOPS by playing in LaVar Ball's fledgling Junior Basketball Association. Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. SBNation can be selectively reliable depending on the writer, but they still use a lot of amateur bloggers. If notability relies strongly on an SBNation source with few other alternative sources of coverage, it's usually an indication to me the subject is not notable.—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In addition to the other sources, I was able to dig up this article from the Hutchison News and this profile pice by a former editor at Rivals.com. This article in the Dallas Morning Mews extensively mentions Hollis. There was also an interview with D1 Circuit. Hollis definitely meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”Hoopseen” is a company that puts on HS tournaments (click “About” at the bottom of the page) - it isn’t an independent source. The other article is at least about Hollis and from an independent source, but one fairly short piece about a local boy signing a pro deal doesn’t establish notability IMO. Rikster2 (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same concerns about Hoopseen independence. Also not sure about it's reliability, and I'm not comfortable anyways using these niche, non-mainstream sites for notability (unlike projects like pro wrestling). The Dallas Morning News link was a one-off about a youth summer camp he went to for football, which doesn't help build content for his primary basketball career. I had seen the Hutchinson article before in my search, and still do not think it all collectively is enough significant coverage. His college coverage is not sufficient, and his pro career has not been notable.—Bagumba (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete way below our absurdly broad notability guidelines for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Why do so many people think every JBA player is notable? This is another case of routine sports coverage and a failure to meet WP:NHOOPS. Sandals1 (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article fails WP:NHOOPS because playing in the fledgling Junior Basketball Association is not in any way notable. The professional career section also relies heavily on individual game scores and personal scores, which make Hollis seem more important then he is, when in reality his as yet minor pro career is just starting out. The sources in the article are almost all either brief mentions or WP:ROUTINE coverage. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:37, 8 September 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. Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes[edit]

Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unnecessary content fork whose "sources" are all selected comic strips. The first AfD was over ten years ago with a result to merge (which I proposed this time, but it was opposed), but that apparently didn't happen; in addition, the same issues appear to exist. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- While there is no question that this page needs an overhaul, the secondary characters in C&H are notable enough, and varied enough, to have their own page. My fear would be that the main article would be bloated by trying to put the onus on it to hold the secondary characters information, which will undoubtedly occur as editors will see the need to insert more and more. Indeed, I semi-proposed in the merge discussion mentioned by Erpert (which I opposed) that the "Secondary Characters" section of the main article should be deleted or its information moved to this page to make both the main article and this one better, as the source used in the main article (the 10th Anniversary Book) is a RS as it is not just the strips but also Watterson's commentary and thoughts. Deleting the Secondary Characters page would, imo, have the unintended (though not unforeseeable) effect of risking the main article getting worse. I say fix this one as much as possible. It may not ever be perfect, but it can get better. But don't risk the integrity of the main C&H page or the inevitable edit wars that will happen as editors think that "this" information needs to be in and others don't. What's the old phrase? Cutting off the nose to spite the face? Vyselink (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If you think the article should instead be fixed, well, why don't you do so? (FYI: the !votes in AfD discussions are "keep" and "delete", not "support" and "oppose".) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  A) Thank you for the notice on keep/oppose. I have changed it. B) I may very well try to get to helping fix the article, however, even should I not, it does not invalidate my opinion on this thread. Vyselink (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Calvin and Hobbes is indisputably notable, discussing the cast of characters is an important part of covering a work of fiction, and in this case it's reasonable to separate that discussion. The set of Calvin and Hobbes secondary characters is collectively notable, even if individuals in that set don't have sources devoted to them. AfD is not cleanup. XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to Calvin and Hobbes#Secondary characters Huge WP:OR fest of strip narrative/analysis which needs to go away. Maybe the current section could be expanded, but not from this. Mangoe (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Mangoe--no secondary sources in the article present does make this a WP:OR/WP:NOT-fest. --Izno (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Mangoe. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redirecting is fine as well, but I don't think this is a likely search term. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - To keep the descriptions concise on the main page for Calvin and Hobbes, and also because the strip is significant enough for each character to have a healthy description of him/herself. Songwaters (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThe strip is significant enough to need this kind of "fork", and if it is deleted or merged, the main article will become bloated. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: could use some concision, but this is a valid topic and stand-alone article is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, particularly with regard to what others have said about this as a necessary fork to avoid main article bloat. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Mangoe » Shadowowl | talk 18:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I removed some cruft and added some references. XOR'easter (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • More cruft removed, more references added. XOR'easter (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Changed vote to Redirect per User:Mangoe. All characters on that page, just not that specific section. Clarification may need to be made. Redditaddict69 01:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - In-universe fan cruft. Carrite (talk) 09:49, 8 September 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. czar 23:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrad Ghadir Zadeh[edit]

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

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

Not meeting WP:NGYMNAST or WP:NHOOPS. English references have passing mentions or do not mention him at all. Deleted recently at Persian Wiki Hitro talk 15:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: per above. zero result in Persian.Farhikht (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG, no coverage. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough coverage. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:56, 6 September 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. czar 23:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isom Butler[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG. Only potentially non-trivial mentions are Isom Butler: A lockdown defender and an improving scorer and four sentences in What to Expect from LaVar Ball’s JBA League. Neither articles are from a reputed source. Note that stat lines, passing mentions, etc. do not count as significant coverage. Also, Butler cannot be deemed notable because he was a nominee for the McDonald's All-American Game, as 48 other players in Southern California and countless more across the nation were nominated as well. Runningibis (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don’t see significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Everything I see is routine (game summaries, etc) or non-independent. Rikster2 (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per my original PROD reason: "Does not meet WP:NHOOPS. Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Predominantly trivial mentions in sources." I am disappointed that Editorofthewiki, a long-time editor of lots of quality content, deprodded with the non-notable reason of "mcdonalds aa nominee".—Bagumba (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in addition to the sources mentioned above, there are also several Press Enterprise articles and this Lonzo Wire piece. Re to Bagumba I was not stating that being a McDonalds aa nominee makes him notable, but it is a reason why it should not be prodded. This is the correct venue. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Editorofthewiki: The Lonzo Wire article, as well as all of the Press Enterprise articles, just mention Butler once and/or are game summaries. Your definition of "significant coverage" seems too broad. Runningibis (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It would have been more effective to give a plausible reason why the subject was notable when you deprodded, and attempt to avoid an AfD altogther. Alas, I still maintain that the coverage is not significant enough.—Bagumba (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete He definitely fails WP:NHOOPS and the coverage I find either isn't significant or is what I'd call routine sports reporting.Sandals1 (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article fails WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG because there is a lack of sufficient significant reliable source coverage of him. Passing mentions and WP:ROUTINE game coverage do not establish notability, nor do the obscure sources mentioned above that did give him more of a focus in their content. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:49, 8 September 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh K. Pandey[edit]

Ramesh K. Pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

References provided seem to be only mentions-in-passing. With all this ref bombing it can be hard to tell. Nothing cited in the article counts towards WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better online. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable individual. This is far from the depth or persistence of coverage demanded by even basic compliance with WP:ANYBIO. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was going to nominate this myself a few days ago but notability tagged it instead. Subject does not meet GNG and the article is likely a violation of PROMO. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - promotional article; does not meet WP:GNG. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete-Not a promotional article, hence it is better to modify and keep it short. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.198.175.167 (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO since it fails to prove the individual is notable, and it is highly promotional. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:49, 8 September 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. czar 23:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Niles Malone[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG. The only non-trivial source on Malone I could find was Straight-shooting Niles Malone. Note that statlines, passing mentions, etc. are considered trivial. Runningibis (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You forgot about this article. Meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Editorofthewiki: That article by Lonzo Wire is entirely based on a piece by Fresh Sports Talk, a site run by a commentator paid by the JBA, so it technically isn't independent. Fresh Sports Talk is also unreliable, because most of its articles are simply puff pieces for LaVar Ball and his family and brand (examples: [15] and [16]). Regardless, only two articles covering a player that is otherwise not notable is probably not enough to warrant an article. Given that info, please provide some additional justification for your "keep" vote. Runningibis (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, but just because it is based on the Fresh Sports piece doesn't mean you should discount it since it is an independent article- a secondary source based on a primary source. There were also several other LonzoWire articles and this article in La Voz News. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Editorofthewiki: The new article you brought up is essentially a game summary. The Lonzo Wire article would be good if they actually did original research, but it appears that they just summarized what the unreliable and non-independent Fresh Sports Talk piece said. There were no other Lonzo Wire articles that covered Malone in depth. Runningibis (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don’t see significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Everything I see is routine (game summaries, etc) or non-independent. Rikster2 (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:NHOOPS by playing in LaVar Ball's fledgling Junior Basketball Association. Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources.—Bagumba (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not seeing significant coverage from multiple independent sources. Rlendog (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article fails WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG due to lacking coverage from multiple independent and significant reliable sources. Passing mentions and stat lines are trivial and do not help meet any notability guidelines. Newshunter12 (talk) 13:19, 8 September 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 Cadet Sisters. Mentioned by name in the parent article, so is a likely search term. czar 23:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Cadet[edit]

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

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

Does not seem to be independently notable from Cadet Sisters, who look to be only marginally notable anyway. Suggest delete or redirect to Cadet Sisters. Edwardx (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per the nom. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article fails WP:GNG as reliable independent sources do not indicate she is independently notable from the minor band she was a part of, the Cadet Sisters. Most of the claims in the article are also unsourced and her academic history is not worth redirecting in my opinion. Newshunter12 (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming at the 2014 South American Games – Women's 100 Meter Breaststroke[edit]

Swimming at the 2014 South American Games – Women's 100 Meter Breaststroke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an article about a specific competition that occurred in an event that isn't very well known or notable outside of South America. The article is a quick summary of what the event is, and then the results, which can be found elsewhere and don't belong in an encyclopedia. Also, no pages link to it ouside of one redirect I made to fix the title. Beasting123 (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, speedy close. No policy- or guideline-based reasons stated for deletion. Established practice is that event-by-event listings are maintained as separate pages to avoid clumsy, oversized omnibus articles, and nominator provides no justification whatsoever for disregarding this practice -- or for removing only one of the 37 similar articles for this competition, to say nothing of prior and subsequent years. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the implied reason for deletion is that the page is a violation of WP:NOT; this can be viewed as a test-case for a (much wider) deletion if there's consensus that it is a violation. I don't see it; Wikipedia also functions as an almanac and these tables are found in almanacs; having separate pages rather than a single Swimming at the 2014 South American Games page is an editorial decision that shouldn't depend on notability hoops. There is a bit of a circular "keep this article because we keep this article", but until there's a convincing reason to delete, I'm fine with that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No real deletion argument has been presented. Saying that it's not notable outside of South America is not true. This is part of a larger series of a notable sporting event. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Just going to add that if this is kept, it should be moved back to Swimming at the 2014 South American Games – Women's 100 metre breaststroke. Althought he move was made in good faith, it appears to have been an unnecessary one which is contrary to the naming/capitalization convention followed for other similar athletic event articles thoughout the encyclopedia. Whether it's worth keep this title as a redirect is probably something which should be discussed, but there's nothing wrong with "metre" and no need to change it to "meter" per WP:RETAIN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 2 September 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. Also noting no mention of Punjabi source searches—worth considering in the future. czar 23:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Sultan[edit]

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

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

In May 2018, I nom this BLP for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Sultan. However it was kept even though there was not a single policy based arguments in favour of keeping the page. I also raised my concerns before the closing admin at User_talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maria_Sultan.

I'm renominating this for deletion because being Director General of the South Asian Strategic Stability Institute is not in itself grounds for notability and I still believe the subject fails to meet GNG. G'search does produce namecheck type of press coverage which longstanding practice holds cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. Saqib (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now. It is too early for WP entry. She is name-checked by multiple source but fails to satisfy WP criteria of significant in-depth coverage. She was also involved in fake degree case. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Most sources in the article are either profiles or are not independent of her. There is also no indication from reliable sources that she is a notable figure. Having interesting jobs does not make someone notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Coverage exists in quotes and passing mentions which is not presently enough per WP:GNG. Rzvas (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I am unable to find evidence that she meets either GNG or WP:NPROF: mentions of her in the media are largely describing her opinion on something, and her work is not widely cited. I'm a bit hesitant because she is being quoted by mainstream news media in multiple countries, but I don't think that's quite enough for notability. Vanamonde (talk) 19:02, 8 September 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 Renault Kangoo. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renault Kangoo (Argentina)[edit]

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

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

Does this car warrant an article in it's own right, I don't think so suggest merge the content if necessary into Renault Kangoo XyzSpaniel Talk Page 13:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Author had previous warning and block and has subsequently been indefinitely blocked so I would suggest that this page be merged/redirected into Renault Kangoo XyzSpaniel Talk Page 18:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only difference is that now it's a rebadged Dacia Dokker, instead of the European Kangoo. It can be explained with a hat note in Renault Kangoo, as well as a section with a quick explanation linking to Dacia Dokker. --Pc13 (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Capra Craig[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:CRIME (notable only in context of crime). No suitable article for merge. TeraTIX 13:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. TeraTIX 13:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as laid out by nom. Additionally, coverage was fairly typical didn't really satisfy LASTING and is not especially encyclopedic. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:BLP1E of a person notable only in the context of a crime where she was found not criminally liable for mental health reasons — thus violating WP:PERP as this has had no enduring significance to justify the invasion of her family's privacy rights. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat it violates BLP1E and PERP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons Bearcat puts well.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no lasting coverage. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above.BabbaQ (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No WP:LASTING impact. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:54, 8 September 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) KCVelaga (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lay Association for Development[edit]

Lay Association for Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 11:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussion of unrelated issue collapsed into box above. Please stick to notability issues in AfD discussion, not article content disputes.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ,ajr internation organization, with a good number of sources. Most of them are clearly not related to thesubject, and are sufficiently substantial. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, along with the addition of this recent coverage by CNA and this and this from Ecclesia news. Jzsj (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha, here we go again: the announcement of a training, an article not mentioning the organisation and an announcement of a new mission. None of them discusses the organisation in-depth. The Banner talk 21:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please omit the second reference, I got it confused with the third. But you might help by adding the other two simply to update the article. Jzsj (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Why should I add "sources" that are irrelevant? The Banner talk 22:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Searching for this organisation under its Portuguese title I found a number of sources with substantial coverage which appeared to be independent, including this, this, this and this while it's English title produced hardly anything. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG and Cwmhiraeth. There does seem to be adequate coverage when you search for the Portuguese name of this association. James500 (talk) 16:54, 6 September 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. Whether this should be merged or redirected is not a matter for AFD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbolic asteroid[edit]

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

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

There is no evidence that the article subject exists, or has ever existed. The section "Hyperbolic comets identified as asteroids" is the only valid thing in this article, and it's not deserving of its own article. "hyperbolic comet" is a valid article topic, which actually exists, and I recommend that that article be created. wumbolo ^^^ 12:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Is there a class of objects that includes both asteroids and comets? Minor planets maybe? Hyperbolic comets currently redirects to list of hyperbolic comets, and really, I don't see much encyclopedic content for either topic. It may be best to combine the two, though seeing as most of them ended up getting reclassified as comets... — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Comet#Long period is a better redirect target for Hyperbolic comet. wumbolo ^^^ 13:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nominator incorrectly asserts that the article's subject, Hyperbolic asteroid, does not exists. It is one of few orbital classes established by the JPL Small-Body Database (see 'Oumuamua). The term has also been used in publications such as On the Rotation Period and Shape of the Hyperbolic Asteroid 1I/'Oumuamua (2017 U1) from Its Lightcurve. Also, the  main contributors such as Exoplanetaryscience and Kheider have not been notified of the article's nomination, which I consider good practice if not mandatory. Rfassbind – talk 13:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  LOL, the database you linked contains ZERO "hyperbolic asteroids" (except wrongly describing the interstellar one). And your papers are outdated - they call 1I/2017 U1 a HYA, when it's actually a comet. wumbolo ^^^ 13:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is based on WP:RELIABLE sources, not on snarky comments and/or irrelevant assertions. The class Hyperbolic asteroid has been defined by astronomers at JPL (asteroids on hyperbolic orbits with e > 1.0). Nobody knows how this orbital class will develop in the future, but as long as it is used by the most respected source of the entire minor-planet project on Wikipedia, it must not be deleted. Rfassbind – talk 16:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  but as long as it is used by the most respected source of the entire minor-planet project on Wikipedia It's not used by it anywhere. As you said, it's merely defined by the JPL. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary. wumbolo ^^^ 16:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Of course the subject exists. For one thing, A/2017 U7 is an existing example of such a thing, and for another thing this is an obviously different class from other objects. A hyperbolic asteroid implies that there is a dynamically unusual asteroid which has somehow been ejected from within the Solar System's (or any other stellar system's) frost line to the oort cloud, and has somehow come back. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not true. "A/2017 U7" is not such a thing, when it's a comet. wumbolo ^^^ 17:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait it's a comet? I guess somehow the announcement of that passed by without me noticing. Well still, it's a theoretical group of objects that there's no reason to believe doesn't exist. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem, it happens. Yeah this is a Russell's teapot. And this doesn't belong on Wikipedia per WP:BALL. wumbolo ^^^ 18:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  And yet, Vulcanoid, Claimed moons of Earth, Tyche (hypothetical planet), all objects theoretically possible to exist with no unambiguous claims. If there are no such proven examples of something, then the article is not necessarily on the objects themselves, but the theoretical concept of the object's existence, which is perfectly encyclopedic. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the examples you gave have been notable objects of scientific discussion and theories, but that scientific discussion doesn't exist for hyperbolic asteroids. wumbolo ^^^ 19:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Whether or not any hyperbolic asteroids have actually been observed, astronomers are certainly looking for them and they are discussed in the literature. This book for instance, lists a number of asteroids predicted to have orbits so unstable they become hyperbolic. By the way A/2017 U7 was once thought to be a hyperbolic asteroid. That it is now believed to be a comet does not stop that fact being encyclopaedic and relevant to this article. Further, ʻOumuamua was also initially identified as a hyperbolic asteroid in this paper. SpinningSpark 01:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  This article is about hypothetical hyperbolic asteroids. Not about past incidents of astronomers misidentifying small objects. In order to have such an article as Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly, you would want to have many sources discussing the mistake afterwards (similar to the Use–mention distinction). The book you provided seems like a WP:PRIMARY source. wumbolo ^^^ 09:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The paper printed in the book is "Synthetic Proper Elements for Outer Main Belt Asteroids" a scholarly paper published by Springer with 103 citations in other, mostly peer reviewed, papers according to gscholar. You demand scientific sources and when one is presented try and dismiss it as WP:PRIMARY. If we can't use that one, there is not much in the scientific literature we could use, but in any case, Wikipedia does not proscribe primary sources "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". The search term hyperbolic asteroid has hundreds of results on gscholar and at least some of them are relevant. I don't subscribe to your claim that the article is about hypothetical orbits and not real objects identified with this property. It is clearly about both. Your BADGERing of every contributor here is beginning to sound desperate. SpinningSpark 10:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Spinningspark; the term is well-defined and the effort to determine if any exist is covered. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A fairly new classification but that's not a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SpinningSpark, and Andrew. It doesn't matter if the thing/phenomenon has actually been observed. It has fair deal of mentions in literature. It is not mentioned like wormholes, but still, it merits an article. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to "'Oumuamua". I am unconvinced that we have adequate coverage in suitable sources to establish notability. This source, indicated by SpinningSpark, does not appear to define "hyperbolic asteroids", but rather mentions several asteroids whose orbits have subsequently become hyperbolic. SpinningSpark also mentions a Google Scholar search. However I am struggling to find "hyperbolic asteroid" explicitly described, except in the context of 'Oumuamua. For what it's worth, I added a couple of references about 'Oumuamua. I realize that 'Oumuamua was initially classified as a comet, then changed to an asteroid, and subsequently changed back to a comet. Nevertheless, 'Oumuamua seems to be the only object that has ever been clearly described as a "hyperbolic asteroid". (As an aside, I see that several people agree with SpinningSpark's "Keep" rationale, yet no-one has added a reference to the article. This particularly dismays me.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Axl: "...does not appear to define hyperbolic asteroids". From the source under "Hyperbolic cases", Let us begin with the most unstable orbits, that is with those that already during the 2Myr integration became hyperbolic. For these nine escaping asteroids... (my emphasis). Thus, they are defining hyperbolic asteroid as one which has achieved escape velocity. That is, an asteroid in a hyperbolic orbit. This is unlikely to be explained any more explicitly in a source on hyperbolic asteroids since it is well known in astrodynamics that achieving escape velocity is synonymous with in a hyperbolic orbit. However, the relationship can be found in basic textbooks such as Fundamentals of Astrodynamics. In any case, I question the claim that a lack of a definition in sources detracts from notability. It is enough that the source discusses the subject at all. SpinningSpark 14:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your emphasis indeed! "Thus, they are defining hyperbolic asteroid as one which has achieved escape velocity." No, they are not. They are describing "escaping asteroids" that have "unstable orbits" that become "hyperbolic". The source is unsuitable for establishing notability of the topic "Hyperbolic asteroid". [The source may still be suitable for supporting information stated within the article.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off[edit]

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I cannot find any reliable independent secondary sources about this "film" (actually a long form YouTube video) other than the one unsigned commentary in the web-only Long Island Press. Flixster is primary and now 404 anyway, Hot Indie News is a promo page and not RS, IMDB is a user-edited directory. It's self-produced, self-published and self-promoted, and even covering the plot is WP:UNDUE because, well, Alex Jones. We'd need independent analytical sources to establish context for every word, per WP:FRINGE. Those sources do not, as far as I can see, exist. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not seeing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of substantial mentions in secondary sources even searching without the subtitle ("The Mask Comes Off"). Surprising number of comments on foreign language articles though. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of notability, as I cannot find any significant coverage from reliable sources about this topic. I would be fine with a few sentences' mention at Alex Jones if needed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails the GNG. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails GNG and NFILM. No reviews on RT, nothing of note listed on IMDb, and I couldn't find anything else searching the web either. I don't think there's anything worth merging to Alex Jones. The film is just one of Jones' many methods of tell the same story, the "censorship" was nothing unusual (I think both fans and non-fans of Jones can agree on this), and his other documentary isn't treated in any more depth in his article either. Daß Wölf 01:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete never heard of it, so I ran a news archive search. turns out nobody else ever did either. zero hits.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable Alex Jones propaganda video. Carrite (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Bertaccini[edit]

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

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

CV of a TV journalist/news producer. Within its excruciating detail is no real sign of actual notability. Awards, for example. Calton | Talk 11:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I cleaned up a bunch of crap in this article and it still reads like a puff piece supported mostly by self-published sources like wedding announcements. Toddst1 (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Yadav[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN no notability for a politician, not an elected representative ever, son of a notable politician holding some local party office of a regional party".. given sources are only primary Adamstraw99 (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, no election won, no notable post held. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. son of a politician does not make a person notable. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Perfect case of WP:NOTINHERITED Accesscrawl (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A blatant case, as Accesscrawl pointed out, of WP:NOTINHERITED. No sources can be found that show the subject as notable. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:POLITICIAN. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable board member.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Nicholls[edit]

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

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

Not a notable newsreader - as the article about her says, she only works part-time. Also, the article has had the tag saying "May not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines" for quite some time now. Vorbee (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY. A Google News searched turned up only one article from Radio Times. Basically little to no coverage, so that fails WP:SIGCOV as well. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 16:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Easy Delete Being a stub is not an issue, but per WP:BLP and WP:GNG article fails on both counts. Shushugah (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lack of reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of source. Even a stub cannot be expanded. GenuineArt (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. News anchors are not handed an automatic free pass over our notability standards for journalists just because their existence can technically be referenced to a staff profile on the self-published website of their own employer: the notability test for a journalist depends on receiving independently-given coverage in media outlets that don't sign her paycheque. But there are literally no other sources being cited here to boost her notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not every news anchor is default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Too few sources. Fails WP:GNG —AE (talk • contributions) 03:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 UY Aviation King Air C90 crash[edit]

2018 UY Aviation King Air C90 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. No prolonged coverage on the crash of this chartered-plane. SD0001 (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This aircraft crash appears notable to me per WP:GNG, caused 5 casualty, 4 inside plane + 1 on ground. I would like to hear from WP Aviation editors on how crash articles are evaluated. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @DBigXray: - see WP:AIRCRASH which is a well regarded essay (but not policy). This one however is borderline per AIRCRASH (which is not coverage based, as the Beechcraft King Air is a borderline light aircraft - is MTOW varies by model and is at the edge of the criteria set in AIRCRASH). The crash being fatal - including casualties on the ground - increases chances of notability. WP:GNG trumps AIRCRASH is any event - the question here is assessing coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Borderline in terms of meeting AIRCRASH (borderline size, but the plane was doing a a chartered passenger flight, there were casualties, and notably this crashed into a city and caused a casualty on the ground as well). Very widely covered in June. Some coverage in July - [17][18][19]. I'm at weak as I don't see coverage in August - however seeing we're evaluating this on 2 September (2 months and a bit from the event) - this is a somewhat RAPIDish situation - my personal crystal ball however does divine some additional coverage is likely (per judicial probes and the like).Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2nd link (xinhuanet) is on an entirely different incident, just noting. SD0001 (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, 2nd link is about another incident, but it does mention this incident in passing. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After sitting on the sidelines, I am going for Keep as it passed WP:GNG due to the significant coverage WP:SIGCOV it recieved in national and international media BBC ^[1] Independent UK ^[2] and NYT^[3] there was coverage after the incident as well ^[4][5], And Although I have not found but due to the CBI investigation, I am sure this incident led to changes in the Standard operating procedures in India. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine Software (US)[edit]

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

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

Promotional bliss, fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NCORP. Only reference included in the article is their own website. Lordtobi (✉) 09:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]