< 13 September	15 September >

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. Tone 14:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Aanish[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Article, once speedy deleted as spam, is written by an SPA COI account who previously identified as User:Aanish Ayaz, the subject. He is a 16-year-old who self-published through lulu.com. Sources include self-published articles (e.g. [1] and a lack of significant reliable coverage. This appears to exist on Wikipedia for advertising purposes only. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is basically a resume (WP:NOT), and the few sources that could be potentially considered "notable" are interviews with the subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and a violation of terms of use. The article was previously created under a different title at Muhammad Aanish Ayaz Farrukh by user Shiza fatima who was blocked as a sockpuppet of user O.Syed (please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aanish Ayaz/Archive). GSS (talk|c|em) 04:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of who was the creator, the subject is completely non-notable. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:42, 17 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. Tone 13:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lady zamar[edit]

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

CSD reverted to nominate for AfD. - Fails WP:GNG. IP0W3RSH3LLi (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG with plenty of media coverage. Appears to be signed to a notable record label. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. There's certainly a lot of coverage of her outfits in the SA press ([2][3]), but I'm not sure how that adds to her notability. She does have an album released on a major label ([4]), and there are a few reviews around ([5][6]). I'm no expert on SA pop culture and their charts, but I think there may just be enough here for a weak keep. — sparklism ^hey! 07:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 2 with a gold certified release, also has released albums on a major label and has significant rs coverage as well, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NMUSIC she has won an award from a notable award ceromony and has a gold certified release. SoundwavTheOG (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:36, 15 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 speedy delete. Why even here? This is a clear case for CSD#A9 Alexf^(talk) 01:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have faith in the fallen[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. IP0W3RSH3LLi (talk) 23:00, 14 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. Tone 13:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scout Promises by country[edit]

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

The general idea, including the religious controversy, is already covered at Scout Promise, including a sample text. The various national versions say essentially the same thing in different languages, with minor variation in phrasing. If there are any notable variances, that can be added to Scout Promise, but in general this seems like excessive detail to me, or at best something for Wikisource. -- Beland (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment copyvio magnet and most of these even lack WP:MINREF... – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT - this is a collection of primary source material with questionable copyright status, and is largely unreferenced. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:56, 17 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. Sandstein 07:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anson Holzer[edit]

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

Independent SIGCOV was not found in search or in article. Fails GNG. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I couldn't find anything beyond his own homepage. --Theredproject (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Finding no coverage in reliable sources, and no evidence that WP:CREATIVE is met. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The articles only source is self-published and I could not find coverage in other sources, so it fails WP:GNG. The article is also highly promotional in nature. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:25, 22 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. Tone 13:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-hit wonders in Canada[edit]

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

Unsourced list that's been subject to far, far too much point-of-view editwarring over whether certain artists were actually "one-hit wonders" or not. (There was one footnote present in the article until a few minutes ago, but I had to strip it because it completely failed to verify even the basic existence, let alone the actual "hitness", of the purported one-hit wonder it was footnoting.) The reason this is problematic, while the comparable list for the United States is not, is that the US list actually cites sources to properly support the "one-hit wonder" designation -- but this one doesn't, so instead it sees constant editwarring over personal opinions: Canadian Idol winners having their winner anthems discounted, for "not really their own song" reasons, so that their followup singles become their "only" hits; bands that had only one hit in Canada (e.g. Ultravox) being removed from the list on the basis of having had other hits outside of Canada; bands that have had several hits in Canada (e.g. Martha and the Muffins) being added to the list on the basis of having had only one major hit internationally; arguments about whether radio airplay of other non-charting singles negates one-hit status or not; one-off supergroup charity singles like the Haitian earthquake version of "Wavin' Flag" get warred over by people who disagree about whether it counts or not; and on, and so forth. And, in fact, not every song present in this list, even the ones that aren't getting editwarred over, is necessarily verifiable as having been a hit at all (Organized Rhyme's "Check the O.R.", frex, never charted at all in RPM, but only on the MuchMusic video countdown — which, while it supports notability under a criterion other than the charting one, is not Canada's hitmaking singles chart for the purposes of establishing somebody as a "one-hit wonder".) As in so many other areas, Canada doesn't automatically have to have one of these just because the US has one: the US has adequate sources to properly support one, while Canada does not. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of criteria as to what constitutes a one-hit wonder by Canadian standards and the lack of sourcing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without a clear inclusion criteria, the article serves as an arena for edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the problems mentioned above are valid concerns, but this is a notable topic; note this CBC Music article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One listicle with just 25 songs on it is not enough sourcing to support something like this all by itself. Especially given that it's wrong about some of its own entries: Carly Rae Jepsen never replicated the international ubiquity of "Call Me Maybe", for example, but she has had six other songs make the Top 40 in Canada and is thus not a one-hit wonder here; Organized Rhyme and TBTBT appear in the list even though their named "hits" never actually cracked any Top 40 chart at all; while "Eyes of a Stranger" was undeniably Payolas' biggest and most enduring "still gets played on Jack FM today" hit, it was neither their only Top 40 hit (they had five others) nor even their only Top 10 hit; Bedouin Soundclash had two Top 10 hits at CHR, not just "When the Night Feels My Song", and four other songs that charted at modern rock even if they didn't cross over to pop; the only way "Bye Bye Mon Cowboy" could ever be considered Mitsou's only hit is if you deprecate the Quebec palmarès and count only Anglo-Canadian crossover as making a song a hit (and even then, "Dis-moi dis-moi" still puts the lie to "her only anglo crossover hit" anyway); and on and so forth. And besides that, there's still no adequate source support for any other song in this list besides whatever portion of that listicle isn't wrong. So no, that single source isn't good enough to save this all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 18 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. Tone 13:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Shahroudi[edit]

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

Absolutely nothing returned in a search for his name. Promotional. fails GNG. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete or maybe speedy delete as I couldn't find a single source to back up that he even exists. Couple that with the claims of inventing a new "Expromantic" style (for which the URL Expromantic.com is expired). --Theredproject (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid he does exist. http://www.expromanticism.com/ is still online. Vexations (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is too brief, and it is promotional in tone.TH1980 (talk) 02:42, 16 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. Tone 13:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine S. Snodgrass[edit]

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

GNG fail, promotional. The best source I can find for her is Wikipedia. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Illustrators and other commercial artists are really hard, because convention is not to use their clients. The question for me on this one, and more generally, is what does raise them up a level to satisfy the requirements here? Specifically, does the Benjamin Franklin Award Finalist constitute the kind of marker we are looking for? --Theredproject (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winning a notable award confers notability on the subject (because very likely someone will write something that we can use as a source), but a nomination for a non-notable award almost certainly doesn't. Are the IBPA Benjamin Franklin Award™ notable? Barely. Are previous winners notable? I don't know. They have 54 categories, and each category has three winners, one gold and two silver. I don't recognize any of the authors, but that doesn't mean anything. Note that this award is more of a competition; submitting your independently published book costs $95, so my take on it is that winning such an award isn't even all that exceptional. Not winning? No, that doesn't make you notable. --Vexations (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary coverage in good sources is what would raise them to the GNG standard.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete article created in 2009 by User:Dsnodgrass, an SPA. An attempt at SPEEDY was nixed. I note that the books that constitute the claim to notability were published between 2004 and 2009, and that they are children's picture books about autism with an advocacy goal to help children. Also, there is a Catherine Snodgrass who comes up in gNews as an advocate for children with autism and who has a son who is on the autism spectrum. A terrible thing was done by local police to her son in 2014 The Entrapment of Jesse Snodgrass; He was a friendless high school loner struggling with autism. So why did an undercover cop target him as a drug dealer? That incident may have beennotable, but it would be WP:BLP1E and I do not know whether it is the same family, Catherine and Snodgrass are very common names. As for notability as an author for this Catherine Snodgrass, One of the books was sponsored by the Autism foundation, and, as editors above have pointed out, others were self-published. the "Benjamin Franklin Award" is mere PROMO for commercial outfits that print self-published books. There is no notability here .E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see sufficient coverage for GNG or awards that would meet ANYBIO; the two children's books (of no particular prominence) aren't enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:05, 17 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. Sandstein 07:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jophen Stein[edit]

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

A search did not produce enough SIGCOV for GNG. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I couldn't find enough SIGCOV. --Theredproject (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:GNG because its subject lacks enough WP:SIGCOV to make him notable and I could not locate anymore coverage in a search. The article also lacks citations for most of the claims in it and is primarily just a list of art shows he has participated in. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:40, 22 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. Sandstein 07:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldine Arata[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Looks like a vanity page, as i could not find any in-depth coverage. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete vanity page with no independent sources. --Theredproject (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the deletion. I will find more sources and add to Geraldine Arata article!! You must allow time as I am travelling at the moment. Thisandthem (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note for administrator - this person is the creator of the article and nearly five full days later they have not actually touched it. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found some local coverage for her work, but not any WP:SIGCOV, so the article fails WP:GNG. The article is also highly promotional and contains not only a link to her personal website, but multiple addresses associated with her in some way. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:56, 22 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. Sandstein 07:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Kasmaei[edit]

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

The significance of the person is not shown. The only source in the article is an obituary.--RTY9099 (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:GNG because there are no sources present or that could be found elsewhere that demonstrate this persons notability or significance. The only source is an obituary, which does nothing to demonstrate notability. Most people have one when they die. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:15, 22 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. Tone 13:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amok Entertainment[edit]

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

Unnotable company, includes zero sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Lordtobi (✉) 20:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a reasonable delete here per the WP:GNG for lack of reliable sourcing. --Izno (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I was unable to find significant coverage of the subject in my searches for sources. The company fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about Sex'n'Crime? --Izno (talk) 21:23, 19 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. Sandstein 07:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Dementiev (actor)[edit]

Grandson of the legendary poet, a little-known actor himself.--RTY9099 (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He still appeared in a rather notable movie, Hardcore Henry, and I also think that him being the grandson of Andrey Dementyev adds on to the notability. --PootisHeavy (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Links?--RTY9099 (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The threshold is multiple significant roles in notable films, not one significant role in a film. So Dementiev falls below the notability guidelines. Having a notable grandfather does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete He has only had one significant role in film, so the article fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Having a famous relative does not make him notable or justify a standalone article covering him. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:21, 22 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. Sandstein 07:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Central American Historical Institute[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The books used sounds nice, but for instance the books mentioned as source 3 and 4 are nothing more than passing mentions. The Banner talk 13:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google scholar has numerous citations of research performed at this institution [7]. The citations are sufficient to pass WP:NORG. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

those are just the results of a search in scholar for "IHCA", and consist mostly of bibliography entries or passing mentions. Do you by chance have any in-depth coverage?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional concoction of user Jzsj. The main issue here is that existing sources are just passing mentions or very minimal, so it it is not possible to extract any information on the institute that is longer than a few words without doing WP:OR as Jzsj did. I removed no less than three 'sources' that were actually just bibliography entries used to concoct some good old original research. The extant sources in search do not support notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources in the article fail to demonstrate notability as described above by ThatMontrealIP, so it fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The article also has issues with being a WP:SYNTH of original research by the articles creator and is highly promotional of this organization. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:30, 22 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 merge to Şevket Sabancı. Tone 13:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Esas Holding[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP - written like an advertisement as well. It also relies too much on sources too closely related to the subject. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Şevket Sabancı in lieu of deletion. Esas Holding is the family office of Şevket Sabancı. No prejudice against undoing the redirect if reliable sources are found that provide significant coverage of the subject.
Cunard (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Şevket Sabancı. Anatoliatheo (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree, merge makes sense. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 20 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. Tone 13:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bolko von Schweinichen[edit]

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

Article on a police officer in Nazi Germany, created by now-banned User:OberRanks, initially full of apparently unsourced (or falsely sourced) content. Without the unverifiable stuff, it's now stubbed back to a single sentence. One might expect this officer would easily meet inherent notability standards – he was once the head of the German Ordnungspolizei police force in occupied France. (Although this statement might give a bit of an exaggerated impression of his actual importance, because he wasn't the actual head of police; the real boss was another higher-ranking SS guy, who commanded both the Sicherheitspolizei and Ordnungspolizei). Nevertheless, it's likely he played at least some role in the administrative preparations of the Holocaust in France, among other things [8].

While this would clearly imply notability, the fact is: the sources are simply not there. After some searching, the only things I could come up with are just what's in the article now: two or three books that just barely confirm his existence, his rank and his job title at one particular time during the German occupation, no more than one sentence in passing in each source. No biographical details anywhere except for a birth year, no source treating him as a subject of biographical interest in its own right. Without biographical sources we can't write a biography. I'll happily retract this nomination if anything more substantial turns up.

(Note about web searches: the majority of web hits are about a different person of the same name, an architect born in the 1950s.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything on a web search (and yes, the architect does get in the way), so unless someone can find paper-based sources, I think we have to Delete. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO. My searches have not produced anything substantial. The absense of a de.wiki article strongly suggests a lack of notability for this obscure figure of the Nazi era. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not shown to be notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 16:52, 20 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. A long debate presented both arguments for and against deletion. There is even a longer discussion on the talkpage. At the moment, the article has been toned down to the level where it is no longer an attack page (with possibility of turning into one again not really being a valid reason for deletion). We are not going to reach a consensus to delete as some arguments for keeping are rather convincing, but I am closing this as a no consensus. Tone 09:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shenphen Rinpoche[edit]

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

What started out as a self-promotional article about the subject, that was unsourced and/or poorly sourced, has now devolved into an attack page primarily consisting of allegations and accusations of bad conduct. The lead of the article is also poorly sourced and contains dubious claims as well. Other than the allegations/accusations of bad conduct, the subject of the article doesn't meet WP:GNG Isaidnoway (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a textbook example of an attack page that must be deleted promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, this article looks like an attack page and like a candidate for speedy deletion. JimRenge (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Buddhism in Slovenia per WP:CRIME, contains some RS.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a "significant religious leader" per the PRC, delete the "charges" which read like a Sears catalog, and are, at a minimum, of absurd undue weight. Remove "claimed" and other weasel wording. Note that "Rinpoche" is not a "last name" by the way. The Slovenia allegations should have due weight only, and noted and cited as such. "Buddhism in Slovenia" is absolutely the wrong place for this, by the way. If the person is "notable" per guidelines, that it is an "attack page" (clearly it is one) does not mean we delete it. Collect (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's a notable religious figure, there's plenty of coverage of him in reliable sources. There are other issues with this page, it's been used as WP:PEACOCK it's been used as WP:ATTACK there are legal threats on the talk page. But none of those are grounds for deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article contains clear elements of attack page (written in negative tone, slandering the subject) as well as misquoted sources and BLP issues which are being ignored. Balazs38 (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)— Balazs38 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment It should be noted here that Balazs38 has disclosed a conflict of interest (it's a shared account used by students of Shenpen Rinpoche) on the article talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Collect, Simonm223, searching Google, I realized that there are at least two Shenphen Rinpoche. The Shenphen Rinpoche who acted as a residence teacher of the German Tibet Haus does not appear to be identical with the subject of this article (compare photos:[9] [10]). Please cite your sources for the claim that he is notable or a "significant religious leader", WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not WP:WELLKNOWN. JimRenge (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not recheck sources, only tried top make the article compliant with Wikipedia policies. "Rinpoche" does appear to be a relatively high title within the Tibetan and other traditions (usually indication reincarnation of a great teacher). Vide "Bishop" in some Christian denominations. Collect (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comparing photos to determine if they're the same person would definitely fall under WP:OR but if you have a reliable source suggesting that this Shenpen Rinpoche is actually somebody else using an assumed identity please feel free to share it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to say that Shenphen Rinpoche may be as specific as "Father Michael". I don`t see independent reliable sources that establish his (Shenphen Rinpoche/Ronan Chatellier) notability as a "religious leader" per WP:GNG. JimRenge (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any independent reliable sources with any significant coverage or sufficient depth either per WP:GNG that can establish he is a "significant" or "notable" religious leader. I also checked his article on the French Wiki hoping to find some independent reliable sources that could possibly be used in the English article, but the French version is tagged with notability issues as well. If those editors !voting keep could provide some sources, it would certainly help. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Isaidnoway: Perhaps this section of Dr Alexander Berzin's book on Spiritual Teachers will help establish notability or otherwise: "Reincarnate Lamas: Tulkus and Rinpoches". There are numerous additional sources (references and so forth) on the subject on the WP article on Tulkus kindly indicated below by Freewasp, which may be helpful in this respect. It is said that there are only about 500 cases in existence, but no westerners apart from Chatellier who were first recognised as such by Chinese officials. -MacPraughan (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that doesn't help establish his notability as he is not mentioned at all in that book. Please see your talk page to discuss your pattern of editing on this article, as I don't want to derail this AfD discussion. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @MacPraughan:Your claim that Shenpen Rinpoche was recognised by Chinese officials is wrong. It is wrong because no document exist from Chinese officials about his recognition (if it does, provide one). On the other hand, I have provided links to two recognition documents on the Talk page: the document of his recognition issued by Kharnang monastery in Tibet is signed by Kharnang Lamas (who are Tibetans), and the document of his recognition issued by Sera Jhe monastery in South India is signed by community of teachers and staff members of the monastery (again, Tibetans).

Your claim that he was recognized by Chinese officials seems to come from your comment on the Talk page where you wrote: "Recognition of tulkus ("Living Buddhas" in China) is very strictly regulated by the Chinese government and it is previously unknown in my experience that the government would ever approve a westerner being recognised in this way. It is also very unlikely that the local officials of the monastery would issue official recognition documents about Chatellier's recognition without the prior consent and approval of the Chinese authorities." Since you didn't provide any recognition related document signed by Chinese officials, your claim rests solely on what you deem likely or unlikely based on your subjective experience and understanding of the political situation in Tibet and China. To post such opinion as a fact goes against the Wikipedia's principle of No original research WP:NOR.

@Isaidnoway:If this is not the right place for this comment, please direct me where I should post.

Comment @Balazs38: In response to your (unsigned) comment above, addressed to myself and @Isaidnoway: I have checked the location carefully on the Google world map and it is unquestionable that Kharnang Monastery is situated in Sichuan Province of China, not in Tibet - which, in any case, is itself a part of China - and, therefore, the officials of that monastery can be truthfully said to be 'Chinese officials' - if not, then what? They are the people who signed the monastic recognition documents kindly provided by Chatellier himself and these documents are what I refer to. In other words, the documents provided to prove Chatellier's recognition are signed by Chinese officials, therefore, "he has been recognised by Chinese officials as ... etc.". It is undisputable, and there is no need for me to provide any additional proof. What is your difficulty in understanding this, and what exactly is the whole point of your argument? Please clarify, thanks. -MacPraughan (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @MacPraughan:Point is that you always try to show the subject in a negative light. Here for example it would be much more common to simply state that Shenpen Rinpoche was recognised by Kharnang Monastery in Tibet and Sera Jhe monastery in India, as is clear from the recognition documents. However in one of your first edits you wrote that Karnang is "an obscure monastery in a remote area of eastern Tibet," to minimize the importance of the monastery. In later edits you changed the rhetorics to "he may be the only case of a westerner being officially recognised as the incarnation of a Tibetan Buddhist lama in this way, by a monastery in China." Due to your persistent negative bias towards the subject, it is clear that this was done with the intention to cast doubt on validity and weight of the recognition.

Also, in the light of the Tibetan nation's struggle to survive the Chinese prosecution and uphold their cultural and religious way of life, it is simply bad taste to call Tibetan Lamas "Chinese officials". It flies in the face of everything that His Holiness the Dalai Lama and other teachers are trying to do for decades.Balazs38 (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article grow into a hate page.... CalyptoAletheia (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)— CalyptoAletheia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. In the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, Chatellier is the only known example of the recognition of the incarnation of a Tibetan lama who was a 'Rinpoche', 'tulku' or 'Living Buddha' in his previous life, in the body of a westerner, who was first officially recognised as this reincarnation by a monastery in China (Sichuan Province). His recognition was also subsequently confirmed by the Tibetan exile community at Sera Jhe Monastery in India. This is a unique case in the history of Tibetan Buddhism and its penetration of western society. This makes the subject notable - despite reports of his notoriety. It should therefore be kept - especially since it has been thoroughly pared down to just the acceptable essentials by Collect, making it compliant, as he says, with WP policies for BLP. -MacPraughan (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Despite a more neutral tone in the above comment, MacPraughan is the main editor of the new wave of edits which were written in negative or disparaging tone, removing all information which show good qualities of the subject, he sources tabloid newspapers, blogs etc. In short, his edits exhibit typical characterstics of the attack page. His negative bias towards the subject is obvious also in his comments on the talk page. Therefore, I still think it would be best to delete the page, so such attack edits will not reoccur in the future.Balazs38 (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. I agree with Simonm223's rationale, that he is a notable religious figure. In addition now that the peacock words and the overdone account of the subject's misdemeanours have been reduced to a neutral tone, we have a balanced and neutral account of the subject. For confirmation of the importance of his recognition as an incarnation of a tibetan master, see tulku. In his case it's all the more notable because as others have said, he is the only case of a westerner being recognized as a tulku by the Chinese authorities.Freewasp (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)— Freewasp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

'Comment Please note that Collect's pared-down version that was agreed by consensus has been rubbished overnight, and most of the remaining independently cited content has already been deleted. Not only that, but this has been replaced by flattery of the subject based on citations from his own writings or the the content of the website of his personal Buddhist group. -MacPraughan (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if a major editor, who has been writting negatively and slandering against the subject in all languages of the article, is also actively engaged against the subject outside of Wikipedia - i.e. in "the real word", has this got any signficance for the editor's COI? And perhaps eventually also for the deletion of the article that he keeps rewritting in a negative manner? Thank you for the answer Isaidnoway / GorillaWarfare Skywalker976 (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; a notable religious leader in Slovenia, as sources testify. Other disputes about his recognition (for which there are very few or no reliable third-party sources) and allegations of criminal activity (for which there are plenty) belong to the article's talk page. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Freewasp is a Confirmed sock of MacPraughan.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck because the two users are husband and wife.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please note that Shenphen Rinpoche hasn't been living in Slovenia since 2012 (i.e. since more than 6 years ago) nor did he come to Slovenia in this period. And no articles from other countries. Hence difficult to argue in favour of notability. Skywalker976 (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)— Skywalker976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment:: I disproved this assertion on Talk:Shenphen Rinpoche#Activity in Slovenia section. Nowhere in the guidelines does it say that the person must have sustained news coverage until the time of the AfD discussion. Also note that Skywalker976 has revealed CoI, so his !vote shouldn't count. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given all the debate here and elsewhere, it seems that it should come to some sort of epilogue. This article doesn't bring any additional value. Even more, during the recent weeks it was turned into a canvass for throwing dirt for whatever reason and this was somehow justified by formally referring to any of the tabloid articles (regarding the tabloid nature of the articles I answered here: Talk:Shenphen Rinpoche#Possible conflicts of interest - MacPraughan). The assertion that the the subject is notable represents one more step in the same direction - a hidden plea to let this canvass stay, so that more dirt can be eventually thrown at the subject.

As far as I can see, there is a serious possibility that MacPraughan (or any of his sockpuppets) and perhaps also Yerpo will repeat the whole process of negative re-editing. This pattern of negative re-editing (in some cases even obsessive) does not appear neutral. I declared a connection, because this is transparent, but it is not only something that supposedly discredits me - it also means that I have some first hand knowledge about the situation - i.e. I am not only speaking based on what I received from dubious sources. On the other hand, it was proven that MacPraughan abused his sockpuppet in order to re-write the article in a negative manner and has not declared any COI (not to mention the biased language that he continuously uses etc.) It therefore shows that people can be biased for various reasons, perhaps because an image of a person irritates them, or because they don't like religion or specifically Buddhism, or because they have some personal issues etc., although they might not have a direct connection with the subject of the article.

As mentioned numerous times Shenpen Rinpoche has an empty criminal record both in France and Slovenia. Legal as well as Wikipedia standards demand that he is treated as innocent. He was checked in detail by the French Ministry of Interior and has 4 children under his care. Please note, that turning Wikipedia in a tabloid based attack page is not just a Wikipedia thing. It has serioius impact also for life outside of Wikipedia. People and children can be hurt. So, there is quite a responsibilty involved. As far as I understand Wikipedia rules, it is not obligatory to follow the votes on deletion, but any admin can delete the article. Please do it and stop the mess that was already created, before more damage is done and more people are hurt. Thank You.Skywalker976 (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywalker976: I'm not an admin or administrator on Wikipedia, could you please strike out that passage in your comment. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaidnoway: Done. Apologies.Skywalker976 (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywalker976:: Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. I do distance myself from MacPraughan's activity and do not want to turn the article into an attack page. I just want to keep it neutral and comprehensive. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article as it stands [11] is no longer an attack page. Discounting those arguments to delete, there is no clear consensus here, because much of the discussion is off-topic. Substantive analysis of any available sources would be helpful in determining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - upon review of the sources, they don't seem to be reliable. Fails WP:GNG. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stick with my previous delete vote, for the following reasons: 1. the subject is not well known WP:GNG. In Slovenia there are some negative articles about the subject, but the style of most of these articles (containing a lot of weasel words, false claims, sensationalistic language...) resemble much more that of tabloids than serious newspaper articles. Moreover, one can see that articles from different newspapers all come from one main media, i.e. there is basically one source, and others just copy/pasted the original article. Thus, the coverage of high quality and reliable sources is low. 2. I agree with Vanamonde that presently the article is not an attack page. However, as is clear from the Talk Page of the article, some users have a strong negative bias towards the subject and will therefore sooner or later decide to again rewrite (either themselves or via sockpuppets which already happened and was discovered on this article) the article in a negative and disparaging tone, including all sorts of accusations and gossips, referencing the sources in a foreign language which they admit they don't understand. Thus very likely this page will become an Attack page again. And then the whole cycle will repeat again: editing, reverting, endless debates, discussions about deletion etc. A lot of work and a loss of time to do all this for a subject about whom even the attackers say is a "nonentity" and not notable enough to have an article on WP. Balazs38 (talk) 20:53, 14 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. Sandstein 07:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mithaq Kazimi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was deleted in November 2017. Cannot find significant independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources since then - WP:SIGCOV. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

REASONS NOT TO DELETE -

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Unknown Master (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

1) This article has existed and is about a notable person - founder of a film festival, a television channel and editor-in-chief of a major publication (media company).

2) Given the person is from countries with very little publication, in this case Afghanistan, there are not lots of sources, however the amount that is there is I think sufficient.

3) This article includes sources now from major publications, such as IMDB, TED, SCREENDAILY and at least 3 government publications.

4) There were no legitimate reasons initially for its removal and one person tagged it and with very little discussion it was removed.

5) Many such articles, which are based on foreign personalities get flagged and removed, which I don't think is fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.99.183.145 (talk) 06:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@117.99.183.145: Well, as a response to your offered arguments, before providing my own !vote either way, I'd say the following things.

The article hasn't been nominated for deletion because the individual is fundamentally un-notable. In effect, if there is suitable notable sourcing, then this isn't a problem.
Issues of there being fewer sources to choose from (so appearing in any represents a higher % of actual notability) is of note, and obviously the fact you think there are sufficient is your justification for a Keep. However it would be far more helpful if you could point out the 2 sources that satisfy the nomination's concern - notably reliable sources that provide in depth coverage, not just mentions.
ImDB is neither reliable, nor spends more than 5 lines on the individual. TED is also only 5 lines, and is touting him as a speaker for them so clearly they can't be independent. The only Screendaily source I could find doesn't mention him at all. Government publications usually are pushing something (or dislike something) to mention individuals, but I'll read them all in depth before being able to decide.
As far as I can tell both in the previous AfD and the nomination here WP:SIGCOV - a lack of in depth coverage in reliable sources was presented, which is an accepted justification for removal. Individuals are free to either try and clean-up articles or nominate them directly for deletion, since an article is supposed to meet a minimum standard. With a living person there is more justification in nominating them. 5 people participated in the original AfD, which is more than most.
Removing articles with a lack of suitable sourcing is extremely agreed and underpins wikipedia since the start. In the sense that we probably remove a higher percentage of foreign creative articles you are probably correct, because it can be harder to get sources, you are no doubt correct. However other than bearing point 2 in mind, we either have to do that or ignore our sourcing requirements, which would make wiki much less reliable.
As a side note, this isn't technically speedy deletion - it has to take at least a week (speedy deletion is for copyright, attack etc etc)

Nosebagbear (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anybody else got a view?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article should not have been recreated because the underlying reasons for deletion have not been rectified. He lacks WP:SIGCOV so he fails WP:GNG or any notability guidelines and many of the sources in the article are unreliable, such as Twitter or IMDB. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:45, 22 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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Lebedev (actor)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE. Searching Russian sources online, I found a few interviews but nothing that would constitute in-depth coverage at a reliable source. The article claims that Lebedev was awarded a "People's Artist of Russia" in 2018, which would be notable, but the source provided does not back up this claim. He was awarded an Order of Honour (Russia) in 2008, but the notability of this award is unclear. According to the corresponding Russian article, he was awarded "Honored artist of the RSFSR" in 1982, a lower-tier award than "People's Artist", but there is no source provided and its notability remains unclear even if it did happen. Based on the provided selected films, it appears that Lebedev primarily played small roles in not particularly notable Russian/Soviet film and television. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)20:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator additional sources demonstrating notability have been provided at the article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:03, 14 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. The users who have analyzed the proposed sources conclude that they are not sufficiently in depth, and nobody has rebutted that analysis. Sandstein 07:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jude Feranmi[edit]

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

I haven't clicked every source, but the ones I did click are self-authored, not RS, or do not constitute substantial coverage. I don't think this guy is notable and the article seems to be pretty clear promotion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t Delet**: I have removed any contents that might seem promotional on his article. Below are over 23 Reliable References(on his article) to prove his notability. He has over 70 online Reference with good coverage from mostly Nigeria notable media house e.g Daily Trust Newspaper, The Punch Newspaper,BellaNaija, TheCable, Leadership (newspaper) The Nation (Nigeria), BBC etc and some Television house like. TVC News, Africa Independent Television, Channels TV etc.

https://www.ilorin.info/fullnews.php?id=23823

https://www.ted.com/tedx/events/22870

https://m.thenigerianvoice.com/news/209014/cowards-linking-shia-muslims-to-boko-haram-as-they-linked-bu.html

https://www.bellanaija.com/2018/08/nafisa-atiku-disrupting-political-system/

https://allafrica.com/stories/201603100081.html

https://ng.usembassy.gov/ambassador-symington-launches-yali-transparency-campaign-lagos/

https://eletiofe.com/jude-feranmi-kowa-national-youth-leader-resigns-after-2-years

http://thenationonlineng.net/2019-young-professionals-float-movement/

https://theeagleonline.com.ng/endsars-kowa-party-calls-for-reform-of-police-force/

https://www.thecable.ng/partycp8-young-nigerians-launch-new-movement-set-to-raise-pvc-collection

https://www.pulse.ng/news/local/kowa-national-youth-leader-jude-feranmi-resigns-id8570692.html

http://thenewsnigeria.com.ng/2018/08/2019-group-drums-support-for-youth-aspirants/

https://www.lawyard.ng/youths-are-not-leaders-of-tomorrow-but-leaders-of-today-kowa-party-youth-leader/

https://sundiatapost.com/2018/08/10/author-wants-artistes-to-campaign-against-vote-selling/nigerian-author-jude-feranmi/

https://www.naija.ng/1184763-2019-group-commences-crowdfunding-young-politicians-seeking-political-office.html

https://dailynigerian.com/nyd2018-nigerian-youths-must-get-serious-to-be-taken-seriously/

https://www.dailytrust.com.ng/group-to-support-youths-to-contest-elections-264553.html

https://changeforsociety.com/channel-energy-ideas-creating-solutions-locality-participate-office-citizen-hackathon-2-0/

https://theeditor.com.ng/2018/05/30/2019-young-professionals-float-movement/

https://punchng.com/defy-all-odds-to-succeed-jude-feranmi/

https://breaking.com.ng/nigeria/bt-exclusive-kowa-party-youth-leader-jude-feranmi-how-kowa-party-will-shock-nigerians-in-2019/

http://thetransverse.com/2017/06/03/interview-young-nigerians-are-the-pawns-of-the-political-chess-game-in-nigeria-kowa-youth-leader/

https://leadership.ng/2018/08/07/2019-youths-urged-to-leverage-on-not-too-young-to-run-law/

https://www.today.ng/news/nigeria/launches-yali-transparency-campaign-lagos-43190

https://www.today.ng/news/politics/endsars-kowa-party-calls-reform-police-force-42990/amp

https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/tori-42357920

Ogbonna Ruby Ebere (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogbonna Ruby Ebere: - when trying to make an AfD argument dumping 20 sources is not particularly helpful, particularly when we already need to click on a very high number of in-article sources. Specifically indicating which 5 secondary sources most satisfy the triple "In Depth/Reliable/Independent" requirements. Remember that pure interviews and repackaged press releases aren't suitable. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 :: Here are Eight(8) Reference as requested.

https://www.ilorin.info/fullnews.php?id=23823

https://dailynigerian.com/nyd2018-nigerian-youths-must-get-serious-to-be-taken-seriously/

https://m.thenigerianvoice.com/news/209014/cowards-linking-shia-muslims-to-boko-haram-as-they-linked-bu.html

https://www.lawyard.ng/youths-are-not-leaders-of-tomorrow-but-leaders-of-today-kowa-party-youth-leader/

https://www.bellanaija.com/2018/08/nafisa-atiku-disrupting-political-system/

https://theeditor.com.ng/2018/05/30/2019-young-professionals-float-movement/

https://www.today.ng/news/nigeria/launches-yali-transparency-campaign-lagos-43190

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2018/07/kowa-party-youth-leader-resigns/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogbonna Ruby Ebere (talk • contribs) 00:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've gone through those 8. Since I can't do one of those fancy tables I'll just do 1-8, referring to the shorter list directly above.

This is just a mention with nothing even approaching Sig Cov on Jude himself. Him participating in something doesn't make him notable without in depth coverage on him, not just the event
This is functionally a press-release, with either direct or indirect quotes making up 90% of the content. Thus it can't be independent
This is a little unclear. It's a columnist, writing without full editorial control, so independence (and to a less degree, reliability) are questioned. It also uses Jude as a detailed example, but doesn't actually tell us why he is or anything about him.
This is functionally equivalent to number 2 - press release, thus failing independence
This is a far clearer version of a non-independent writer creating the article, thus independence (and again, potentiall reliability) is not demonstrated
This is both a press release, but it also fails to cover Jude in depth
Very similar to number 1 - we only get a minimal mention of Jude with no in depth coverage
This is somewhat like number 6, but with some more content both on Jude that is unclear to what degree it is normal analysis and distinct from the "he said this" or a direct quote. I'm not convinced by it, but it is a possible.

Overall I do not think these sources satisfy the tri-fecta, which gives me grave concerns if they are the best of the sources. That said, I would still not be shocked if there is some suitable coverage (it only takes a couple, after all), so I still aren't placing a formal redirect etc until I've investigated further. For now, I'd like a relist. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His Article was connected to the wikidata item Q56433794 ,Which contains data relevant to the topic by Edoardo88 four days ago

and was reviewed by Barkeep49 a week ago without complains

@Nosebagbear: , I would like to appreciate you for been patients and still very hopefull of Jude ferenmi notability. Pls try and consider WP:BASIC

Also, see this sources below

http://tynigerian.ng/four-young-nigerian-politicians-to-watch-out-for/

https://allafrica.com/stories/201603090472.html

http://ynag.ng/speaker/jude-feranmi/

Ogbonna Ruby Ebere (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first and (especially) third links aren't independent. I can't really judge the second since I can only see a couple of lines of it - if someone else does have the ability to look at the whole thing then please let us know. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear:   Please here are about 8 new Reference i took time to research to prove his notability.

https://leadership.ng/2018/08/07/2019-youths-urged-to-leverage-on-not-too-young-to-run-law/

http://www.akh99.com/2018/02/05/seni-saraki-eloghosa-osunde-byenyan-bitrus-eromo-egbejule-here-is-ynaijas-2018-new-establishment-list/

https://cstvnews.org/campaign-against-islamic-extremism/

https://www.ozy.com/opinion/a-manual-for-youthful-activism-nigerian-style/85039

https://dailynigerian.com/nigerians-want-buhari-tackle-2019/amp/

http://saharareporters.com/2017/09/27/kowa-party-holds-policy-conference-set-unveil-%E2%80%98covenant-nigerians%E2%80%99

http://www.aitonline.tv/post-campaign_against_shiite_extremism_launched_in_lagos

http://www.nan.ng/news/2019-group-to-support-youths-to-contest-elections/

Ogbonna Ruby Ebere (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell, but a lot of these seem like press releases or other non-independent content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- I have taken my time to monitor this discusions and researched about Jude ferenmi

My thought are:

1. He was quickly nominated for deletion in less than 2 hours on creations without the editor patiently taken time to peruse all the citations or allow other editors to look at the Article and know their thought before taken decision.

2. From research he has over 100 References on him online and he is notable in Nigeria.

3. Just like the editor said he wont be shocked to find out he is notable, so i wont be shocked if all listed including his first defence citations some are secondary sources.

4. The low response is because editors feel he has a high chance of been notable, but still feel to prove it might require a thorough research that may be time consuming.

5. I also feel the editor that created the Article is still learning, that is why he may not have selected the few needed for the Article to pass.

6. Experience editors that has visited this discusion still struggly feel, he has a high chance of been notable that is why it has always be relisted.

My Suggestions.

I will suggest the Article should not be deleted but a tag and date should be place on the Article addressing concerns of the Article for other editors to easily address it and the tag of Nominating it for deletions to be removed so as to allow editors to freely improve the article than relisting without response.

Destlaw (talk) 07:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)— Destlaw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. /small>[reply]

@Destlaw: - Editors don't need to know others opinions before nominating for AfD - getting more opinions is exactly the AfD process provides. The timing was also sufficient to allow a reasonable check. I've no idea the level of detailed analysis done, but given that massive lists of refs have been provided and notability still hasn't been conclusively proved, it clearly wasn't unreasonable.

Number of references is pretty irrelevant - as seen in comments above, there are vasts numbers of refs, they just don't satisfy the triple requirement.

I'm not quite sure what you mean in the latter half of your third point.

Point 4 might be correct. However I suspect the opposite is true - editors think it fails notability, but there are so many refs that actually proving the absence is extremely time consuming.

This is obviously the case, but it doesn't really impact the justifications (or not) of the discussion

I wouldn't say your point 6 is at all justified, the suspicion of notability is nowhere near that high - if it was, then you'd probably see more Keep !votes. It's being relisted because reviewers come, scroll through the blizzard of references and analysis, and don't actually see a particular weight of !votes either way.

Finally, the tag wouldn't really address the concerns - either the article meets notability, in which case a notability tag shouldn't be needed, or it doesn't in which case it should be removed. The only way that might happen is if we got a no-consensus result, which can't specifically be sought as a result. Nosebagbear (talk)

Delete - after an analysis of more refs than I've seen in a long while at AfD, it's becoming increasingly the case that there just doesn't appear to be sufficient sourcing that satisfied the Sig Cov/Reliable/Independent trilemma. There are multiple potential redirect targets, so a redirect wouldn't be suitable. I would request a deletion without prejudice against recreation - obviously with this much coverage, notability is always on the cusp of being satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nosebagbear. I would also add that given the huge number of refs in the article and provided in this AFD that the creator of the article seems to have an agenda of some kind to promote this person, otherwise why would someone give so many dozens of unreliable references. I'm not saying they have violated any policies, it just seems very suspicious how over the top their actions are. It could just be inexperience with Wikipedia, but that's not the vibe I'm getting. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: i appreciate your patient and analysis but would have kindly wish you take your time to look at all Reference including the first Reference listed.

I will also appreciate if another editor can kindly do same.

@Newshunter12: i also appreciate your comment, but no editor would be happy to find out after taking much time to develop an Article only to find out his Article was nominated and wouldn't try to defend it.

I will plead with you aswell to kindly look through all the Reference including the first 22 and see if it can pass.

Thank you.

Ogbonna Ruby Ebere (talk) 07:35, 22 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. Tone 14:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Ali (American football)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG where the only references that actually mention the subject are WP:PRIMARY (and one instance in a list stating he graduated high school, which is totally WP:NN). Also fails WP:NGRIDIRON by only playing in low level minor indoor leagues such as the AIFA. It states he played with the AFL's San Jose Sabercats in the "2010 season", however, this is clearly false as the team never played in 2009 and 2010. He was allegedly cut when the Sabercats rejoined the AFL, but even that I can find no sources for, just the subject's own statements. Everything in this article seems highly suspect and appears to be WP:PROMO. Yosemiter (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further investigation, this page was almost definitely an autobiography considering the same username (User:Kookface) uploaded CliffBranchandI.jpg and OmarSamhanwithUs.jpg labelled with Mr. Ali as "I" and "myself". Yosemiter (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a circus. You admins continue to nitpick for holes. Notability was clearly established when he was promoted to General Manager. You won't find sources for the Wolves or the Eagles because when the article was curated, the previous editors noted that the AIF sites were dead. Sure you can state the Sabercats claim is not referenced, but there were clearly references and sources for the other two AIF teams, which are professional Arena league franchises. Not to mention he is the first ever GM & Player of Pakistani descent. I really don't see why we keep going back and forth on this issue, there are far less notable players with articles and not once are they questioned for notability or accuracy of sources.

User:Kookface 14:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep !vote for User:Kookface added by User:Paulmcdonald as interpretation of comment.

@Kookface: 1: I am not an admin. 2: please provide WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:RELIABLE references of SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE. 3: just because something might be WP:TRUE does not make it Notable. 4: As I clearly stated, there are clear errors here (the Sabercats did not play in 2009 and 2010, so how could he possibly have played for them at that time?), so how do we even know any of his personal claims are true. 4: WP:PRIMARY references cannot be used to establish notability. 5: If there are less notable players lacking GNG sources, then those should likely be deleted as well. 6: Playing in the AIF/AIFA has no presumed notability. Dead links are not the issue as they would still be Primary. (Also, about half those teams seem to fail GNG due to insignificant independent coverage and many have been deleted. AIF players got even less coverage than teams, if any at all.) Yosemiter (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NGRIDIRON. SportingFlyer talk 06:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. The coming and going of indoor football leagues and teams is difficult to follow, but I don't think he's notable for that. When in doubt I rely on whether or not the GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability measure I can find. Normally players who only played at the community college level or coached as an assistant at that level do not generate enough press to pass notability, and the same is said for other indoor/minor league teams. Although notability could be achieved by someone at that level, that doesn't seem to be the case here--at least, not for this encyclopedia. Perhaps an online sports encyclopedia or almanac would be a better choice at this stage. Try another wiki.--12:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Not finding significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, and thus unable to find that he passes WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 01:23, 21 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) 13:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Schuler[edit]

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

There is no notability guideline or policy that says “the oldest in a state is notable”. The sourcing for this article is all sparse local feature coverage and fails WP:GNG. There isn't even a provided source for her claimed death and two other "sources" in the article violate Wikipedia policy and cannot be used. One is a Facebook post and the other is a self-published website run by her family that evidently doesn't even exist anymore. The only other sources I could find on her WP:BEFORE are WP:ROUTINE generic obituary type sources and a GRG table which tells us nothing other than her name, age and country. Even if these sources meant she was somehow notable, then WP:NOPAGE and WP:BIO1E should almost certainly apply as there is nothing to say about her other than the basic trivial longevity stuff (born, married, had kids, was oldest in Kansas, died). Her presence on the List of supercentenarians from the United States is enough, as this article is never going to expand beyond a WP:PERMASTUB and is primarily acting as a WP:MEMORIAL.

Given off-wiki canvassing problems on this topic in the past, for the record, this is WP:NOTAVOTE. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to pass WP:GNG through sources cited in the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article again. I removed dead and invalid sources from the article. The only sources are two PDF's, one of which cites the other as a source for itself, so under WP:GNG, they count as only one source. Both PDF's were features given to local seniors and staff where she lived, nothing more. She's clearly not notable. Care to recast your vote? Newshunter12 (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should have removed all the sources you did--dead links have a special method of handling and offline-sources still apply. If there was any reason to believe the references were false that would be grounds to remove; but just having a "dead link" does not invalidate the article. In any event, another article has been found. I stand by my original assessment.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not actually at the link provided or created on that site; I was being fair in believing that it at one time really did exist, and so labeled the issue as being link dead since I couldn't verify that it ever existed. The link itself worked fine. The new source is welcomed, but local news feature coverage like that doesn't pass WP:GNG. It's considered insignificant. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, the Topeka Capital-Journal is the primary paper for the capital of the state of Kansas and has been publishing since 1879, reporting a current circulation of over 25,000. That and the other sources more than surpass GNG. There are other sources that support this but are not included in the article now because they would be redundant.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She does not meet WP:GNG. That is all local coverage from where she lived and with all due respect to Ms. Schuler, those articles are nothing more then cheap feature (aka not hard news) coverage of a local curiosity. Those articles were for local entertainment, not spreading remarkable encyclopedic information that now needs to live on Wikipedia forever. Also, even if she passed WP:GNG, which she doesn't, she still fails WP:NOPAGE and WP:BIO1E. There is nothing encyclopedic to say about her. Living a long time does not make anyone inherently notable. This article comes from a time (2008) when many longevity fans (or family members) mass created articles for every 110+ year old they could, entirely heedless of merit. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states the following: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." This subject meets all of those categories. The Topeka Capital-Journal is really a "regional" paper rather than a "local" paper, but even if it were there is nothing in GNG that disqualifies "local" coverage--the word "local" isn't even anywhere on the page. The "one event" argument does not apply because there is not "one event" that this covers instead is about the individual and the coverage through her life. I'm not seeing how NOPAGE applies other than we simply just seem to disagree.-Paul McDonald (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are not articles all throughout her life, they are feature articles where readers got to learn basic life info about a local curiosity. This page fails WP:NOPAGE because all there is is the typical longevity trivia (born, got married, had kids, worked, and died). There is nothing encyclopedic to say about her. Also, the fact that her family website and her social media account were plugged into the article, and a claimed relative commented on the articles talk page to decide content, this article seems a thinly veiled way for her family to memorialize her, which violates WP:MEMORIAL. Could you check out this recent AfD on a very similar individual? [12] Schuler's article and this article are very similar, besides the WP:MEMORIAL issues. Such articles are being slowly weeded out from Wikipedia because they don't merit existing in the first place in an encyclopedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is specifically listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. However, multiple feature articles do point toward notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. 208.54.87.254 (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)— 208.54.87.254 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No, it does not. By WP:GNG it has one local source in the article and even if the extremely brief GRG source is added, it still doesn't pass. It also fails WP:NOPAGE, WP:BIO1E, and WP:MEMORIAL. This is the second longevity AfD you have added a substance-free keep vote to today [1]. AfD's aren't votes, so such conduct is not in anyway helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newshunter12 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Paul McDonald. Into the Rift (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to appropriate list. Wasn't the oldest in the country, only her state, and nowhere in the notability guidelines does it say "oldest X is notable". References all appear to be typical WP:ROUTINE old people coverage. Two newsletters from her nursing home, two from the Topeka Capital-Journal (112th birthday and her obituary) and the two external links to KTKA in Topeka. Which I'd argue would all be local coverage because she retired to the area. Even then, there's nothing to say about her other than bare life basics that pad these supercentenarian articles (born, got married, had kids, worked, died). Entry on a list is enough. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- While the obit is certainly a routine article, it does provide useful info. However, the feature article in the capital journal is clearly WP:NOTROUTINE--aside from being a full-length feature article, it provides ample information about the life of the subject and clearly shows significant coverage that is required by WP:GNG. As stated above, "local" is not a consideration for WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hate to prolong yet another longevity-related slugfest, but further analysis of the sources is necessary here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There's arguably more coverage here than usual, so I could support a redirect, but the coverage seems to be local and routine, which does not satisfy WP:N and the general notability guidelines. There's nothing here of encyclopedic value that couldn't be reproduced effectively on one of the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 21:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ROUTINE is specifically about events. This article is about a person, not an event.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This person only has an article because of the event of getting older then most, which is what the coverage was about. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the coverage is dated from 2009 through 2011, and the information covers several aspects of her life over a period of time. Nowhere near "one" event. The article is about the person, not the person's age at death.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source articles are feature articles about a local curiosity, someone uncommonly old, and talked about universal human characteristics she had like family, marriage (or not), and employment that readers could relate to. These articles and the Wikipedia article itself only exist because she reached an uncommon age (you do understand this is a longevity article right?) and none of these articles would exist if she died a few years younger, including this one. There is also convincing evidence described above that her family likely used this article as a personal memorial (in violation of WP:MEMORIAL) not because her life was so important to other people. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:25, 22 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. I think we need to call time (he-he) on this discussion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob's Watches[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was deleted per a deletion discussion in 2013 and created again, directly, by a paid editor in 2014 (disclosed in that diff and on talk; not put through AfC). Its creation was immediately protested on talk; it was tagged for speedy by User:DGG but that was stripped. And so it has stood. This page hits almost all the notes in WP:Identifying PR and is an advertisement, from the UNDUE mention of its patent application in the lead to the list of "media appearances" to the EL to its patent application. Notability is marginal per the revised WP:ORGCRIT and in any case the content here should not exist in WP. Please delete and salt, since the subject company has a very clear intent to abuse WP for PR. Even if this is kept, the AfD will serve as community review. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the extent to which other community members want to "count" my !vote but I will say that I worked with this company to establish third-party reliable sources with substantial content. If community members have feedback on how to improve the article in addition to !votes on deletion/keeping, then that would be appreciated. For what it's worth, I have no existing/continuing relationship with them and they don't have me on any retainer or contract for further work, so I'm just interested in making a stronger article at this point. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does "to establish third-party reliable sources with substantial content." mean you located them, or that you arranged for them to be published? This is for information--I recognize that it's a regular part of the PR profession to try to get reputable magazines to publish articles on the client--which is one of the reasons for my skepticism about sourcing in this field. DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither--I have no relationship with any of those publishing companies or media outlets. I just told the company themselves that they need to have third-party sources and then they found them. Whether or not they had anything to do with arranging publication is something I don't know. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references are mostly either directly promotional or highly influenced by their promotions . The best references are te ones that simply discuss the market, and mention them as one of the companies. There seems to be some remaining hype: They have a patent filed in the United States as the only e-commerce company to utilize the exchange concept." They filed and received a patent. That doesn't mean that the patent is valid, or that they are the only company doing similar. For a dealer to post prices as We will buy at X, and sell at Y is an ancient practice. That they apply it to luxury watches would seem trivial. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The Internet has allowed for a growing market of luxury watch sellers,[8] due to the investment holding value.[9] " is about the industry as a whole. The article in ?Forbes mentions them as one of the dealers. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Adams, Susan (2016-07-06). "Bob's Watches Brings Transparency To The Fraud-Filled Market For Used And Vintage Rolexes". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2018-08-30. Retrieved 2018-08-30.
  This article was written by a Forbes staff member, not a Forbes contributor, so it is a reliable source.
  The article notes:
  
  The "he" is not actually named Bob. Rather, he's 60-year-old Bob's Watches owner Paul Altieri. His decision to list both figures, which he compares to the bid and ask prices on a stock exchange, sets him apart from other pre-owned-watch sellers on the Web. He introduced the feature six years ago when he relaunched Bob's Watches, a domain he bought for $8,000 from a North Carolina dealer, Bob Thompson, who was retiring. Started as an experiment that combined full-disclosure pricing with obsessive policing of fakes, Bob's Watches has grown quickly, bringing in a profit of nearly $2 million on revenue of just under $20 million last year.
  Altieri works with his wife--COO Carol Altieri--and 18 employees in a 5,000-square-foot space in Huntington Beach, Calif. that includes a dustproof room where a Rolex-trained watchmaker does overhauls and repairs. (The site offers other luxury brands--Patek Philippe, Panerai and Omega among them--but is known for its Rolexes.) Next to Altieri's desk sits a 6-foot-tall safe containing some 150 watches from his personal collection of 400 vintage Rolexes, which he says are worth north of $3 million. The rest are in a bank safe-deposit box he visits weekly to swap out models he enjoys wearing.
  ...
  He decided to buy the Bob's Watches domain because it had been registered since 1999, making it just four years younger than Amazon and winning it trust in Google rankings. To get his first inventory, he paid $198,000 for 25 Rolexes at an IWJG show, then sold them online at cost. It caught on: In 2010 Bob's Watches grossed $2 million. Three years later it hit $10.5 million and last year nearly $20 million.
2. Luppi, Kathleen (2017-05-11). "Luxury watch enthusiast builds a Rolex empire in Huntington Beach". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-30. Retrieved 2018-08-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Altieri is founder and CEO of Huntington Beach-based Bob's Watches, the world's largest online specialty retailer of pre-owned and vintage Rolexes.
  ...
  He, his wife, chief operating officer Carol Altieri, and a team of 21 employees operate in a 5,000-square-foot space in a nondescript Goldenwest Street shopping center that neighbors 405 Tropical Fish and Plato's Closet.
  There, certified watchmakers quote, service and identify every Rolex within a transaction. Marketing and commerce specialists build an online presence for the site, as Bob's consistently pops up as one of the top results on search engines. Sales representatives are responsible for customer service. Others load product pictures online.
  ...
  Bob's Watches also carries timepieces by Patek Philippe, Omega and Cartier, but Altieri said Rolex drives the resale market.
3. Madans, Hannah (2017-01-29). "Wanna sell your Rolex? Bob's Watches pivots from sale to resale online and by app". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2018-08-30. Retrieved 2018-08-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Paul Altieri, the owner of Bob’s Watches, has been in the trade for 35 years. In recent years he pivoted from direct sales to the resale of luxury watches. Altieri bought Bob’s Watches in 1999 and in 2009 transitioned it to a high-end watch exchange at bobswatches.com.
  He wanted to create a place for owners of posh pieces to safely buy and sell their treasures.
  ...
  Last year the Huntington Beach-based company transacted several thousand watches and brought in more than $20 million in revenue, bucking a trend in the luxury goods market.
  ...
  Here’s how it works at Bob’s Watches: Customers have their watches evaluated by Bob’s Watches, which then buys the watch, restores it and sells it. Prices online run from $2,500 to $25,000. Altieri said the site is unique because it lists the buy and sell price of each piece.
4. Biggs, John (2014-03-12). "Bob's Watches Streamlines The Rolex Market With An Electronic Exchange". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2018-08-30. Retrieved 2018-08-30.
  The article notes:
  
  As a watch nerd, I love to see the stuffy old watchmaking industry try new things. That’s why I was intrigued by the recent changes at Bob’s Watches, a retailer turned website that buys and sells Rolex watches using a very simple exchange model.
  Founded by Paul Altieri in 2010, the site was mostly a sales portal for years. Now, however, the company has created a Rolex Exchange, a real-time engine for pricing Rolex watches. Owners can post their own watches for sale and Bob’s gets a cut while buyers can see prices for hundreds of pieces.
  ...
  What Bob’s has done is create a simple market. Buyers can ask for a quote and Bob’s will sell the watch through their site. This gives the seller a better chance of getting a fair price and reduces much of the risk in dealing with an anonymous online seller. Given that almost every watch hobbyist has seen at least one timepiece get “eaten” by FedEx or DHL, it’s nice to be able to pawn some of the risk off on another party.
  ... However, in the benighted world of watch retail, Bob’s is basically Google.
5. Perman, Stacy (2017-04-21). "How to Buy Luxury Watches for 40% Off". Barron's. Archived from the original on 2018-08-30. Retrieved 2018-08-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Another model making waves is Bob’s Watches in Huntington Beach, Calif., an online exchange for buying and selling vintage and preowned Rolex watches. It offers full-disclosure on pricing and guarantees that each timepiece is a 100% authentic Rolex, including its parts. Paul Altieri, who relaunched the site seven years ago after acquiring the domain name, modeled it on a stock exchange.
  ...
  A Rolex Daytona White 16523 two-tone is available, for example, on Bob’s lists for $9,795; he will buy the same model from you for $6,800. By disclosing the markup, Altieri has lifted the veil on the shady practice of those dealers who buy on the cheap and then inflate the price for resale, in some cases by as much as 100%.
  Such openness has helped make Bob’s Watches one of the country’s biggest Rolex dealers. Altieri says he makes 700 to 800 transactions a month. In six years, business is up tenfold, from $2 million in revenue in 2010 to $20 million last year.
6. Ferrell, David (2013-03-22). "Good times return for Rolex watches". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2018-08-30. Retrieved 2018-08-30.
  The article notes:
  
  History: Founded mid-1990s by Bob Thompson. Purchased by Paul Altieri in 2010. Altieri and partner Greg Greiner overhauled the website and introduced the pre-owned Rolex exchange.
  This article is not significant coverage, but I am including it here because it provides more information about the company's history.
7. Binkley, Christina (2016-03-15). "In a Collection of Luxury Timepieces, One Rolex Stands Out". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-08-30. Retrieved 2018-08-30.
  The article notes:
  
  [Paul] Altieri, 60, has built a collection of hundreds of watches, generally finding them one by one. He has also built one of the largest online-watch-trading sites in the U.S., called Bob’s Watches, buying and selling 300 to 400 valuable time pieces a month.
  This article is not significant coverage, but I am including it here because it notes Bob's Watches is "one of the largest online-watch-trading sites in the U.S."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bob's Watches to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Six of the seven sources I posted above were published after the 7 September 2013 close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob's Watches.
The Los Angeles Times says Bob's Watches is "the world's largest online specialty retailer of pre-owned and vintage Rolexes".
The Wall Street Journal says Bob's Watches is "one of the largest online-watch-trading sites in the U.S."
Barron's says Bob's Watches is "one of the country's biggest Rolex dealers".
TechCrunch says "in the benighted world of watch retail, Bob's is basically Google".
Cunard (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have removed the promotional information from the article.
Cunard (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This still had marketing shit. I have cleaned it further. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete perWP:ORGSIG. I don't see anything that makes this notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia and the mere existence of a few sources doesn't make it so. At best, merge with Rolex or Watch. --regentspark (comment) 17:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the sources offered above are closely related to self-promotion / WP:SPIP. Just a directory listing on a private business; does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:ORGIND. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Really disgusting how such blatant advertising managed to exist for such a long time...Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a pretty important company in a decidedly upscale market, with apparently a key article about it in the Wall Street Journal, which I don't have access to. I've made some changes in the text which may make it more acceptable to those who are opposed. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- User:BeenAroundAWhile the WSJ piece is a brief (457 words), kind of "color" piece, mostly focused on Altieri and his passion for Rolex. It has 9 short paragraphs; 6 and a half are about that, 1 and a half are about the business, and one is about what makes an old watch valuable or harms its value. Does nothing for notability; I only kept it because it has the useful "one of the largest online-watch-trading sites in the U.S" line. Your comments on that source are rhetoric without substance. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Flipping through Cunard's sources, and the article's citations, there seems to be news articles focused on the company published over about 4 years. Maybe they have great marketing staff that bias this coverage, but there's too much focused coverage for me to say this doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Daask (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Indepth Forbes article (by a Forbes editor, https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/#6f7842513eca), reasonable TechCrunch article, indepth LA Times article, others … easily meets WP:GNG. If these are all advertising plants by their marketing department, well, then their marketing department has thoroughly earned its money. --GRuban (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NCORP specifically disqualifies Forbes sites for the purposes of establishing notability. The other articles fail ORGIND as they aren't intellectually independent and rely on company announcements/quotations/etc. Cunard tends to crop his selected quotes so as to hide the fact that the article content is often attributable to a company source. Not a single one of the sources meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it specifically does not. It says: "an extensive company profile in Forbes blog by a non-staff contributor". That's why I linked that she is, in fact, a staff contributor. --GRuban (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're correct. Article still fails ORGIND since she has based this on an interview and I can't identify or point to any original/independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure you can. Almost the whole second paragraph:

“The price he’s willing to pay gives you a degree of transparency,” says Richard Wilt of White Plains, N.Y. He bought his first Rolex, a 2003 Datejust, for $3,600 from Bob’s in April. Wilt says he even felt reassured by the spread. “It helps you trust where you stand.”

That is a prime example of original/independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. You can tell because she's attributing it. --GRuban (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but what exactly does that do to establish the notability of the company? That is has a customer? It is worthless from the point of view of establishing notability which is the entire point of applying NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph doesn't establish notability. The Forbes article (with the others) makes it meet WP:GNG, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Forbes is a reliable source, the article is significant coverage. You questioned whether it had any independent …, which I showed. I could have just said - "Dude, she's a Forbes editor, which is a pretty respected journalistic position, she's not gonna risk her rep by being a shill for a single article about a watch company", but no, I pointed to a specific example of where she had, in fact, done her own investigative work for the magazine. The notability doesn't come from what she writes, the notability comes from the fact that she writes, that Forbes, one of the top N business magazines in the world for a fairly small N, devoted space in their magazine (this was printed in the actual magazine, by the way, not just on their website, see: "This story appears in the July 26, 2016 issue of Forbes"), and the time of one of their editors that could have been spent on another business issue, to write about this company. That is what notability means, that the company has been noticed. Between Forbes, and the LA Times, and all the other articles, that is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". They have taken notice of it. We should too. --GRuban (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, your interpretation is incorrect. I first of all made the mistake of dismissing the Forbes article as an unreliable source but you pointed out it wasn't and I then accepted it could be treated as a reliable source. I have already moved on from that but it appears you still believe you need to make this point again. Fair enough. We can move on now. Since it is a reliable source, I then applied the test on whether the article contains "intellectually independent" content that can be used for the purposes of establishing notability (as per WP:ORGIND. From my review of the article, there is nothing I can see which can be pointed to as being intellectually independent that can also be used to establish notability. The only intellectually independent pieces within the article are incidental and tangential to the subject company. Note, other people would say that a "customer" quotation is rarely unsolicited and often is regarded as being a connected source - I have not taken this approach. You have also gone to some trouble to explain your concept/interpretation of notability but I note that you have not expanded on "independent" very well and I suspect your definition would differ to mine and others here. While your description would suffice for most other categories of article, such as WP:PEOPLE, the guidelines for organizations/companies in WP:NCORP describes in detail what is meant by "independent" and "intellectually independent". So, in summary, you have established that an article was written and published in a reliable source and that it contains elements that can be regarded as intellectually independent. My rebuttal is that none of the intellectually independent parts have a relevance for establishing the notability of the company. You have not pointed to any elements within any article in any publication that are intellectually independent WP:ORGIND and also meet WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails WP:NCORP because sources in the article and on the web fail to demonstrate that the company is notable. Buying stuff at one price and reselling it at a higher price is an ancient practice, so there is nothing unique or groundbreaking about what this company does. The article is highly promotional, which is unsurprising given that it was recreated by a paid editor. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:40, 22 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional plants[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. WP:LISTCRUFT 2, 3 , 6, 9 and 11. This list will never be complete, as a lot of plants in fiction do not have names and are just called grass or a bush instead. Also, this only mentions a few fictional works, and there are much more that are not in this list. This article consists of a list with random plants and then some plants from some randomly picked books and other works. » Shadowowl | talk 17:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadowowl: I am unconvinced by the deletion rationale. I don't understand how WP:INDISCRIMINATE is supposed to apply and WP:LISTCRUFT is not a deletion policy. I am reasonably sure the list is only of named plants that appear in fiction but don't exist in reality. And incomplete lists are specifically allowed and should be tagged instead. Could you please elaborate on why this article should be deleted. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN. For example, see Vegetable Monsters: Man-Eating Trees in fin-de-siecle Fiction; Plants in Science fiction and Fantasy; Timeline of Botanical Fictions; Plant Horror: Approaches to the Monstrous Vegetal in Fiction and Film. WP:LISTCRUFT is neither policy nor guideline and so carries no weight. Andrew D. (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Above sources are enough to qualify for WP:GNG, in my opinion, but the article should discuss plants in fiction, and not just be a list of plants in fiction. Right now it looks more like a TV Tropes than a Wikipedia article. The current article doesn't include any sources that actually discuss plants in fiction, and therefore should be deleted per WP:TNT. A new article called "Plants in fiction" can be made based on the sources listed above. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'keep scope is notable. Can be embellished as anarticle without deleting Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: vast amount of uncited listcruft. Maybe a good article could be made out of this, but this is classic WP:TNT. Bondegezou (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- FenixFeather is right in that this resembles a TVtropes entry more than an encyclopedia article. Whether there's an article to be written on Plants in fiction remains to be seen, but what's clear is that none of this essentially unsourced listrcruft will end up there. Reyk _YO! 11:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - salvageable. There are enough articles (such as Triffid) that a list of this title containing only blue-links could be created. Middle-earth plants contains the (very many) Lord of the Rings plants. I'm not sure such a drastic step is necessary to solve the issues of this violating WP:NOT by being TVTropes-like. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of relevant articles as seen by the content in Category:Fictional plants, however much work the current list needs to get there, so this would satisfy WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN. Evidence also shown that this passes WP:LISTN (see above sources, as well as Flora of Middle-Earth: Plants of J.R.R. Tolkien's Legendarium, and relevant sections in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy: Themes, Works, and Wonders, Volume 2 and Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia), etc., etc.). postdlf (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per User:Reyk. While it's certainly possible a viable article or list can be created, that should be done via a rewrite. This article is totally unsourced and unsalvageable. Nothing will be lost from deleting it, as all the articles will still remain in Category:Fictional plants._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it seems to me this is a list that needs to be improved, not deleted; if I may point to Lists of fictional species, I could see this becoming something similar. Reading through the list, it is woefully incomplete, but it is certainly a legitimate topic that I think could be a very good list. It needs work, but that doesn't mean a deletion is in order. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 01:35, 20 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. Tone 14:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2009–2010 Puebla F.C. season[edit]

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

fork of 2013–14 Puebla F.C. season? the title says 2009-2010, but the text is a mixture of different seasons. Frietjes (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to have a been a copy-and-paste from the 2013–14 season. Unless someone wants to effectively blank the page, change the title to the correct format, and add information from the correct season, then it's better to just delete it. 21.colinthompson (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the topic is probably notable, but it wasn't properly created - I'd say draftify as deletion is not cleanup, but I'm not sure if anyone would work on the article. SportingFlyer talk 06:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- it looks like there are some differences, but probably better to start over at 2009–10 Puebla F.C. season, rather than try to sort out what is actually correct for the 2009–10 season. Frietjes (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - topic is notable but it is worthless in current state. Also agree the correct location would b e '2009–10'. Giant Snowman 08:15, 17 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. The discussion shifted from keep to redirection or deletion, but ultimately no clear consensus was reached. – Joe (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese05[edit]

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

This may be a notable achievement, but the article is sourced almost entirely from the subject's own twitter and youtube postings. None of the sources provide independent, in-depth coverage. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Independent, in-depth coverage can be found at these sources: [13] Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Engadget article doesn't provide in-depth coverage? It is an interview to be fair, though, there are plenty of other articles on the Internet. wumbolo ^^^ 19:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not independent because it is an interview. In-depth coverage is not sufficient to indicate notability. --Izno (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a feature article. It uses quotes but is very far from a simple, unedited interview. czar 04:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assessment after review. I'm not sure why Wumbolo called it an interview... I'm always amenable to a redirect, in this case to List of Super Mario speedrunning records#Super Mario 64 or similar. --Izno (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources in the article indicate notability at this time. --Izno (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Do you like this source? [14] wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really about Cheese. --Izno (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about this or this? The latter mentions Cheese 17 times. wumbolo ^^^ 21:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with Izno here. So far, browsing over things, the article is currently written entirely to first party accounts on Youtube and social media, which is entirely inappropriate for a WP:BLP, and most things presented here are either interviews, and seem to stray away from the subject relatively quickly. There's also...very little to be said, outside of a couple sentences. Leaning towards deletion unless someone else presents something better... Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any detail that couldn't be covered in sufficient context at List of Super Mario speedrunning records#Super_Mario_64? czar 04:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, with some effort and googling, sources required could be added and changed to fit with the guidelines. QueerFilmNerd^talk 18:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Perhaps I'm out of touch with kids (where "kids" is anyone younger than me ie: born after the mid '70s) these days, but a search for sources just seems to show trivial mentions and while his sexuality is sourced to his own Twitter feed, is it really important to mention in this article? He's not exactly Matthew Smith. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Is this trivial? wumbolo ^^^ 11:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very specialised source - are there any mentions in national broadsheet newspapers or magazines, that aren't gaming specific? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we excluded gaming sources for WP:BASIC, tons of these articles would be deleted. wumbolo ^^^ 11:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should, then. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I agree that the Engadget article might, just barely, qualify as a notability reference. Detractions include the fact that it appears to be partially based on an interview, is more about the Speedrunning profession, with Cheese05 picked out as one exemplar, and is in what might be considered a niche publication. @Eastmain: I find it a bit surprising that you would post a Google search URL as evidence, with no further details. Generally, this discussion makes me wonder if some specialized notability guidelines should be developed to apply to these sorts of gaming professionals. I'm willing to be schooled on this, but it's my impression that "local coverage only" applies not just to geography but to topic matter. With no coverage in general interest publications, some other hurdle has to be overcome to establish notability. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying that an article in Bloomberg News can't make a businessman notable. wumbolo ^^^ 16:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. There are all sorts of "routine" articles in the business press that we discount as not contributing to notability. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Routine coverage comes in many forms and should be closely searched for. wumbolo ^^^ 17:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The current article looks awkward, but there are plenty of sources available on Cheese05. He's certainly one of the most prominent speedrunners. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 20:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I never thought I'd be able to say this but, per Ritchie. The lack of meaningful, in depth coverage is astounding. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a book titled Speedrunning: Interviews with the Quickest Gamers (ISBN 9781476670805) which includes a chapter about Cheese05. I don't know if it's independent enough for GNG, since the author interviewed Cheese05. wumbolo ^^^ 12:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about niche publishers: McFarland & Company. Not quite self-published, I guess, but how they make any money on books with print runs of 600 is a mystery to me. Can this interview contribute to notability? We don't normally consider interviews as notability references. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a plain interview; it also contains biographical information about the subject. wumbolo ^^^ 18:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Mario speedrunning records#Super Mario 64. Insufficient depth of coverage. Daask (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to something like List of Super Mario speedrunning records#Super_Mario_64. Yes, there are more than one source about him, but all of them basically mention only one significant thing - his speedrun world record. Aside from that, his YT and Twitch stats are unremarkable and not really worth mentioning (same goes for all the fluff/trivia about his podcasts, including what he discussed in his videos or his streaming schedule) so there's clearly nothing much to write about him. Maybe later he'll set more records or perhaps cause some controversy or something similar that will give more reasons for dedicated article, but not now.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom: There is quite a bit to write about him when you combine the Engadget source, and the book I mention above. wumbolo ^^^ 16:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at that Engadget article and from what I've read there really isn't much to write about him. I mean, the article does mention his daily routine and when he starts streaming, but how valuable all this information is? There are 1000's of other streamers who do same exact things every day. Same goes for how many hours he spends on playing the game or the Twitch income (and Twitch income data is already outdated). Same also goes for his sexuality as Ritchie333 pointed out - ok, he identifies himself as a gay person, and that's great, but so what? It's not being mentioned in any way by any other publication, so why mention it at all?

So once again, he's definitely a notable person to mention but he is notable for only one thing and has nothing else that is worth writing about, this is why it's better to just redirect or merge current info with other articles which already mention him and his achievements. That's just my opinion, of course. Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 16:09, 14 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. A weak keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hokaglish[edit]

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

Non-notable linguistic research. I am nominating this with some hesitation, but the entire article is based on the research of only 1 young academic (here are some credentials). After almost 2 years and several discussions (see article talk) the main article editor(s) couldn't provide any additional sources and noted that there is only one linguist who studies it (see article talk). In addition to this problem the topic's basic terminology and current state of research are apparently still in flux and unclear (both the basic name and its definition have become disputed by the original author throughout these discussions).

Sorry for the lengthy rationale, but this is a complex situation. I believe the topic is a case of academic WP:TOOSOON - Wikipedia is not a venue to publish new research, that hasn't been sufficiently discussed by other peers and publications. As an alternative to deletion, the article could be draftified to allow further work by the author and other interested linguists. GermanJoe (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep GermanJoe makes some really good points. If the tone of the article more accurately reflected the nascent research phase of the language, I would feel better about it. - Scarpy (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expand in draft --hueman1 (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 15:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Navera, "The Influence of Gender and Home Language in the Occurrence of Codeswitching Functions in Adolescent Autobiographical Narratives" describes Hokaglish briefly and appears to be independent of Gonzales. Gonzales has a few cites in other scholarly works not authored by him, but it is very thin. SpinningSpark 17:11, 14 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. Sandstein 08:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amar y Servir Foundation[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Largely based on related websites. A fundraising organisation is not made notable by the organisations is sponsors. The Banner talk 11:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 13:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ORGSIG, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH. I've been looking at this article for a while and come to the conclusion that there are no significant independent sources that discuss the organisation in depth. The Semana source in the article is a puff piece about collecting money through children's carol singing, while there are a couple of other sources from Spanish newspapers about raising donations abroad for the organisation [15], [16], but none of the three tell you anything much about the organisation itself. All the other sources are from Jesuit-affiliated websites or mere passing mentions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 15:52, 14 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. Sandstein 08:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Employee Benefits Live[edit]

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

An article created by a new editor about an annual B2B event, one of a number promoted by Centaur Media. The article is sourced to primary references from the event and promoter sites, along with a blog post which mentions the 2017 event. Searches are finding routine announcements by companies saying they will be represented at the event, a quotation from a speech at a past event [17], but not the independent WP:INDEPTH coverage required to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 18:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 15:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any external coverage of this event. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 15:50, 14 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orkut Oru Ormakoot[edit]

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

I can find no real coverage in english or malayalam. It's mostly passing mentions, mill type stuff and doesn't look to have been any sort of record breaking film so fails WP:NFILM CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I stand by my prod rationale. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 15:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 15:50, 14 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. Tone 14:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P. R. Paul[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Cannot find secondary source coverage on subject. Rogermx (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 15:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 18:58, 16 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. Tone 14:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred City[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Produced by non-notable artists. Merger theoretically possible, but in practice not as there is not enough content to make a merger beneficial. Kirbanzo (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 15:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree with the nominator's statement that the band were "non-notable artists" – Shriekback were a well known group on the UK's alternative music scene throughout the 1980s, and even dented the UK charts on occasion [18], and the band's two principal members were separately involved in two other very notable groups with UK chart hits. I've tidied the article up and will admit that the one-and-a-half reviews currently present don't make a convincing case for keeping it, although I would be confident that this record attracted reviews in the print versions of NME and Melody Maker at the time. If other editors decide that there isn't a strong enough case to keep the article, I would understand and not complain, but at the very least a redirect to Shriekback would be in order, not an outright delete. Richard3120 (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM#1. Added sources from Boston Globe, Seattle Times, and Los Angeles Times. Album clearly has "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." So it passes WP:NALBUM#1. Bakazaka (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, along with a thanks to Bakazaka for adding those sources. They seem to be enough for the article to meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 03:17, 21 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heth and Jed[edit]

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

Article does not indicate notability other than WP:ROUTINE mentions in local papers and an appearance on a relatively obscure channel. Albums did not chart and are on non-notable labels. Article is mostly WP:OR. Teemu08 (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 15:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone???
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 15:29, 14 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 merge to California Proposition 8 (2008)#Post-election events. Tone 14:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post-election events of Proposition 8 (2008)[edit]

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

This is a WP:CFORK of material covered in California Proposition 8 (2008)#Post-election events and articles linked to therefrom. It looks like it's been abandoned, with no substantial edits since 2012. Some content such as about the failed repeal efforts could be merged. Sandstein 20:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 21:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 21:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 15:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone???
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 15:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It is a content fork, it should be done selectively to avoid undue. Szzuk (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to California Proposition 8 (2008)#Post-election events, to avoid the repetition of content. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to California Proposition 8 (2008)#Post-election events. -Obsidi (talk) 19:55, 18 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mt 8848[edit]

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

Promotional page about non-notable band. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Source 1 doesn't mention the subject. Source 2 does, but it only mentions the name and does not go in-depth on the band. Source 3 does not mention the band and source 4 is a deleted youtube video. » Shadowowl | talk 18:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 15:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone???
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 15:28, 14 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Muhammad Aslam[edit]

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

Vice-President of the Lahore High Court Bar Association is not in itself grounds for WP:N. and I could not find multiple reliable, independent sources that discuss the person in depth as required by GNG. Saqib (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 15:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone????
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 15:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding a few mentions of the name in the news, but it isn't clear whether the individual referred to here is the same as the subject of this article. If it is, I'm seeing an argument to keep, but I don't know how to resolve the ambiguity. Vanamonde (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thats different person. --Saqib (talk) 03:38, 16 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. Tone 14:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Minds (miniseries)[edit]

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

I can find no independent coverage of this documentary program (just a few sites possibly selling it). Thus subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 15:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unable to find substantive coverage of this topic in reliable independent sources. Vanamonde (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have kept searching online for this one and...I found nothing. The links on it's article are only it's official website which does not establish any notability, and the DVD one (same thing here). Zero references, no mentions on which channels it even aired at all... Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:17, 17 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Realm (magazine)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMEDIA. Cannot find any reliable secondary sources on this publication. Rogermx (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 15:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I can't find anything definitive either. When I clicked on the link for searching books (here), a few things came up that might be the right Realm magazine, but might not be too. Without clear WP:RS, delete. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:NMEDIA because the magazine lacks WP:SIGCOV that it was or remains notable. I would also note that the article has only one citation after nearly 14 years in existence and it didn't even work when I tried to use it. I was able to find no information about this magazine when I did a search. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:18, 22 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. Sandstein 08:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kora network[edit]

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

Company fails WP:CORP Dewritech (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 15:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:An article on a blockchain startup. The first reference describes the proposition and its user testing phase. The second reference (NewsBTC) is eliciting involvement in the proposition and cannot be considered a WP:RS. There is also an item on Medium, but eliciting involvement and staff recruits, so again primary. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 17:00, 14 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 merge to List of Batman comics. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Batman storylines[edit]

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of Matt14451 with "Article is redundent", as their (manual?) attempt to AfD it seems to have stalled. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is seriously lacking in content and it fails to define what it means by a "storyline". There is a list here, but it's a list of published editions, and I can't reconcile that in any useful way as listing "storylines". Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was in the process of creating this article, you didn't give me much of a chance to create it. Publications are listed, not storylines as per title. The publications article is much more in-depth and useful.

Did you mean Keep?

It has been here for over a year (I don't call for deletion on new articles). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it needs deleting. I meant I was in the process of creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Batman storylines. I had put the template onto the page and was writing the reason but got a notification to say you had reverted my edit there. Following the instructions of this article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Batman_storylines&action=edit&preload=Template:Afd2+starter&editintro=Template:Afd3+starter Matt14451 (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my apologies for the edit conflict. (I suggest installing Twinkle to make the AfD proces automatic and easier.) Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. This is my first attempt of starting an AfD so was slow while reading what to do. I will look into Twinkle for next time so thanks for the suggestion. Matt14451 (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Batman comics. It's better formatted and contains more information, but a spot check found some titles that are missing. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of Batman comics is not adequate for this as there are other media such as TV and movies. There are notable Batman storylines such as Hush or Dark Knight Returns and these are listed in sources such as the following. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

100 Things Batman Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die
Christianity and the Dark Knight
Batman and Philosophy
The Mythology of the Superhero
The Caped Crusade: Batman and the Rise of Nerd Culture
Supervillains and Philosophy
The Essential Batman Encyclopedia
Hunting the Dark Knight

Andrew, did you read any of these sources? Did you even read the article before claiming it included "other media such as TV and movies"? The above is one of your worst AFD !votes in recent memory. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hijiri 88, the only keep argument doesn't make sense. We aren't debating the notability of the topic, an article with the title could exist in a similar way to The Amazing Spider-Man version. The problem is the current content of the page which doesn't reflect the title. Matt14451 (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 15:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article idea is a good one, as it has a good scope and should be easily sourced, however, what we have here is not that. This is a list of Batman titles or volumes which is just a bad list which misuses a valid article title. --Gonnym (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Batman comics per Argento and others. If any of this (currently unsourced) information can be verified, it might be useful to add to the list of comics, which does not appear to be arranged by storyline at the moment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which information do you suggest keeping and merging?

I see two problems here: firstly, the article is a long list of the wrong thing. A list of publications and editions (i.e. physical artefacts) is not the same thing as a list of "storylines".

Secondly, there's a very short list (five) of "titles". Now are these storylines? What is a "storyline" in this context anyway? Even if this is the beginnings of a list on the article's claimed topic, it's failing to achieve that. A short list of titles, with no context and no content on each, is not a useful list. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming at least some of the content of the current list is related to "storylines" like "Knightfall" or Spider-Man's "Clone Saga" (sorry, I'm not much of a comics reader). If I'm wrong and nothing in the article is actually worth keeping, so be it. The title is still a useful redirect, so it's really a question of whether we think it's likely that Andrew or someone else will disruptively revert a redirect unless the page is deleted first. I've seen such things happen in the past, but I don't think it's likely here, so preserving the page history couldn't hurt. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be too specific on what should be merged, but (for example) the storyline list includes one called "War Crimes" that isn't on the comic list. There may be a good reason for this (is the content included under another name?), but that needs to be determined by someone more familiar with Batman. My awareness is mostly limited to surface knowledge of the major ones. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Any discussion of this list and what it can or should contain is incomplete without looking at the corresponding Category:Batman storylines, which has 46 articles at present. If those are all valid articles on storylines, then that obviates many of the complaints raised here that seem focused on the current state of this list rather than its potential and what is fixable. postdlf (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So why do we need an article to duplicate a category? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So why do we need an article to duplicate a category? It's not impossible, but what does it gain? There's no content in this article to use. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Necessity is not a requirement. And the guideline I linked to explains why editors might want to, whether or not you want to contribute to that. postdlf (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.241.132 (talk) 15:38, 21 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. Borderline G11 Tone 14:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angelus Silesius Meeting House[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 11:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 13:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While I have a feeling this entry is part-promotional, the organization is briefly? (snippet view) discussed in Alina Petrowa-Wasilewicz (2000). Leksykon ruchów i stowarzyszeń w Kościele. Katolicka Agencja Informacyjna. ISBN 978-83-911554-2-4. and Odra. Wrocławskie Wydawn. Prasowe RSW "Prasa". 2001.. There are also quite a few passing mentions; but sources are in Polish and generally snippet view so it's a pain to analyze them. This pretty much hinges on whether those sources provide in-depth coverage, and without a trip to a library in Poland we cannot be sure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is indistinguishable from what the organization would use as a web page. Essentially promotional, possibly to the extent of G11 speedy. I accept Piotrus's opinion that it might be slightly notable, but the combination of borderline notability and clear promotionalism is quite enough for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 19 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. We've seen this discussion before. It's basically, We're a gazateer, so all we need is WP:V, not WP:N vs. Yeah, but I'm not even sure this is WP:V. A move to an alternate title can be discussed on the talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lulayyah[edit]

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

Not known as a settlement, Luluyah is a beach north of Khor Fakkan and not part of Sharjah but Fujairah. As a settlement, it is not notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Okay, you want to call it a beach, then edit the article that way. And we should keep it as a natural feature. I think that is wp:GEOFEAT? --Doncram (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's a beach now. It's still unsourced and arguably not notable (it's not a big public beach, has no facilities). Your call. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm showing it as a well-defined settlement in Sharjah on OpenStreetMap. I can't find any sources in English to push it over the line, but copy-pasting the Arabic name into a search engine brings up a number of what appear to be UAE news sources. Someone should confirm with an Arabic search, bu it probably passes WP:GEOLAND. SportingFlyer talk 23:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, now - there is a suburb of Sharjah City called Layyah and another central area called LouLoua and the difference between LouLoua and Loulayyah in Arabic is minimal/non-existent - LouLoua is Arabic for 'pearl' (Loulaya for a single pearl, also a girl's name). This here Lulayyah is supposed to be a community on the East Coast, which is where the beach in Fujairah shows up but there is no settlement recognised there by that name - the problem with an unsourced entry like this. Best. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a community called Lulayyah (Al Lou`alui`ayyah), in Sharjah, on the east coast: [19] It appears Google and OSM have different boundaries for the emirates which causes the confusion. In any case neighboring Zubarah,_Fujairah has an article, and WP:GEOLAND basically just requires verification as Wikipedia is a gazetteer, so it's a keep in my book, but the next step is to figure out where exactly this settlement is. SportingFlyer talk 07:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless uncited three-word article of dubious accuracy. Softlavender (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~This book says it had a Dh 53 million harbour development. It's clearly a lot more than a beach.~~ SpinningSpark 17:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm striking that source. It may be referring to the suburb of Sharjah mentioned above. SpinningSpark 18:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this source confirms a village of that name. SpinningSpark 18:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can confirm an area called LouLoua (spelled differently on road signs etc just to add to the charm) on the East Coast exists but that's OR. Is it notable? The source above is out of date, BTW - Wadi Wurrayah is now a major protected nature reserve and can't be reached at all. It used to be a popular wadi track but now is reached by tarmac road and is restricted.FWIW. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's a gazetteer, so if it's verifiable, it's typically notable. We could move the page with the redirect if there's a better name for the town. SportingFlyer talk 06:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be locally anglicanized to "Al Luolo'aya". Move candidate? SportingFlyer talk 03:33, 18 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. But, User:Trekphiler really should tone it down a little. WP:AGF and all that. Just because somebody has a different opinion than you, doesn't mean you're not both working to build the encyclopedia in the best way you know how. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of motorsports people by nickname[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nowhere near encyclopedic value. Pure trivia. This is just collection of information for the sake of having another list. T v x1 13:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Nowhere near encyclopedic value" And lists of Pokemon characters are, I suppose. Does it cross your mind some people might just find it useful to be able to go to a page, knowing a nickname but not a given name, & be able to find out who the person is? It's the same rationale behind List of military figures by nickname, which I started precisely because I knew the nickname but not the given name. Of course, given the generally derisive treatment motorsports get here, & given the recent effort to delete half the page because of redlinks (which supposedly confer "non-notability"), I shouldn't be surprised by this: it's the same effort, writ large: delete what you don't care about. While you're at it, why don't you delete the drifter pages, & Garlits', & Prudhomme's, & Muldonwney's, since they're "nowhere near encyclopedic value", either, are they? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid argument. Neither is the other article.T v x1 14:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is a poor nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In its present form, this list is an indiscriminate collection of information due to the excessive number of non-notable entries. A discussion was recently started here to address this concern, though the response there was to leave the excessive non-notable entries in the article. Without a more restrictive selection criteria, this list is mostly unencyclopedic fan cruft and should be deleted. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Non-notable entries"? Like Magoo, & Ed "The Ace", & Big John, you mean? People who've been in racing or customizing for 50yr, made countless appearances in national magazines... Yeah, right. So if they're not notable, why do they have sourced WP pages? And if this list is so offensive because it's got all the drifting drives & mechanics on it, why don't you try getting the inclusion criteria changed, instead of trying to delete the whole page, including the people who belong on it? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep entries are sourced (but many of the references don't check out or are unreliable) and most are to bluelinks. Some cleanup is needed; a split to have separate pages for NASCAR, Formula One, motorcycle racing, etc. would probably improve the encyclopedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a useful list providing links to many notable people and deserves to be retained. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid argument.T v x1 11:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a valid argument" Actually, if you'd bother to read the page you cite, it is. "Usefulness" with a reason can justify a keep. You just want to delete the page & ignore any argument you dislike. And I'd agree with that proposition: if somebody comes here knowing only the nickname, where else do you look but a page like this one? Especially if you, frex, don't know which "Flying Finn" or "King" might be meant, from the context? Not to mention the casual reader who might just want to learn about nicknames in motorsport. (Oh, wait, that's just trivia, & should be deleted, right? And all those pages on Pokemon characters & "Seinfeld" episode summaries are critical to have...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it passes LISTN. Szzuk (talk) 19:59, 23 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. Tone 14:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irexit Freedom[edit]

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

Unregistered, minor political party based in the Republic of Ireland. Only famous for being established to spur further the Irish movement for exiting the European Union. The party hasn't even contested a single election as of yet. May very well be notable in the future, but per WP:CRYSTAL, should be deleted for now.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 12:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 12:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 12:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 12:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the party is not officially registered, I would say Delete, given the rationale of SshibumXZ above. When the party is registered with the Chief Elections Officer, we can revisit the issue. Bkissin (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important note on Twitter that The Irish harp isn't even facing the right way

Delete - too minor to be notable. Spleodrach (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. WP:GNG is not yet demonstrated (in that there hasn't been WP:SIGCOV to date and, if this were a person, BLP1E would apply [as the limited amount of available coverage relates to a single PR event/campaign]). Also doesn't meet WP:ORG (in that WP:ORGDEPTH isn't also yet demonstrated). We can revisit if the group gets the few hundred signatures needed to register as a party, and subsequently fields candidates in an election. Otherwise WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOSOON and WP:LASTING apply. Guliolopez (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Euroscepticism in the Republic of Ireland too soon for an article on the group; refs are announcements of their pending formation. If they actually run candidates or get significant coverage of actions other than announcing their formation, it should be re-created. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unregistered political parties that have never contested elections would seldom be notable. Has not received significant coverage defined as coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". AusLondonder (talk) 09:53, 20 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. Tone 14:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1623 in philosophy[edit]

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

List with 1 entry » Shadowowl | talk 10:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Years in philosophy pages are not lists as such. SpinningSpark 11:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The edits made by SpinningSpark suggest that this topic satisfies GNG and LISTN. If this page is not kept it should be merged to 17th century in philosophy (which is certainly notable due to entire books on the subject), like all the others, per ATD, PRESERVE and R. This AfD is not going to result in a deletion for the same reason that the nominations for 1007, 1073, 1142, 1270, 1316, 1347, 1433 and 1700 did not result in deletion. There should be no further nominations of these pages which should be either merged or expanded. We do not need an AfD to effect either of those outcomes. James500 (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, I missed all those others coming up. How many do you think could also be retrieved in the same way? SpinningSpark 11:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know. You will just have to look for sources and see what you can find. I can say with certainty that all years from 1876 onwards are notable because the periodical "Mind" was providing extensive news coverage of philosophy at that time. I can also say that the centuries in philosophy articles that have been created recently need to be kept, so in those cases it would be necessary to expand the redirect to produce a yearly article. Judging by the present state of the 1623 article, it would not surprise me if other years in the early modern period merited articles. A number of other pages have been merged including 1079, 1499, 1500, 1501, 1536, 1574, 1575 and 1600. I suspect that the best approach would be to start at the first missing year, 1898, and work backwards, one year at a time. James500 (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 17th century in philosophy. I don't think the per-year lists from the 18th century and earlier will really have enough content to stand on their own, it looks like the per-century lists will. On the other hand, 1623 might be an exception, looking at how much Spinningspark has already expanded it. rchard2scout (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think 1623 is an exception. I have tried expanding two other pages previously at AfD, 1700 in philosophy and 1433 in philosophy, and got a similar amount of material. No special reason for choosing those years, they just happened to be the first ones I picked up. SpinningSpark 22:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article was significantly expanded by Spinningspark, thus making the nomination for deletion moot at this point. See also: WP:HEY. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 21 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. Tone 14:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forte (notation program)[edit]

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

Not notable. Ref 1, toptenreviews.com, is unreliable and the rest of references in the article are affiliated with Forte. I found a little routine coverage in reliable sources, but nothing of significance. Also no mentions in literature. wumbolo ^^^ 08:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Against deletion

I am strictly against deletion of this article. There are enough independent sources showing the notability of this product -- maybe not for the commercial companies which do produce competing products and want to suppress knowledge of the competition. Just google for "forte musical notation" and you find enough.

I myself do not use Forte, although I have a licence for the most basic version, but I am against the competion on the market for musical notation programs is fought out by deleting articles on the competion on Wikipedia.

So, I'll remove the "proposed deletion" macro.

--L.Willms (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – easily passes WP:GNG with reviews such as these: [20] [21]. Brad v 17:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bradv. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like Wumbulo is spreading AfD over the Wikipedi. Yes, it may be easier than improving the articles, but this should not be the Wikipedia way ... See also the list of AfD's, Michael Bednarek has collected at AfD:Capella notation program. All of this software is relevant to music notation history and/or current use. Bassklampfe (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources here passing GNG. Mass nom disruption without BEFORE. Widefox; talk 11:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just restored article content removed by an editor who had been having heated debates at ANI. While some of reasons are valid the removal of article references while at AfD and a blanking of a proportion of the article does not seem appropriate. I have suggested content details are discussed on the article talk page however AfD related matters are obviously discussed here. Disclosure: On gut feel article is a keep and is likely heading for some form of SNOWy keep anyway so do not want to spend effort trawling for references. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least most of the concerns raised in that content removal were valid and I have tagged affected sections for cleanup and hope this is acceptable as an interim measure. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As there is some possibility this is one of a number of articles where a non-admin closure might be regarded as controversial can I respectfully request non-admins do not close~~closure~~. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:24, 21 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. Good sources added, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Reinert[edit]

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

Sorry, but... this is a memorial page for a researcher who does not in any way rise to the level of notability required for a biographical article (WP:NBIO, WP:NSCHOLAR). Wikipedia is not the correct place for this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add: this is starting to look good, the Portuguese sources make a much better case. Leaving this open for another day or so, then will withdraw unless dissenting opinions come up. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vycl1994 (talk) 07:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Vycl1994 (talk) 07:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is not a memorial page, it just happens to have been created following her death as that is when the subject was in the news. Subject certainly meets the first criteria of academic notability: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" as she discovered and documented a previously unknown species. MurielMary (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a "significant impact on the discipline", sorry. I have two species to my name, I know a dozen people who have tens (in two cases, more than a hundred), and none of us comes anywhere near the "significant impact" threshold. Naming new species is easy - a short dig in your garden will almost certainly net you an undescribed nematode :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it is not just that for which she is famous.^[1] Leo1pard (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link. What is it supposed to be about? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a surprise, it was obviously working before I put it here, but it's about her being a whisteblower in this case. Leo1pard (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

so Bianca Reinert and Bianca Goodson are the same person? 168.85.177.4 (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these are the same people. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did some digging and not only was she the lead on the 1995 research establishing that the bird is a new species (not as simple as digging in the dirt, btw), she helped found the reserve to preserve its habitat. She then continued to work to preserve the habitat of this bird the rest of her life, even releasing a picture book about the bird a few months before her death. There's enough references for her to pass GNG and anyone who is fluent in Portuguese will no doubt find even more than I did. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Hey. Subject passes GNG. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From my brief look in Google books it is obvious that she did much more than dig in her garden and find a species. She is respected in her field and recognized for her contributions. And by the way, she didn't find a new species but a new genus that captured the attention of people in her field. As others mention she is well known for her work on conservation. An easy Keep. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 01:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hogg, Alec (2017-10-04). "Shameful Sage blunders in constructive dismissal of national hero Goodson". Biznews. Retrieved 2018-09-15.

Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 05:12, 20 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Abney[edit]

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

Played a superhero on Mighty Med for ten episodes and had some bit parts in other media but coverage in reliable sources is, as far as I can tell from googling her name, non-existent apart from mentioning her name in passing, both under her real and under her actress name "Tiphani Abney". Fails WP:NACTRESS and WP:BIO. Her athletic achievements might make her notable but again I cannot find any sources to corroborate any of those claims. So Why 06:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 06:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. So Why 06:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. So Why 06:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. So Why 06:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. So Why 06:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: According to the talk page of the article's author this account may have or may be participating in unpaid editing. The only other article I see the account has an interest in is Diamond Batiste, which was 86'd on A7 & G11 grounds and salted on grounds that it or was repeatedly recreated. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most acting roles are as a stunt double or an unnamed character. I see no evidence that WP:NACTOR is met. Sources do not show that WP:GNG is met and she fails to meet WP:NTRACK or WP:NCOLLATH. The best placing I can find for her is 18th (out of 24) in the 400m hurdles at the 2005 NCAA outdoor championships[22] and that's insufficient to show notability (as is being one of 1000 competitors at this NCAA event). Papaursa (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources in the article or found in a search I did demonstrate she meets WP:NACTOR, WP:NTRACK or WP:NCOLLATH. She is not notable in any respect or received adequate WP:SIGCOV to justify having an article. Being a stunt double or unnamed character just doesn't cut it. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:09, 22 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 is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptive knowledge[edit]

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

Article is written as an essay with zero citations and despite being tagged none have been added in over a year. The material is covered in multiple other articles. ---Snowded ^TALK 05:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Which other articles? Would any of them make for a good redirect, as an alternative to deletion? --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 06:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a fairly standard concept and that's why the page history goes back to 2001, when the demands for citations were not so strident. It is easy to find coverage of the topic; for example see Knowledge and Its Attributes. It's just a routine case of improvement being required and, per our editing policy, this is done by ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it lacks secondary sources at the moment, I am sure with some effort, some can be found. This looks like some standard AI terminology. A Google Scholar search of "descriptive knowledge AI" shows plenty of uses of this term. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried an EBSCO search for "descriptive knowledge", and it produced 163 results. Because of the way EBSCO searches work, not all of those hits contain the specific phrase "descriptive knowledge", but many do. You can look up one of the results outside EBSCO here. It seems "descriptive knowledge" is considered a real subject with academic recognition. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its all very well to say keep, but there are zero citations after more than a year of being flagged - that means it more or less all gets deleted anyway. It also digresses into a general discussion on epistimology so even if referenced it would be off topic. If you want to keep it then some "ordinary editing" is called for :-) -----Snowded ^TALK 21:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG due to coverage in GBooks etc. Any other problems are WP:SOFIXIT. James500 (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Admittedly this article and the related ones (Knowledge, Fact,etc.) are pretty bad, but Wikipedia ought to have an article on the species of knowledge that it, and every non-fiction book and article strives to, or at least purports to communicate, namely propositional knowledge. Also, I think it ought to be renamed "Propositional knowledge" since I think it is better-known by that term in philosophy. "Propositional knowledge" currently redirects wierdly to "Procedural knowledge". The "Knowledge" article mentions "description" as a species of knowledge but instead of linking it to this "Descriptive knowledge" article, links wierdly to "Description", an article about description in literature with a brief mention of only one of many philosophical treatments of propositional knowledge, Russell's "Theory of descriptions". In short, Wikipedia's knowledge articles may be messy, but they are important and should be improved, not deleted. Perhaps we should alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Epistemology? —Blanchette (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The only valuable claims about descriptive knowledge on Wikipedia are to be found here: Procedural knowledge#Overview. I would suggest we redirect the page to that section, until someone gets to write a proper article from scratch. As it stands, the page conveys no valuable information and it does not reflect what the literature says on the subject. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:39, 16 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Bonner[edit]

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

Non-notable actress whose minimal filmography consists mainly of B-movie horror films. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 18:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:NACTRESS and WP:GNG as her limited filmography consists primarily of B-movie horror films and there is no indication of WP:SIGCOV existing demonstrating any kind of notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:28, 22 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. Tone 14:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mithilesh Gautam[edit]

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

Non-notable non-elected politician with no significant coverage in reliable sources and current sources do not establish independent notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOL, local party cadre/organizer Bkissin (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - local politician, much of the article is about a student group's activities, not this person specifically and notability is not inherited. Ravensfire (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serving on political parties' internal organizing committees is not an WP:NPOL pass, this is written like a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article, and the references are not substantive coverage about him for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG, but primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things. This is not how you make a person notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk)
Delete Currently there is insignificant coverage to fulfill purpose of WP:NPOLITICIAN. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:18, 16 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ursula Pearson[edit]

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

No sources in article, unable to find any when doing a Google search. Andise1 (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning delete) I added a minimal reference to the fact that she appeared in the film mentioned in the article but am not suggesting this satisfies GNG. I haven't found any indication that the memoir mentioned was published, as yet. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The memoir was published in 2004: [23]. There are details of library holdings of the books and films in WorldCat: [24] [25]. There is some commentary on the book: [26]. James500 (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for finding that. Authorhouse is a self-publisher, but third party RS commentary would still go to notability. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage verifies the subject to have been discussed by third-party but it is still lacking significant coverage. Rzvas (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:NACTRESS because she was only in one failed low-budget movie. Her autobiography is self-published and their is no indication the book is a notable work of non-fiction. The article also fails WP:MEMORIAL because it is primarily acting to simply memorialize her life. The article also doesn't appear to be written from a neutral perspective, but a family members perspective (ex. mourning her fallen father and brother in the article and implying their deaths were unjust). It also took 11 years for this article to get a single source. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:29, 22 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. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-retweeted tweets[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:FANCRUFT, especially since the list turned into a boys band battle for attention. Fully WP:OR (the only citation is to an occasional Top 10 list compiled by Time in 2015). No assertion of notability for the list per WP:LISTN. — JFG ^talk 17:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

disagree. Time is a major source and they made another list. http://time.com/5048929/most-retweeted-tweets-2017/

Now if you want the list reduced to ten, I am fine with that but it is a notable list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frmorrison (talk • contribs) 17:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 17:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see ref 1. wumbolo ^^^ 09:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, has reliable sources. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 19:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic topic, so is WP:LISTCRUFT. There's no reason why this topic is notable. The only reliable source is literally just a list of tweets, has a bare modicum of analysis, and doesn't discuss why it's notable. You could easily get that just by examining Twitter. Fails WP:GNG for this reason, since the Time article doesn't count as significant coverage. If there's coverage of why the top most retweeted tweets matter, then this list should be a thing. This will just be an WP:OR magnet. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. Lists shouldn't be made up on the spot but should reflect actual listings, and the fact that not even Twitter seems to have a verified list shows that this is not notable. For example, compare with how many reliable publications make lists of the highest grossing films of all time Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but reformat, as the notes column actually offers RS-cited commentary. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"HELP ME PLEASE. A MAN NEEDS HIS NUGGS." --> Carter Wilkerson tweeted Wendy's asking how many retweets he needed for a year of free chicken nuggets. When Wendy's replied with "18 Million", he accepted the challenge. The tweet received unlikely support from several major companies including Microsoft, Amazon and Google, prompting the hashtag #NuggsForCarter and propelling the tweet to become the most-retweeted of all time within 34 days, at which point Wendy's gave him a year of free nuggets.^[1]

References

^ Roman, Laura (May 9, 2017). "Quest For Free Chicken Nuggets Inspires Twitter's Most Retweeted Tweet". NPR. Archived from the original on May 10, 2017. Retrieved May 9, 2017.

But it's hard to see because of the layout of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe the nuggets tweet is notable and should get its own article (or rather, the story should simply be mentioned at Wendy's). Some of the other entries that attracted RS attention could similarly be included to the article on their own subject matter, e.g. Barack Obama on social media. The list as a whole is still synthesis/fancruft/WP:FART. — JFG ^talk 02:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep.Notable. --Akhiljaxxn (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nominators reasonings. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources. Hurrygane (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 14 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. Votes are one keep and one delete, with no comments in the last two weeks I don't think a third and generally discouraged relist will change matters. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Abu Ahmad Akif[edit]

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

Being a federal secretary in Pakistan is not in itself grounds for notability. While it is one of the highest attainable rank for a civil servant in Pakistan, it’s protocol level is lesser than those of Deputy-secretary in the US.

So the question is whether the person meet basic GNG and are there coverage exists in multiple reliable, independent sources that discuss the person in depth. G'search does produce namecheck type of press coverage (most of which already cited in the BLP) which longstanding practice holds cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. Saqib (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Invited to the discussion after these pages were watchlisted by me as I helped in un-speedy-ing a bunch of these. Comparing a federal secretary in Pakistan to something in the US would be unfair because of the sheer difference in governmental systems, not that you've got any proof of any equivalency between a US deputy secretary and Pakistani federal secretary. Comparing the role of a federal secretary to its analogous civil service roles in the UK (permanent secretary) and India (secretary to Government of India) would be better and a good amount of those already have their own Wikipedia entries. They qualify WP:NPOL by the virtue of holding a national office and are equivalent to flag officers like generals (India and the UK) and lieutenant generals (Pakistan) in pay and protocol (order of precedence) and WP:NMILITARY allows for articles to be created on officers of a flag officer rank.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 15:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC); edited 15:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC), 15:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC) and 16:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 15:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 14 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Science Olympiad Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable Indian educational organisation. Fails WP:GNG. SD0001 (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 15:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--See this for a start.Ample coverage about exams conducted by them.∯WBG^converse 14:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all of the coverage in that Google search are brief news stories about students winning in the olympiads, not about the olympiads themselves. Those sources are not enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. SD0001 (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking at WBG's linked list, a lot of those sources are only tangential mention that a kid won an award from the group rather than in-depth coverage of the group. Basically, WP:ORGDEPTH seems shaky here. I found one source so far that's ok in that regard, but I'm not really convinced enough to hop off the fence into keep territory either without more sources like that at least. I'll come back for another comment if anything else comes up though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 14 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center for the Study of Christianity & Justice[edit]

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

Promo. Fails WP:GNG, largely based on related sources, including a blacklisted one. The Banner talk 14:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed numerous bogus sources used to puff up the article. What remains are two or three few decent sources. The main reason to delete here is that he article is the deeply flawed product of the promotional editor of Jesuit articles Jzsj, who has here, as he did in literally hundreds of articles, used the thinnest of sources (library indexes, books for sale web pages, minor or passing mentions in other Jesuit publications etc) to concoct a promotional article that is very difficult to assess. In short, this NPOV-lacking garbage needs to go. I would be OK with sending it to draft, if someone is of the mind to spend hours fixing it. I'm not. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails WP:GNG because sources do not demonstrate that the organization is notable enough in any WP:SIGCOV kind of way. The article is also highly promotional of the organization and does not seem to meet WP:NPOV. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:38, 22 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 speedy keep. Nominator now opposes deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Dying Rooms[edit]

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

No references, likely no notability. The background section of the article is a load of POV B.S. for anyone who'd studied the modern history of China Openlydialectic (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've found sourcing, including sourcing that is critical of the film's claims. Notability is here, but this could still use more expansion. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! I think the article is fine now. Changing my vote to oppose deletion Openlydialectic (talk) 06:11, 15 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. Tone 14:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RiMoRav Vlogs[edit]

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

Although this channel was created by notable people, I don't think this meets WP:GNG. I've looked around quite a bit, and can't find significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, coverage is mostly just YouTube and social media. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 00:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, promotional in tone, no evidence of any notability. Kleuske (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:01, 18 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hogar de San José Foundation[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 18:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - well first, it's WP:NCORP that needs to be satisfied. Going by that standard, I think the El Comercio source is probably the only one that is suitable. The others all fail under some set of primary, non-reliable, Sig Cov etc. The La Nueva source covers similar material to the Comercio one but does so heavily constructed out of quotes. The journalist-created bit doesn't meet Sig Cov. In my BEFORE check I couldn't come up with any other decent sources (with the provisio that it's not my language). I think Weak Delete is the reasonable choice for now. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tend to agree with Nosebagbear. I did see some sources in Gnews, but can't asses them as they are in Spanish. Spanish speakers, search for "Fundación Hogar de San José" in Gnews.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I did check on the Spanish name... The Banner talk 20:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG because there is not enough WP:SIGCOV to demonstrate the organization is notable. Wikipedia isn't the place to advertise non-notable charity groups. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:47, 22 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. Tone 14:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tripz.com[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:ORGCRITE. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obligatory unreliable forbes contributor source, some press releases/PR, and some mentions, do not make the company pass WP:NCORP Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see routine announcements, PR, niche publications, etc. Nothing that amounts to a significant depth of coverage (WP:CORPDEPTH) of the subject. Deli nk (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, references fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability, nothing that is intellectually independent and they fail WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:09, 17 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. The general consensus is that the sources are not suitable to show notability, and the delete arguments were insufficiently challenged. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shazza McKenzie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined speedy under G4, requiring a second AfD nomination. Fails WP:GNG. Coverage is trivial and doesn't establish notability. A number of sources are results or reports only. More sources are needed and it appears they don't exist. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Deletion requested by IP purporting to be article subject: [27]. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local wrestler only with nothing truly notable on her CV. 150.101.89.115 (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she has competed all over the world won belts and been on WWE tv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pidzz (talk • contribs)

Note: This is the creator of the article. WP:PERX applies. Not seeking to invalidate the vote - just noting that it carries less weight 2001:8003:591D:2400:4029:4C6E:7721:3EAC (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the article is fully entitled to !vote and has made an accurate statement - their !vote does not carry "less weight". WP:PERX does not apply at all - it specifically refers to a statement of support to a prior comment. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Claim made above has no reliable sourcing to prove it. Appearing on WWE TV does not confer notability. 2001:8003:591D:2400:4029:4C6E:7721:3EAC (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish delete I was about to pile on here, having had a quick look around and not finding anything to support GNG sufficiently well. Not sure why, but I had a second look and very quickly found this from 2016 and this from 2018. Both of these are outside wrestling and importantly the 2016 one from the SMH would be considered as about as best reliable secondary source as one can get. Not sure though that two such articles is sufficient WP:NEXIST though. Aoziwe (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - unless I am missing something these two articles would seem to negate any concerns about the wiki article being public...? Aoziwe (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing something. There was an incident that isn't recorded in reliable sourcing in June 2018 which attracted some nasty conduct towards her and it would seem has changed her view towards publicity. Understandable. Not that it's really relevant to notability but you made the comment and I'm just giving a possible explanation. 2001:8003:591D:2400:D82A:5984:4DF2:69D9 (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Aoziwe (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the incident also including the lack of reliable sources, but for the reasons of the incident it is also possible that the IP puporting to be the subject could also have been an enemy of the subject trying to get this article deleted arbitrarily. (FWIW) Addicted4517 (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was very carefully AGF. I thought it best to simply leave it that. Aoziwe (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to Aoziwe (above) discovering two mainstream media sources which deal with the subject in depth, the fact that the subject has performed successfully for several notable promotions. I also strongly dislike this attempt by someone purporting to be the subject to censor a Wikipedia article which contains nothing more controversial than a very brief career overview. Please note that Shazza McKenzie maintains a Twitter following of 19,800 people and an Instagram following of 16,300 people - hardly someone seeking to avoid publicity! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that the three IPs which have commented on this AFD all have the same location and have made no edits outside this AFD. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Suriel1981: I regret to inform you that both of those articles are promotional pieces and can not be used. As an aside, while the IP's haven't edited elsewhere (it's a good point that reduces their weight) they are Telstra IP's which give incorrect locations (FWIW). Addicted4517 (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional in tone yes but by independent journalists for independent organisations. I am still on the delete side of the fence though - not enough NEXIST. Aoziwe (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, neither article comes close to being an advert and by no stretch of the imagination could WP:ADV be claimed to apply. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Suriel1981: On the contrary if you look at the conclusion of the Canberra article is advertises a show. The article was written to promote the wrestler and the show. That can't be anything else but promotional. The Sydney article comes from the Lifestyle Magazine part of the publisher, and that is a 100 percent promotional and opinion magazine. Aoziwe saw the promotional tone. Why don't you see it? Addicted4517 (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper and magazine articles routinely mention the dates of upcoming live or broadcasted shows in articles on entertainers. If you cannot tell the difference between this and a paid advert then you need to be a lot more cautious in your editing. Additionally, the guideline that you linked to ([[:WP:ADV]) refers to external links designed to generate revenue based on internet traffic and bears no resemblance to the point you seem to be trying to make. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Suriel1981: I would appreciate it if you would not talk down to me. It's not very civil. Perhaps I did invoke WP:ADV when I shouldn't have, but treating it as a reason to question my editing was not a good way to reach a consensus. Either way, I don't know if you are aware but in Australia promotional news items are not the same as other countries as we have strict laws on advertising within articles. In other words, if a newspaper article advertises something without it being paid for the publisher could get into trouble. I'm just pointing this out. The thing about promotional articles such as these when it comes to professional wrestling is it's accuracy comes under scrutiny due to embellishment. So the articles can't be used certainly by themselves because the claims have to be verified further. I should have invoked the closest comparison - WP:SELFPUB. Now granted I'm not claiming the links were published by the subject of this article, but as they are promotional some form of the rule may well apply. Bottom line - the links don't prove notability which goes back to the reason for this AfD. I hope that makes the position clearer. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:27, 23 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mansour[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BASIC, blatantly promotional content. Couldn't find any notable coverage in a Google search of his name combined with several potentially relevant keywords Rosguill^talk 06:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as proposed. -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 14 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit European Social Centre[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Two sources in article. A search finds minor sources in Gnews: glancing mentions, or inclusions in long lists of organizations. No in-depth coverage found. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Catholic Office of Information and Initiative for Europe. Ages ago, I tried to find sources about JESC and found it near impossible. As it is based in Brussels, if there are sources about it, they are probably in French and it shares its acronym with the far more famous Junior Eurovision Song Contest. If its the article about its predecessor organisation complies with WP:GNG, then probably best to merge it into that. Pjposullivan (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG for there is not enough WP:SIGCOV to demonstrate the organization is notable, or much of any coverage for that matter. Wikipedia isn't the place to advertise non-notable charity groups either. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:02, 22 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. Given that the article has no secondary sources at all, arguments to merge are weak. That said, if someone feels that there is plot summary presented here so crucial that a merger is absolutely necessary, I would be willing to refund this to their userspace. Vanamonde (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Underground (comics)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Team appears eight times, according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, I also agree with the merge suggestion to Weapon X#2002 ongoing series as per below. BOZ (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better than teams that only appear in one series for a few issues are kept on that series page, rather than clutter a list which mostly seems to (or at least should) consist of teams that appear in multiple series or have very long runs in one series. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the teams list. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although the name is difficult to Google, I've struggled to find any sources about them, let alone reliable, secondary ones. Failure of WP:GNG --Killer Moff (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with Killer Moff. Hard to find reliable sources. This article clearly fails WP:GNG --Jay (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very brief merge to Weapon_X#2002_ongoing_series, since this is organization entirely contained within that run of the comic, which is verifiable. Name drop and redirect, no need for a source per MOS:PLOTSOURCE. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Weapon X, per Patar knight. -- RoySmith (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Weapon X members, or any better target is fine too. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- agree with Killer Moff. Without *any* reliable secondary sources, this article has to go. This title would more appropriately go with this book by Mark James Estren which might be notable. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That book is called A History of Underground Comics, and doesn't have an article yet, so any confusion is at best unlikely and at worst moot at this point. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge - I wonder whether List of Weapon X members wouldn't be a better merge destination? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this is that it would be incorrect. The Underground was formed to oppose Weapon X. But since they only appear in a few issues of the Weapon X comic series, a selective merge would be appropriate at my title. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Μerge to the more specific List of Weapon X members. -The Gnome (talk) 08:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- unsourced plot summary article about a minor organisation not even notable in its own fictional universe, let alone the real one. Since all the content is sourceless cruft, there's nothing in it that could be merged anywhere. Reyk _YO! 09:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:PLOTSOURCE, basic plot points don't need secondary sourcing, and the mere existence of this organization as a major faction in a story arc for a comic series would be a basic plot point on a page (or in this case, a section) on that series. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:07, 25 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. Michig (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Rogers (professor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC - only an adjunct professor. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Edwardx (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NACADEMIC#1 with thousands of citations to her work according to Google Scholar search. Though nom does not bring up WP:AUTHOR, subject probably passes that as well, given well-known books with multiple reviews. Bakazaka (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but... The citation counts in Google Scholar for "Enterprise one-to-one", "Is your company ready", "Do you want to keep your customers", and "Managing customer experience" (two of them over 1000, the other two close) convince me that she does pass WP:PROF#C1 and probably WP:AUTHOR. But as you might guess from the spammy titles, the article is heavily promotional and needs effort to be brought in line with Wikipedia standards. In its current state, it is a plausible candidate for G11 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, David Eppstein. I have done a little editing, moving it towards a more WP:NPOV. Compared to much of what I nominate for G11 speedy deletion, this one was not so bad! Edwardx (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:PROF. James500 (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meet PROF and likely AUTHOR. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO in the field of customer management ie. (apologies for the apparent hype:))"The names Don Peppers and Martha Rogers PhD are synonymous with the idea of dealing with customers one‐to‐one. ... They are now considered leading authorities on customer‐focused strategies for business." (from Conversations With Marketing Masters), "One-on-one with One-on-one's Martha Rogers" from Wired, and WP:NAUTHOR (again from Conversations With Marketing Masters - "Together they have co‐authored a series of international best sellers which have collectively sold well over a million copies in seventeen languages.", plus here are examples of reviews of her books: from Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship - review of Enterprise One to One, and from Publishers Weekly - a review of One to One B2B. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 16 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 Pinger, keeping history for copyright purposes. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinger (company)[edit]

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

Exact same as the lead section of this old version of Pinger and is about the exact same topic as Pinger. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 00:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: reason redundant; duplicate of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinger, and I've copied the content of Pinger (company) to Pinger as the name is better already. Larryplo (talk) 0:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Redirect to Pinger. I would have cut short this discussion by speedily deleting it under speedy deletion criterion A10 (Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic) but since Larryplo has merged content from Pinger (company) to Pinger, the history of Pinger (company) cannot be deleted, as it is needed for copyright attribution. @BrandonXLF: For an article like this, which just duplicates content of another article, it is better to nominate it for speedy deletion under CSD G10 than to start a deletion discussion, to avoid taking up editors' time in the discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ok, I'll add the tag. I didn't even know that A series speedy deletion existed. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 20:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oh, I'll add the redirect as it technically applies for the speedy deletion. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 00:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect as per above. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:53, 21 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.