Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 25 January	27 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Azomite

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

WP:NOTADVERTISING. This is a trademarked product name. The company does not meet notability requirements per WP:CORP ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Product placement; no independent coverage or indication of notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Product placement, zero geological notability, and (as far as I can tell) very little to zero agricultural notability. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search results are dominated by commercial sites trying to sell Azomite and forums chatting about whether it's good or bad. Haven't found a convincing neutral RS. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete repeated calls for improvement and secondary sourcing to this article have left us with 1)a press release from a radio broadcast 2)a passing mention in a book about esoteric agriculture and 3)a link to a business registration site. To cap that the copy paste work from the history section of their company’s website is still there and is now cited to two occult authors who wrote books about pyramids and plants that chat with one and other. (If they’re the same ones I googled) Edaham (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete product placement. -- -The one, the only, Editor760 (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd D. Culbertson Jr.

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

There is a lot of detail here, but I'm struggling to see how being the mayor of a small Louisiana town for two years renders him notable. Marquardtika (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being the mayor of a city with less than 7,000 people (that was Minden's population at the time) is not enough to make one notable, no other claims to notability exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, an unencyclopaedic mass of trivia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: this page is by banned serial copyright-violator Billy Hathorn (depressingly massive CCI, SPI). If it is not deleted, all running text added by Hathorn will need to be presumptively removed. On the face of it, it looks as if much of this was taken more or less verbatim from an obituary notice. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a presumptive copyright violation. MER-C 15:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors of small towns are not automatically presumed notable just because they exist, but the sourcing here isn't cutting it for getting him over WP:GNG. Far too many of them are primary sources that cannot support notability at all, or references in which Culbertson wasn't the subject of the reference but merely had his existence namechecked, or footnotes which just go "Newspaper, Date" without actually specifying the title of the specific piece of content that's being referred to. And given that the creator has been banned for serial copyvio (700 known copyvios?!?), we have to presume that the same applies here in the absence of evidence to the contrary, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment: there are a bunch more similar articles (way too detailed copyright-violating local history pieces by Billy Hathorn), many of which I've just nominated for deletion (found them at Template:Revised Minden, Louisiana Mayors, a template which should also be deleted). Marquardtika (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Arrow (album)

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

Many of the article's sources have dubious reliability at best. This article concerns an album made by a music project whose article, in turn, was deleted after an AfD discussion in February & March 2016. The album was released by a label that does not meet notability guidelines as well. I, the person who created the article back in November 2008, allow for the possibility of deletion. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator/author. The note you left on the article's talk page 9 years ago is cute. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Thanks for pointing my past message out; reading that gave me a good chuckle. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- since the artist has been deleted as non-notable, per WP rules there is no reason to keep the album article. The existence of the album (and Quodia itself) can be discussed at the articles for Trey Gunn and Joe Mendelson. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. In my initial skim through, I had misread it as being an album by Trey Gunn, due to its awkward wording/order of listing. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the deletion of the band's article, Quodia. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 31 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Brandi Wells

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

Wikipedia is not news, nor is it a database for missing persons. The majority of the sources are, in fact, databases themselves. Disappearances can be somewhat tricky because they sometimes generate local coverage on anniversaries. However, it would be difficult to argue this coverage isn't routine in nature. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing distinguishes this disappearance from all the others. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRIME, which states "The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged." An event of 12 years ago is hardly "news". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 - WP:CRIME states "The victim ... consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role." Whatever you're quoting doesn't come from WP:CRIME, maybe WP:NCRIME which is a different guideline altogether? And the thing you've quoted isn't a statement of notability, it's a statement telling you that articles on this topic fall under the guideline of WP:CRIME if they meet the set circumstances (i.e the police are treating it like a crime). A disappearance is not a criminal act in itself, hence it doesn't always fall under the guideline of WP:CRIME. That's why this statement exists. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that I left out an "N", Mr rnddude, and the quote above appears at WP:NCRIME, which is a shortcut to the relevant section of Wikipedia:Notability (events). This is not a biography per se. It is an article about a disappearance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so is this a procedural keep, Cullen328, because the nominating rationale doesn't address the relevant notability guideline? because you're statement still doesn't actually assert notability of any form, it only states that you're looking at the relevant guideline. This might be a valid argument though, but, I'd need some evidence of "not routine coverage" in accordance with the guideline you're quoting. I'm working on that right now, hence my lack of a statement here so far. Sorry we're chatting on two different pages, so I'll ping you here Cullen328. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As this article shows, there is still in depth coverage of the disappearance 11 years later, which is an indication that this topic meets the "duration of coverage" part of the guideline. The coverage being tied to the anniversary is not relevant. Newspapers use hooks just like we do with "Did you know" on the main page - so what? The fact that reliable media outlets are covering the disappearance 10 and 11 years later shows that it is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how you've drawn that conclusion. I only found local media outlets that are still covering this, and that's true for many non-notable crimes. Longview is where she disappeared, and KETK-TV (the source you link) covers news in the Jacksonville-Tyler-Longview area. With a combined population of about 200,000 (out of 28 million) this news isn't even statewide. It's not convincing for me. Thanks for your time though. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRIME and references seems good as well. BabbaQ (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete - The most relevant portion of WP:NCRIME is: As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources. The important phrases here are (1)"high-profile", (2)"coverage [that] meets the above (WP:ROUTINE and WP:SENSATIONALISM) guidelines, and (3)reliable sources. I've been doing a search for news coverage on the web and also just a general google search. I've found this piece of local coverage returning to the event 11 years later (May 12th, 2017), a similar local coverage piece (Sept 15, 2017), and this last 10 year anniversary piece which is also local coverage (Aug 2, 2016). The only other things I've found are reddit posts and blogs. I don't know how reliable this is but this statement gives me pause: According to the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System, 90,000 people are missing at any given time in this country. There are currently 2,000 missing persons cases in Texas, half of which are still active. This article deals with a drop in the proverbial bucket. I can definitively say that there is no chance that this meets criterion 1 set out above. This leads to criterion 2 and 3 together. There is a dearth of reliable sources for this article, it's mostly databases and a couple pieces of local news. I don't consider these to be "routine" per say given that they are revisiting events a decade on, but, it's not sufficient to pull me to the position of keep. We could pack the encyclopeadia full of these kinds of articles. Some are encyclopedic, and some are not. This one, in my estimation, falls under the category of "is not". Mr rnddude (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsolved possible crime which hasn't attracted anything but the expected local interest. Mangoe (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced and just as notable as other articles, people are now way too picky of what should be included. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a tragic event, but ultimately a routine disappearance and an example of the Missing white woman syndrome. Coverage is local / routine. No lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourced to missing person DB and local reporting. My BEFORE doesn't show anything beyond local reporting. I'm amenable to changing my !vote if someone brings up national coverage. Note that procedurally the nomination is incorrect, as the disappearance of people is not a routine NOTNEWS event. I'm !voting as I am since this doesn't meet WP:NCRIME or WP:GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NCRIME. A news archive search shows local coverage, continuing with occassional stories for years after the event, but it does not seem to have drawn attention beyond the local papers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 29 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Geick

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

Dylan Geick does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for an article. I'm moving that it be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.168.196 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: Creating AfD for IP user who can't do so themselves. SkyWarrior 20:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 20:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 20:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 20:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)][reply]

keep - He is well known in the LGBT community, and he have achieved a lot in wrestling. fred8695 (talk) 20:17 27 January 2018 (UTC)

keep - He has received a large amount of national coverage and is well documented social media presence. He is one of the first competitive high school wrestlers to have come out and a two time all American. he is widely present on social media alone and with his partner Jackson Krecioch.. Williamsdoritios (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC) 20:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Looks like a 1E issue, and/or a case of WP:TOOSOON. I do not do much with WP:SPORTS notability so I am not fully certain. The only real coverage he does have is of him coming out, which is what I mean by 1E. _{Adotchar| reply here} 01:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough coverage from reliable sources to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:1E, IMO. Subject will probably be notable at some point, but I don't feel like they are right now - if they had been involved in a touch more activism, this'd be a keep !vote; I feel that being prominently gay in a heteronormative environment is skirting notability. This article and the potential for an AfD was mentioned on IRC a few days ago, and the AfD was mentioned again today. -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 01:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Hunky wrestler comes out, attracts press, but really, way WP:TOOSOON. Mangoe (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete As noted above, WP:TOOSOON appears directly applicable here. Link in article to Grant Mower appears to share same issue, so considering AfD there as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deja vu Draft:Dylan Geick. Looks like the draft was deleted twice and protected. I have no idea if the current article is substantially different. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I understand the too soon argument and it seems to hold some credence. Alfie I will try to add some activistism links perhaps this might change your mind? If this article has to be deleted for the time being so be it. I appreciate all of your work to keep this encyclopedia on point. I just want to point out that this nomination was made in proxy for an isp user who had no previous edits except for trying to blank the page and declaring that they were going to remove it. They actually wrote "Dylan Geick does not fulfill the notability requirement for a Wikipedia article. I've elected to delete the content thereof since it has no reason being on here" and then blanked the page which was in turn restored by skywarrior Williamsdoritios (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Williamsdoritos:. Don't take this AfD personally. The nominator isn't what I'd call a model Wikipedian, but the nomination was made. Attacking the nominator won't help. Also, the "too soon argument" isn't an argument. We are not here to argue and defend sides, we're here to achieve consensus as to what is best for this article. Happy editing! _{Adotchar| reply here} 17:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Williamsdoritos:, @Adotchar: was kind enough to inform me of your comment off-wiki. To get my attentionn future you can use the {{reply to}} template, as follows: {{reply to|Alfiepates}}. Anyway, regarding the AfD: Valid AfD nominations can be made regardless of the editor's standing. The best thing to do here is to attempt to rectify the issues highlighed in the Delete !votes (see WP:!VOTE for an explanation of the "!vote" terminology) - if you're able to do that, then there's a significant chance your article won't be deleted. If you're unable to do that, then you've discovered the reasons for the AfD nomination in the first place ;) Don't take this too personally, mind - I know it's frustrating to see an article you've spent a lot of work on get deleted, but it happens to the best of us sometimes. If you're knowledgable about wrestling or LGBT* topics, may I suggest you take a look into WP:WikiProject Sports or WP:WikiProject LGBT Studies? -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 19:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two claims to fame seem to be good high school wrestler and an openly gay college wrestler. High school All-American honors are not usually enough to give a presumption of notability. Its no different than being a junior national top-8 in something - junior accomplishments usually don't give notability on its own. With regard to being an openly gay wrestler, my biggest issue is, as the article states, he is the second one to come out; not the first. Compare coverage of Jackie Robinson vs. Larry Doby (first modern Major League Baseball black player vs. 2nd player and first in American League). Worse yet, the first one to come out was a lot more accomplished than this subject (multiple time college All-American vs. college freshman). Since he isn't the first, the coverage appears to be more routine, less in depth, and more localized. Also, there are concerns with some, but not all, of the sources not being independent (e.g., two are from the school he wrestles for, one is his instagram profile, another is his youtube channel, outsports.com looks to be a blog, etc.). If he earns All-American honors in college, then the coverage of him being gay may tip the scales to keep over a run-of-the-mill All-American. But right now we have a number of reasons, WP:TOOSOON. WP:1E, etc. to make me comfortable with keep. RonSigPi (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
soft delete with no prejudice - Sadly, WP:TOOSOON. Despite what they have accomplished, and above, I've not found it to bare out in reliable sources. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't want to repeat the explanations of the lack of notability here, it's obvious and has been well stated above. – Athaenara ✉ 12:18, 2 February 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super chair suspension

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

Yeah, it exists, but I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources, just some how-it-works explanations. The current article is a mess, reading like a how-to guide without any sourcing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It gets one line in Levitation (illusion), and that's about all it's worth. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:06, 28 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gretchen Kramp

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this BLP, to satisfy notability requirements. Mattg82 (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local artis whose work is visialbe, but not on the level to pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 27 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Superstudio (company)

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

Nothing in this orphan article that suggests this passes WP:CORPDEPTH and a BEFORE search also fails to turn-up anything. It has had unresolved maintenance tags for the last six years. Chetsford (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- borders on A7; no incoming links. The awards listed are not significant or well known. WP:TOOSOON or most likely never. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 27 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QuickShip.com

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

Nothing in this orphan article that suggests this passes WP:CORPDEPTH and a BEFORE search also fails to turn-up anything. It has had unresolved maintenance tags for the last seven years. Chetsford (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- borders on A7; no incoming links. WP:TOOSOON or maybe never. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A longstanding WP:SPA article which is effectively a listing describing the company without indication of notability. I am seeing nothing better than the usual listings, none of the WP:RS coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 13:17, 27 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Wilde (author)

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

Fails WP:BIO Tenuous notability. Refs are blogs and trade papers with very minor coverage. Passing mention is several ref. scope_creep (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of quality reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - quality of the sources is low, some things don't seem to come from the source referenced. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You have got to be kidding me. This is a résumé. Won a Stevie? You get one of those by nominating yourself and paying a fee that's ranged from $200 to $505 with an additional fee to attend the awards dinner (Stevie Awards itself is quite the SPAM, too), right in there with paying to have yourself added to any of the plethora of vanity Who's Whos. – Athaenara ✉ 12:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PROMO. Was started by a month-old acct, after which it was jumped-on a few hours later by several SPAs for further development. May be an autobio, but either way, it seems to exist solely for promotion. Agricola44 (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like many articles created by someone closely connected to the individual, there are unsourced bio details here. Such as labeling her a software engineer or Jewish, as well as the entire career history section titled "Video games". I don't see substantiation for any of these. By the way, CTOs aren't necessarily software engineers. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article and also the photos. I find this weirdly written. It mentions a lot of things that nobody cares about and leaves out the things that could prove notability if they existed. Consider the sentence "She later joined Phil Libin again at his third company, Evernote while working from her sailboat." The claim that she worked from a boat is a trivial detail to an encyclopaedia, and mentioning it is highly suggestive of vanity, while the same sentence makes absolutely no attempt to say what she actually worked as, which should be the whole point of it. The whole article has the feel of insider information, knowing details that can not be referenced and prioritising trivial details promoting or aggrandising the subject over the things appropriate to an encyclopaedia. Speaking at a TEDx event is not the same as the main TED events and does not confer notability. There is nothing to even indicate who the other woman in the second photo is. I have no idea what a "community engineer" actually is/does. Also, am I misinterpreting it, or does the photo look like it is a selfie? If so, that increases the suspicion that this is an autobiography further. The editing history of the article looks a lot like a tag-tem COI scenario and might merit further investigation. Anyway, I see no clear indication of real notability and that alone dooms the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article's sourcing is out of wack, some sources cited make no (or trivial) mention of the article subject. From what I see on the article as it stands, this is a WP:NAUTHOR failure.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability may be subject to debate, but the article is pretty redolent of the promo factor. Possibly a REFUND is due (but in chump change, LOL). Quis separabit? 18:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a contributor to this page, I can address comments - the sailboat is a major point to the notability. Wilde's life on the boat & RV during the Evernote years has brought her notability in its own right and has been written about and covered on international news outlets. Not only that, she is the female chair of an engineering school advisory board: https://www.unlv.edu/engineering/advisoryboard and a VC: http://www.rebelventurefund.com/team/ That said, she may be more well known for being a digital nomad and former flight attendant than anything else. Perhaps she's simply miscategorized - if so, please assign the page to me to work on and reclassify. -- Pilot375 (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of better source material to show notability, but because WP:EXTERNALREL I did nothing more than minor edits to clean up. eg: Award: https://issuu.com/lvwoman/docs/lvw_fall_2016- TEDx Organizer: https://www.tedxlasvegas.com/team/ etc. Pilot375 (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the burst of March activity is related to her Inc article about how female pages get deleted on Wikipedia https://www.inc.com/heather-wilde/garfields-wikipedia-page-just-got-vandalized-and-why-this-matters-for-your-bran.html -- Pilot375 (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pilot375 : " Also, the burst of March activity is related to her Inc article about how female pages get deleted on Wikipedia" -- that would be pretty darned ironic. Quis separabit? 03:25, 29 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dovetail Joint (album)

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

Nothing to suggest this is a notable album as required by WP:NALBUMS. Mattg82 (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can find nothing about this album except just a few brief mentions in articles that are about the band themselves. And even articles about the band are very rare. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: While doing the research for my vote above, I decided to nominate the band for deletion as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:54, 1 February 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pheel Balliana

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC none of the sources are in depth coverage in WP:RS. One album review in an obscure music site (Bluesbunny) Domdeparis (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some minor attention in Brazil but I couldn't find any significant coverage. Also doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC. Mattg82 (talk) 19:25, 26 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elosha

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

The subject fails Wikipedia:Notability. While trying to do research on this to make this into a potential project, I could not find enough coverage from reliable, third-party sources to support this character having a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as serious fancruft. Mangoe (talk) 14:21, 27 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON Temple Ahmedabad

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

No evidence of notability. Included on a travel website, but that's about it. Article (like many similar ones) is highly promotional as well, but the main problem is that the reliable, independent sources which are about this temple seem to be lacking (searched in Google News, Google Books and the first 5 pages of Google hits). Note that the article is about the existing temple, not about the proposed one that can be found in sources like this and which may be notable on architectural grounds. This is about yet another planned temple. Fram (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article title is a western name with very limited usage. So I made the effort to do some though research with all the name variations, including in Hindu. A search on Highbeam shows five news reports that mention it [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. These are literally short mentions. There are maybe 50 or 100 directory listings for the various names of this temple, most in Hindu but many in English, many simply giving the address, others the prayer times and basic info also. Nothing with detail (examples: [6], [7], [8]). Being a major tourist destination in Ahmedabad, it is of course on Tripadvisor and other travel sites such as this and expedia, which are irrelevant to notability here. Being a major temple as far as the International Society for Krishna Consciousness is concerned, there are many primary sources on their website and that of their affiliates as well, also not relevant to notability. As Fram has noted, this and this are about other temples planned by the same organisation in the same city. The temple in question is relatively new with no architectural or traditional significance and carries no special protections or designations. In short, I see nothing which suggests the article is notable or meeting the standards for inclusion. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Wolfson5 (talk) 20:46, 30 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big Black Delta

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

subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines. RF23 (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Redirect/Merge:

Meets WP:BAND criteria #1: independent album reviews in MusicOMH, Under The Radar, Consequence of Sound and Pitchfork.
Meets WP:BAND criteria #2: "Tragame Tierra" album charted at #4 on the Billboard Top Dance/Electronic Albums chart in May 2016.
Could be renamed/expanded into an article about Jonathan Bates, who potentially meets WP:BAND criteria #6 due to his membership in Mellowdrone and collaborations with Debbie Gibson, M83_(band) and Kimbra (see here).

204.130.0.8 (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, with plenty of significant coverage, e.g. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], plus dozens pf smaller pieces of coverage. --Michig (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC) I should add that as a side project of the leading member of Mellowdrone, even if this didn't appear notable, merging there would be a no-brainer. --Michig (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets GNG per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) scope_creep (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Grant

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. Minor bond actor, 5 lines. Other refs are shops and blogs. scope_creep (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Well known actress, this is a crazy nom. She's done a heck of a lot more than just appeared in a Bond film and has plenty of coverage in sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Comment Your right. I think it must have been a moment of madness.scope_creep (talk) 12:54, 27 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Agnes Sina-Inakoju

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

Sadly, an unremarkable crime. TheLongTone (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's been covered in mainstream media, including the BBC and the Guardian, so seems to fairly clearly meet WP:GNG.[16][17][18][19] I'm not sure quite what the nominator means by "an unremarkable crime". It is notability that guides us, not remarkableness. — Amakuru (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is WP:EVENT which also weighs how persistent the coverage is over time and how routine the coverage is. A typical crime get two news cycles, the crime itself and the trial/punishment phase. Coverage of this event does not appear to be an exception. While tragic, this crime appears to be ordinary. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources consist of routine coverage of a murder and follow-up fate of perpetrators. Fails based on WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper; crimes, even tragic ones, are not automatically exonerated from this fact. The same story is being routinely covered but there is a clear lack of lasting significance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NOTNEWS: coverage of a murder in London by British newspapers is expected and routine. Mangoe (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Murder is not routine news. Gun violence is in particular not routine in the UK. In this case we have wide coverage by RS around the event, around the conviction, and during subsequent events in the area in 2014-5. We also have a few book mentions.Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wide coverage of RS around the event and conviction. Books mentions. WP:GNG per mainstream media coverage as well. BabbaQ (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a tragic, but ultimately routine event. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. No lasting significance or societal impact; see WP:LASTING. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a murder that has garnered WP:SIGCOV. Note that I added a search bar using a more likely term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Tragic, yes. Notable, no. Clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWS--Rusf10 (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sad news. Szzuk (talk) 19:55, 2 February 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. Killiondude (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Green

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

WP:ORG and WP:ORGIND. All sources are based on press releases. scope_creep (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- very close to G11 with language such as:

"The company typically uses conservative marketing tactics with a focus on technology to target a high-end demographic"! Etc.

Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH; basically, spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Hale

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Autobiographical promotional article. BEM is the very bottom rung of the UK honours system. Edwardx (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity page having no RS. Agricola44 (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Radio personalities are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but the referencing here is not adequate to get her over WP:GNG and nothing claimed in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to get over GNG. I'd also note that after this nomination was initiated, an anonymous IP rewrote the article to be even more advertorialized than it already was — I just had to switch the introduction back to "speaker, best seller expert and book publicist for high-profile entrepreneurs, politicians and celebrities" (i.e. her actual claim to potential notability) rather than "was once a single mother, living in a women's refuge but went on to become an entrepreneur after a career in broadcasting and publishing." I'm happy for her, but people don't get Wikipedia articles just to honour them for making something of themselves out of difficult circumstances — they get articles by being the subject of media coverage about them, but none is being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 29 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vlending Co., Ltd.

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

Delete No indications of notability, references are either PRIMARY sources, entries ffrom a website showing an album distributed by the company (not in-depth, no intellectually independent, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND) and an article from theteams.kr which is a Q&A published verbatim with the founder, fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- music distribution companies are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. Notability is not inherited from notable acts, and there's nothing better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 2 February 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. Killiondude (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Ibn-e-Seena Science School

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

Started by User:Arslan Gadi with COI, principal is Qamar Ud Din Khan Gadi. Nothing significant in WP:RS. Private with no coverage fails WP:NSCHOOL. Störm (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:52, 1 February 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. Killiondude (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Equity Education

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH. Apart from WP:PRIMARY it's unsourced. Kleuske (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1dd no evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 09:25, 2 February 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. WP:SNOW Guy (Help!) 18:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti Said Janan

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

Article does not cite reliable sources. Relies heavily on a single, and not independent source. No significant coverage in reliable RS found. So doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. M A A Z T A L K 10:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The subject is a current member of a provincial legislature and thus pass speciality notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN. What made you say "Article does not cite reliable sources." Its amusing that the websites of KP Assembly does not deem reliable to you. Government websites are primary but are not prohibited and can be safely used for verification purpose. Though I agree more secondary sources should be cited. Have you even bothered to follow Wikipedia:BEFORE? --Saqib (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, I read WP:BEFORE and I know that primary sources can be cited to support content in the article but not to establish notability. M A A Z T A L K 20:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep Again, this article clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN, and is necessary to reduce the structural bias against non-European people on Wikipedia. Jwslubbock (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is established by the WP:POLITICIAN guideline based on the rank of his political role, which is confirmed in reliable (but not independent) sources published by a government body. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: member of state assembly, verified by page from that assembly - clearly notable. PamD 10:06, 27 January 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. WP:SNOW Guy (Help!) 18:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Sheeraz

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

Article does not cite reliable sources. Relies heavily on a single, and not independent source. No significant coverage in reliable RS found. So doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. M A A Z T A L K 10:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The subject is a current member of a provincial legislature and thus pass speciality notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN. What made you say "Article does not cite reliable sources." Its amusing that the websites of KP Assembly and the Express Tribune does not deem reliable to you. Government websites are primary but are not prohibited and can be safely used for verification purpose. --Saqib (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I read WP:BEFORE and yes, primary sources can be cited to support content in the article but not to establish notability. Express Tribune is definitely a reliable source but I have said in my nomination that there is no significant coverage in RS except a mention. M A A Z T A L K 20:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep Again, this article clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN, and is necessary to reduce the structural bias against non-European people on Wikipedia.Jwslubbock (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Elected member of provincial assembly, verified by page from that assembly. Clearly notable. PamD 10:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Sheeler

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

unsuccessful political candidate--no other notability DGG ( talk ) 09:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable for stand alone article; trivial failed political candidate. Kierzek (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people who loose in the primary for US senate are almost never notable for that alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Running insuccessfully for office does not, of itself, make you notable (WP:POLITICIAN) No evidence of having done anything else to be considered notable. (WP:GNG) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:SOLDIER and WP:POLITICIAN.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being losing candidates in election primaries — to gain notability from an election in and of itself, a person has to win it and thereby hold office, not just run and lose. But this makes and sources no credible claim that he had any preexisting notability for other reasons, which is normally the only other way a political candidate can get in the door without winning the general election first, nor does it cite nearly enough sources to demonstrate that his candidacy was somehow a special case on the order of Christine O'Donnell's. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NPOL.Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:SOLDIER and WP:POLITICIAN-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:13, 30 January 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. I'm withdrawing this on the basis of the NYT article, but I hope Yngvadottir (talk · contribs) will continue removing promotional content, such as the quotations. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coravin

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

totally non-noable product and company. Minor promotional and consumer complaint references only DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is referenced from a variety of publications, only one of which strikes me as a bit dubious (Entrepreneur, now used only to reference history of the business); the NYT, FT, WSJ vetted blog, and La Revue du vin de France items are all about the company's product. This constitutes adequate evidence of notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing this on the basis of the NYT article by their wine columnist, Eric Asimov. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 27 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dikson Airport

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Found no significant coverage including in Google News. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm going to wait for some more feedback before voting. The reason why is I'd like to know if we have some type of policy or precedent of giving airports auto-notability. As per WP:RAILOUTCOMES, train stations are given auto-notability. So I think it would make sense that an airport would be given the same status since airports are certainly more notable than a train station.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page you cite specifically states that it is not a policy or guideline. It only states: "Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD." That is not auto-notability. Nor should it be.--Rpclod (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Notability (geographic features): Buildings *** may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. This article provides no references, let alone any authoritative references, that would show such coverage.--Rpclod (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "article provides no references", WP:CONTN - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." Coolabahapple (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The very next section states: [T]here must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". I see no significant attention from independent sources.--Rpclod (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is tough, normally I would say no sources = no article, but I have to believe that any commercial airport would be notable. I think the sources we're looking for are probably in Russian, but being that I can't read Russian, I can't add them.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actual working airport. Commercial service no less - KrasAvia airlines to Norilsk. All the nom had to do was click to Russian WP to see it's a working airport with coverage to boot. I can't imagine an article for a US commercial airport no matter how small even being considered for AfD. Might this be a case of WP:BIAS? --Oakshade (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Oakshade, commercial airports should get articles as long as they pass WP:V--Rusf10 (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I added a source to the article. It's not a great source but at least verifies the airports existence. Hopefully someone can find some better sourcing. I still say if all train stations have articles then commercial airports should too (there are far fewer of them).--Rusf10 (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- an airport with a scheduled service & an IATA code. Here's a news item from the Russian News Agency TASS: "Located in the eponymous settlement of the Taimyr Municipal District, Dixon is one of the northernmost airports in the country"; can be read via Google translate. Suffient for a stub, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is clearly notable, there are several good sources, it's used and designated, and articles about train/air stations are generally kept at AfD. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commercial airports are clearly notable. I don't know why this was even relisted, the consensus was already clear. Smartyllama (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Not too sure about no significant coverage in Google News, but there was some certain notable topic on this geographic features. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:11, 30 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Ibrahim

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

Looks-like a news report as we are WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- (1) This is an unsolved murder. (2) The victim was a Catholic martyr and thus likely to be beatified and then canonised. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing about the coverage here causes this article to currently meet notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improve The Junk Could be notable, but might need WP:TNTing in order to make a good article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username Needed (talk • contribs) 13:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Certainly notable. See search results or article may be moved to alternate titles like Murder of George Ibrahim. samee ^talk 21:27, 2 February 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 deleted G11 by Seraphimblade. (non-admin closure) !dave 11:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Eleven

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

Can't find substantial third-party mentions, apparently not notable independent of its artists (I'm getting lots of birch bark canoe hits though :p) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. There's nothing in the article that's not promotional. In addition, fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 2 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Preston

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

~~All sources I can find online seem to deal with a different Ava Preston.~~ This voice actress seems not to be notable. - Add: apparently it is the same person. Notability still doubtful in my eyes as per WP:NACTOR - people with more experience with role notability etc. please assess. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is officially deprecated as a source. Having seen the insufferable praise language they have on some living people, which is clearly that person having been given free reighn in creating the biography, I think we need to double-down in applying this rule. The reality is IMDb should probably not be listed as a source at all. Yet at present there are probably hundreds, and at least dozens, or articles that rely only on IMDb as a source. The other source listed here does not in any way provide substanial coverage of Preston. This is not the stuff notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page creator here, Elmidae I believe the "different Ava Preston" you linked to IS the voice actress. The opening statement didn't really clarify that so I amended it. When I made the page I was initially only aware of the voice acting but had later added notable recurring live-action roles as well. IMDB is not being relied upon as a source, it is simply listed for convenience. I've added more. ScratchMarshall (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in that case. With proper referencing and WP:Notability established, this can be kept. Leo1pard (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom/NACTOR. WP:TOOSOON for this child/teen actor. Although her career seems to be progressing nicely, her credits simply aren't strong enough yet. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 18:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Iraq FA Cup#Finals. T. Canens (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Iraq FA Cup

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

No source; no context Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - A notable competition, namely Iraq's top football cup tournament, but in this state, not useful. Userfy to allow additional content if not added by end of this AfD. Fenix down (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: But I think redirect is better, it will be easily restored this article after bracket is announced. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And userify needs an editor willing to do this. You can consider Drafty. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for a redirect if no one is prepared to take it into their userspace. Fenix down (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not needed. Giant Snowman 15:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iraq FA Cup. In the same way that the 2020 AFC Champions League redirects to the AFC Champions League. (As it is an upcoming tournament that as of yet has no dates/details about it). Hashim-afc (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hashim-afc: The redirect of 2020 AFC Champions League was created by me and the match schedule of 2020 AFC Champions League was announced in AFC offical website. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I still support a temporary redirect though as we know the tournament will start soon. Hashim-afc (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the topic is notable per @Fenix down:, would not oppose a temporary redirect. Cobyan02069 (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: Not sure whether it should be deleted or not, but now I think it should redirect to Iraq FA Cup at least until the bracket is announced. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is still ongoing, but it needs to be expanded – 333 -blue, 11:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator question: @333-blue: Do you have any source about it? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Iraq Football Association announced the cancellation of the tournament today.^[1] Thus, the page should be deleted. Hashim-afc (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hashim-afc: We have 2015 Piala Indonesia, should that article be deleted? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back, we have 2016 Iraqi Super Cup as well which was also cancelled. I guess it doesn't necessarily have to be deleted, especially as there are numerous articles online talking about it's cancellation. Hashim-afc (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down, 333-blue, and Cobyan02069: You can reconsider your votes after the cancellation was announced. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think a redirect to Iraq_FA_Cup#Finals is still the best outcome. Although the tournament is cancelled, it is still a plausible search term. Fenix down (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy: if it does not exist, then yes, it should be deleted. However, once there are enough secondary sources about the cancellation of this tournament, it should be recreated/kept – 333 -blue, 09:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Al-Sumaria News

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. T. Canens (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Seacord

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

The article does not include any references. I am unable to find any independent coverage of this subject. This subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia:GNG. Rogerthat94 (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has an H-index of 20, with almost 3000 cites according to Google Scholar.198.58.168.40 (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see how he passes notability guidelines. --IShadowed (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notified some editors who had voted on other AfD discussions for academics. I tried to get an even split of people who had voted for both deleting and keeping articles. --Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Google pulled up an article of his with 200 citations. See also this interview from InformIT. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment InformIT is the publisher of the subject's book. --Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, informIT is a big company. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- likely meets WP:AUTHOR; here's the Worldcat Identities profile: [20]. His Secure Coding in C++ is held by 405 libraries which is big for a specialised publication. I found a review: Review of "Secure Coding in C and C++ by Robert C. Seacord," Addison Wesley, 2006, paperback, ISBN 0-321-33572-4, 341 pp.. Appears to be an authority in the field. The book is published by Addison-Wesley so could be a standard textbook. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, two review articles available on the ACM Digital Library site are downloadable pdf files behind paywalls... so close! I have added a few citations that all amount to primary sources. I pass the citation baton to those with access to the reviews. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's a published author on a topic that interests lots of people - and may alas interest even more over the next few years. The stuff apparently contributed by himself appears to have been removed in 2007. Sure it needs a more diverse balance of sources. Most Wikipedia entries do. But you're not going to build the scope of wikipedia in the way it's founders seem to have intended by deleting them all. Charles01 (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with K.e.coffman that Seacord probably meets WP:AUTHOR, being the sole author of at least 5 books (one source says 6, but I found 5) and co-author of multiple publications with 16 other security professionals, on topics related to secure coding. He has also had some impressive gigs on consultant panels, such as the 2016 Facebook audit. I confess, however, that his pr branding/puffery by NCC Group as "a renowned computer scientist and author, known as the 'father of secure coding' " was off-putting when I found only NCC Group websites use that terminology. The article also needs to be improved by inline citations, even if the only independent references are from reviews of his books. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of notable citations. --IndyNotes (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Clearly a vanity page from the early days of WP. I'm refraining from !vote because this case is right on the border for the following reasons. On the plus side, he does have several co-authored papers with a few hundred citations and one of his books has been cited ~200 times (GS), but this is also a very high-citation area. On the minus side, his many books show marginal WorldCat holdings (low-to-mid hundreds) and we have deleted many computing/programmer BLPs having such book-holding stats, a recent cases being Janet Gregory. (I will politely disagree with my colleague K.e.coffman: IT is an enormously popular area and 400 holdings is not especially impressive. For reference, "well held" books in this area top 2K holdings, e.g. Christiansen's Perl book or Kernighan and Ritchie's C programmers book.) It's very likely that this article will be kept, based upon the above !votes. Agricola44 (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NBIO due to several notable ghits. --Kirbanzo (talk) 19:48, 29 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Saha

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

fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG the sources are passing mentions (2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, ) do not mention him (10, 13, ) whats on piece that are identical PR pieces (5, 7, 8, 19, 20) WP:INTERVIEW (11) Album credit (4, 18) None are sufficent to pass the notability guidelines Domdeparis (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks indepth coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 26 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ronny Hallin

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

Delete: as non-notable actress; cannot derive notability by dint of siblings (Penny Marshall, Gerry Marshall). Quis separabit? 01:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 26 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spike (Russia)

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

No independent notability for the Russian network. No references to support its development. Article is mainly a TV guide list of programs and the infobox television network. Another option is to redirect this to Spike (TV channel) and add a section about Russia, provided there is something to write about. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC) updated 06:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paramount Network. It can be covered in the international versions section. I don't see how this network is significantly different from its parent.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not seem to be anything to merge. Renata (talk) 21:07, 28 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ActiveState

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

Written like an advert, dubious notability, sources are either tangential in nature or first party press releases. FASTILY 21:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How the article is written is not a notability criteria. The company is one of the largest supporting open source development. Between its editor, IDE and language support it is likely to gerner GNG support. A quick search reveals several articles on ActiveState: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] The following mostly discuss their products, but the company is also discussed, and this is the inverse of WP:NOTINHERITED [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. If this is kept, which I would argue it should be, Fastly should be the one to improve the article for not doing WP:BEFORE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References meet the criteria for establishing notability. There are at least two independent sources that provide details of the company and their products. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:12, 30 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas County Speedway

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

Fails CORP. John from Idegon (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Lotsa coverage in the local newspaper; not much else. Rhadow (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All other K&N Pro Series tracks have articles except Meridian Speedway, (which I was planning on creating later). groig (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Groiglery1217, can you please explain how your argument shows this business meets CORP? Also, you should probably read about arguments to avoid at AfD, particularly WP:OSE. John from Idegon (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - John from Idegon, I can move to my userspace, right now we can merge to List of NASCAR tracks, and put all

current information in the article in the "notes" section, and set this as a redirect to that page.groig (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks any indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 27 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secdo

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Promotional tone, created by a WP:SPA. Fails WP:SUSTAINED. References provided are either mentions-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Edwardx (talk) 18:31, 19 January 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 January 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:PROMO / WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH; sources are routine funding news, WP:SPIP, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability. While the company produces security bulletins for the computer industry, having these bulletins quoted and published in various publications does not meet the criteria for references to establish notability. Fail GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:14, 30 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Morris

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

Only claim to notability is La Crosse Method Protocol, which may or may not itself be notable. Fails WP:GNG PriceDL (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @RileyBugz: I am curious as to why you accepted this at AfC and then immediately tagged it for notability? If you had concerns why did you accept it? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep An internationally known specialist in sublingual immunotherapy. I don't think. Absolutely notable. scope_creep (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not looking for references BY HIM, we are looking for references ABOUT HIM. We are not his CV. His method comes up with zero hits on pubmed [31] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 26 January 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. Per the later uncontested sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Street Co-op

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

Not notable, fails WP:ORG and a search reveals very few sources, not enough to establish notability. Rusf10 (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search reveals plenty of good sources. The nomination is false. Andrew D. (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment of the sources is false. There are very few sources that have more than a passing mention.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, - Added another source and working on a few more from the local NJ news outlets. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are detailed below. Told you so .Andrew D. (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Notable and reliably sourced, even if it is currently a stub, that is no reason for deletion. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for nominator 1) We've heard from participants here who have found sources, yet there is no apparent effort to have complied with WP:BEFORE. Where is the analysis of potential sources and alternatives to improve the article? Simply asserting that "Your assessment of the sources is false", without any evidence of an appropriate good-faith effort to find sources, accomplishes nothing. 2) The header for this AfD -- and every other one in Wikipedia -- states that the nominator must "... consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." Why has the nominator not considered a merge / redirect? Alansohn (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay genius, what is the merge/redirect target for this one, I give up. Do not tell me its New Brunswick, New Jersey because it certainly is not a major part of that city. A few local newspaper articles that amount to little more than a restaurant review does not clear the bar for WP:GNG A **WP:BEFORE** search didn't reveal much else. So unless you or someone else want to add better references to the article or post them here, do NOT claim that I did not do a before search. I have a theory that you actually copied and pasted your response here without looking at the sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Okay genius"?!?! What's wrong with you? Is this how you believe Wikipedia operates? Alansohn (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you were supposed to assume good faith about my nomination, but you never do. And in this case you accused me of not doing a WP:BEFORE search, but there are zero reliable sources with significant coverage. I'm still waiting for you to find them to back up your statement that I didn't do a search.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Keep as per WP:DGFA. This is another "I have the right to nominate articles on New Jersey and nearby states" nomination. The nominator has attempted the outing of a New Jersey editor and claimed "I have not provided any information [that was] not volunteered in the past." Never mind that the nominator has been previously explicitly warned to not attempt outing. The nominator has told the target of his/her attempted outing, "quite frankly I do not care what you think" The nominator has gotten an editor from a topic related to New Jersey indeffed for being an AfD meatpuppet. The nominator took two editors from New Jersey to ANI on 23 December 2017, which is where some editors became aware that the nominator has said, "List of people from Teaneck, New Jersey should not exist and neither should about half the articles on that list." Challenged about nominating New Jersey articles, in this diff, the nominator accuses a creator of New Jersey articles of creating "unnecessary articles". Unscintillating (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard below. Delete or at the least move to draft - Does not appear to have significant non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources that would merit an encyclopedia article per WP:NCORP. If there is no coverage of a local business beyond its mere existence it does not merit an article. Also the part about articles of incorporation, structure, etc. is patently unfit for an encyclopedia article. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Changed. 01:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, not after you gutted the article, there is almost nothing left at all. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No what? Usually "no" is in direct response to some assertion. I didn't remove anything that had to do with non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources beyond the mere existence of a local business. If the copy-pasted articles of incorporation were the guts of the article that's the exact problem. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a single organic grocery store. While there's apparently a plethora of excessively-detailed information about the corporate structure available, there's nothing that suggests there's notability above other individual grocery stores. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to New Brunswick, New Jersey There's not enough here - yet - to merit a standalone article, but a merge / redirect would be consistent with WP:BEFORE / WP:PRESERVE. Alansohn (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Okay we're making progress here.~~ Now the problem with that merge target is I don't understand how a business gets mentioned in an article about a city. That would be a failure of WP:NOTDIR and possibly WP:NOTTRAVEL (since it has a restaurant).--Rusf10 (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Rusf10 here, how are we supposed to mention every grocery store in a town without some clearly significant coverage in secondary sources? Even without the notability requirement for articles, the requirements for reliable sources and due weight stand. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DIY.Doesn't even merit an redirect.AD and Unscintillating may be requested to provide the sources that gives significant coverage about the subject, lest one gets tbanned prior to the opportunity. Winged Blades^Godric 12:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are at least two references that (just about) meet the criteria for establishing notability. I have reservations about the references. For example, the Vegan Times is a college-produced newspaper and may be critisised based on WP:AUD but my opinion is that is meets the criteria as it is intellectually independent and in-depth. I also believe that this inclusion in a book on "Food Lovers' Guide to New Jersey" also meets the criteria, just about, since it is slightly more than inclusion in a list of similar businesses as there is also some information on the business. It's weak, I know, but I believe it just about creeps over the line. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the two references look good to me, and just make GNG standards. --RAN (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What sources are there are passing mentions or, basically, directory listings. That's not my idea of in-depth needed for more than a business listing. --Calton | Talk 06:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ -- a nn grocery store. The sources in the article or at this AfD do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:AUD (i.e. college newspaper) and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Genovese, Peter (2012). Food Lovers' Guide to® New Jersey: The Best Restaurants, Markets & Local Culinary Offerings. Guilford, Connecticut: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 118. ISBN 0762788941. Retrieved 2018-01-29.
  The article notes:
  George Street Co-op, 89 Morris St., New Brunswick; (732) 247-8280; www.georgestreetcoop.com. This venerable downtown New Brunswick institution has been around forever, or so it seems. It started in 1973, when some students from the Vegetarian Club at Rutgers University opened a buying club in a garage off George Street. They soon moved to a small storefront on George Street. The co-op is now located in even bigger quarters on nearby Morris Street. The co-op's aim is to sell vegetarian foods with the least amount of processing and contaminants but with the greatest nutritional value possible. Anyone can shop at the store, which is stocked with organic produce, organic whole grains, breads and cereals, low-carb foods, chips and natural treats, juice and juicers, ready-to-eat sandwiches and entrees, and many other items. Membership is $24 a year. If you work 2 hours a month at the co-op, you get a 6 percent discount. If you work 2 hours a week, you get 15 percent off. And the co-op offers a 5 percent everyday discount to those 65 and over. The co-op is open daily.
2. Turner, Patricia C. (1990-06-28). "Co-Op Survives in New Brunswick, But No Longer on George Street". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2018-01-29.
  The article notes:
  Whatever the excesses and extravagances of the 1980s me-first period, the George Street Co-op in New Brunswick not only managed to survive, it prospered with its philosophy of "community and fellowship in a cooperative environment."
  In fact, the co-op members were able to buy their own building, hence the George Street Co-op is no longer in a storefront on George Street but is at 89 Morris St.
  ...
  The co-op has approximately 600 members who pay $10 a year plus $2 for printing the newsletter. New members pay a $5 deposit, which is returned if they leave.
  Anyone receiving financial assistance can ask to have the dues waived. The co-op accepts food stamps.
  Each co-op member family must work two hours a month for each member of the family. This work could be writing the newsletter, helping in the store, checking in orders, bagging produce, filling bulk bins, taking out trash or other duties, depending on the day and time.
3. Locastro, Jane (1998-10-01). "Vegetarian co-op on the grow with members in the hundreds". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2018-01-29.
  The article notes:
  According to its brochure, the co-op was begun in 1973 "when about 10 people from the Vegetarian Club at Rutgers started a buying club and worked out of a garage off George Street."
  A year later, the club moved to a storefront on George Street. In the spring of 1988, the store moved to its present location at 89 Morris St.
  In addition to providing produce which is organic (grown without the use of pesticides or chemical additives), the George Street Co-op carries a range of vegetarian food that includes grains and nuts, herbs, spices, pasta, dairy products, pasta, teas, and ready-to-eat sandwiches. The store also sells books and body-care products.
4. George, Dana Yvette (1996-03-12). "Partnership comes naturally for vegetarian co-op". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2018-01-29.
  The article notes:
  Members pay an annual $10 fee, which includes $2 for the co-op's monthly Food For Thought newsletter, in addition to a one-time $5 deposit which is refundable when membership is terminated. The bulk of the dues covers salaries for the eight full-time workers and overhead.
  ...
  The co-op's founding members started a buying club 23 years ago in a garage off George Street, moving within a year into a leased storefront. As the operation expanded, the co-op was able to purchase its own building on Morris Street but retained the George Street name.
5. McEnery, Mary Ann (1994-10-26). "Sharing the Health Co-Ops Grow With Surge in Natural Foods". The Record. Archived from the original on 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2018-01-29.
  The article notes:
  The George Street Co-Op in New Brunswick with 600 members, the state's largest was founded 20 years ago by a g roup of residents in conjunction with the Rutgers Vegetarian Club and the owner of a restaurant and health food store. Woods, who started working there as a volunteer when he was 11 and is now the manager, said the store has outgrown its storefront location on Morris Street. (It moved from George Street in 1988 but kept the name.)
6. Kressel, Beth (2004-06-23). "A threat to fruits of their labors - Co-op vies with mainstream organic goods". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2018-01-29.
  The article notes:
  Long before supermarkets devoted aisle space to organic produce, tofu and free-range chicken, there was the George Street Co-op in New Brunswick.
  Started in 1973 by members of the Vegetarian Club at Rutgers College, the co-op has survived three decades, filling a niche for consumers seeking healthy alternatives.
  But now that organic food has gone mainstream, the co-op is struggling to find its place.
  ...
  The co-op, which moved from George Street to its current location on Morris Street in 1988, is a health food store collectively owned by about 200 members. Each member works a few hours a week or month to receive discounts on products, ranging from tofu and organic vegetables to fragrance-free soaps and paper towels made of 100 percent recycled paper.
  ...
  About 10 years ago, the co-op opened its doors to nonmembers, who now make up 75 percent of the store's sales.
7. Tarabour, Brook (2000-01-05). ""Taste of New Jersey" - Organic co-op keeps idealistic vision alive in New Brunswick". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2018-01-29.
  The article notes:
  All that said, what's a 30-year-old, communal, organic-only food cooperative doing in the year 2000?
  Surviving quite nicely, thank you, in hip downtown New Brunswick. With more than 200 members, the not-for-profit George Street Co-op still purchases and sells natural foods the old fashioned way: They vote on it.
  ...
  The co-op makes an intriguing example of how a group of people from all walks of life can join forces to keep an idealistic vision alive for almost three decades, and continue to make it work in today's world.
  Within a year, the membership and demand had grown, and they opened a retail store on George Street. By 1988, the cooperative had expanded to the point where it had to relocate to larger quarters at the present site. The Morris Street store is open to the public, which pays sticker price for more than 4,500 items. By working two hours each month at various jobs, members, who pay $12 per year plus an equity deposit of $100, receive an 8 percent discount. Putting in two hours per week gets you a 20 percent discount.
  ...
  ... There's more at stake than you might think: Last year, sales topped $800,000.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow George Street Co-op to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH guidelines. The first is basically a restaurant review (specifically mentioned in CORPDEPTH) and the rest are just local newspaper articles which don't meet WP:AUD.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the entry in the book to be significant coverage. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says:

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.

The Star-Ledger is the largest circulated newspaper in the U.S. state of New Jersey and is based in Newark. It is a statewide or regional newspaper so it passes the guideline.

Cunard (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CunardDjflem (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because WP:HEY, kudos to User:Cunard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Struck out vote above, while I am more than willing to consider a Merge / Redirect to New Brunswick, New Jersey as an alternative to deletion, the scope and breadth of the sources identified by Cunard above demonstrate that the article is notable. It appears that the nominator's claim that "There are very few sources that have more than a passing mention." is in fact incorrect and I hope that now that the sources have been identified which provide in-depth coverage that the nomination will be withdrawn as a show of good faith. Alansohn (talk) 14:48, 30 January 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 promised citations do not appear to have materialized. T. Canens (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory oracle

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

Does not meet the GNG. Can't find significant coverage in independent sources. Is simply a phrase coined by one author of a couple of papers on blockchains. Can't find it mentioned elsewhere online or in any article on Wikipedia. Kb.au (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete one hit each in Gbooks and Gscholar, both of them bogus. An idea whose time has not come. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal ball. I can't find any relevant resources other than the ones in the article, which are both by the same author (explicitly tied to a venture capital project in his presentation about it). Nothing to show that the concept's yet taken off, interesting though it is. Mortee (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this page. It's for a useful concept. The most notable pages on the topic are from Vinay Gupta, Data61.gov.au, and Legalese.com. Give me 5 days and I'll add some citations upon which this issue can be revisited. Romanpoet (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 26 January 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. WP:SNOW Guy (Help!) 18:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samina Khan

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

Article has 3 sources. 1 is from Baluchistan PA that shows particulars. 2 and 3 are sources that only mention and no significant coverage. It does not meet WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. M A A Z T A L K 09:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? the subject is a current members of a provincial legislature and thus pass WP:POLITICIAN. --Saqib (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument revolves around the first point of WP:POLITICIAN. However, that point comes with footnotes. Read footnote 8 & footnote 12.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#cite_note-note7-12 M A A Z T A L K 09:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either you are misinterpreting the Notability policy and the footnotes you referred above or misreading it. You need to re-read the last sentence "However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless" which clearly takes precedent. An MP elected at the national or sub-national level legislature is presumed to be notable, regardless of whether xe has received significant coverage or not. WP:GNG is not the only notability guideline. We have speciality notability guidelines, like WP:POLITICIAN precisely because GNG doesn't suit all circumstances. That being said the subject clearly passes WP:N and qualify for a standalone WP page. --Saqib (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Additional criteria in WP:BIO, it reads: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. So the way I see it is to read all the points together and make a judgment. 2nd and 3rd point are not met, and about 1st point relation with footnote 12, it reads this is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. But we see, in this case it fails WP:GNG M A A Z T A L K 21:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ma'az: Instead of wasting my time on this invalid AfD, I would repeat what I said above, Either you're misinterpreting Wikipedia policies or misreading them therefore my honest advice to you is to familiarise yourself with the policies before you decide to nominate more MP bios for deletion. --Saqib (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please don't patronize me. I've given my arguments, you have given yours. No need to be offensive. See WP:WQ: Be polite. Civilly work towards agreement. M A A Z T A L K 13:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. 12:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person is an elected politician in a Pakistani state legislature. As such, she easily passes the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN:

"Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them."

Wikipedia is structurally biased against non-European people. This is why we have criteria for notability which do not require finding lots of good RS. Only 50% of the world's population has internet access, and to suggest that an elected Pakistani politician does not meet this criteria seems unaware of the geographical and structural bias which makes it harder to prove notability for non-European people. This article, and all articles on elected Pakistani MPs, are inherently notable. Jwslubbock (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia is that biased against non-Europeans, then we should have articles on every European politician ever elected to the office with heavy reliance on primary sources. Do we have? M A A Z T A L K 21:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am always suspicious when I happen on a deletion proposal made by a new user with only a couple of thousand edits. I am even more suspicious when a see a new user wikilawyering away trying to introduce novel interpretations of a simple rule. This person is an elected politician in a Pakistani state legislature. It ends there. We don't have one rules for a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and one for the Panjab, Balochistan, Pakistan or Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly. I am suspicious that when one new user goes on a delete fest, that they fail to understand that we are here to create an encyclopedia not to own it WP:OWN ClemRutter (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All this is part of experience that's why Wikipedia allows users(including new users) to use AFD. Little drops of water make a mighty ocean. WP:AGF, WP:BITE. If you think new users shouldn't be allowed, then you can discuss this on some other forum. And I have given my claims. You can give yours. Everybody can until a consensus is achieved. M A A Z T A L K 21:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If a subject clearly passes WP:N, it will easily pass WP:GNG. M A A Z T A L K 20:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person is an elected politician in a Pakistani state legislature. That is enough Victuallers (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: clearly notable as an elected representative at state level. PamD 10:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable; the article needs to be expanded. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:42, 27 January 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 Nicole Kersh. T. Canens (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4cabling

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private business; significant RS coverage not found. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/KerriZ with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should be redirected to Nicole Kersh. There's certainly no need for two articles pertaining to a small company. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and merge Nicole Kersh into it. The company seems to have enough coverage in independent sources to meet WP:CORP. The WP:CORPDEPTH is more than just superficial, with a bunch of the sources referenced in both this article and the Nicole Kersh article being specifically about the company, and some other not referenced articles in SmartCompany, BRW, and Fin Review about it. The Nicole Kersh article doesn't really contain content unrelated to the company so it would be appropriate to merge it into the 4cabling article. Kb.au (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Merge with Nicole Kersh, either way. Kb.au (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment -- I nominated the Kersh article as well; please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Kersh. I don't believe that the sourcing in the company article meet WP:CORPDEPTH; if there are specific examples of such coverage, I'd be glad to review them. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do you find wrong with this or this or this? They look like reasonably good sources to me. I agree that merging the two articles would be a good idea; but merging in which direction I'm not certain. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are still unsuitable sources; samples:

[Kersh] founded the business seven years ago and says it is now turning over about $8 million a year. (...) "That's why we stood up and took notice when, a few years ago, a guy started up a competing business", she said. Source #1 above
Gernis managing director Jonathan Maister told SmartCompany he “struck a deal” with Kersh for the business after a mutual contact indicated the young entrepreneur was interested in selling all or part of the company she founded when she was 21 years old. (...) “We love the culture,” says Maister. source #2

These sources are based on interviews with company execs and are not intellectually independent of the subject. Please see WP:CORPDEPTH. With $10M in revenue, the company is too small to presume notability and such sources are insufficient for encyclopedic content. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that most company and founder coverage is based on interviews or information from the companies themselves. The difference is, these articles aren't interviews, they constitute reporting based on an interview, and that's an important distinction. If the publication has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, there is no problem with publishing quotations that the publisher has vetted. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Unscintillating (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For an article like that to be acceptable, it must demonstrate intellectually independent analysis and/or opinion - which these articles don't. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nicole Kersh. This article is short enough that it would fit nicely into the bio. There is sufficient independent coverage by reliable sources for both subjects. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to a merge either way. As per Kb.au and Anachronist. Unscintillating (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. There are no indications of notability for this company and despite the Keep !votes above, once again there appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding among some editors on the differences between sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability of an organization and the *lower* standard of sources required for citations to support facts or information within an article. In order for references to meet the criteria for establishing notability, they must be intellectually independent - broadly speaking, this rules out references that are largely based on company announcements, hiring and firing news and references that rely extensively on interviews and quotations from company employees or related companies. Effectively that rules out all of the sources provided. I looked at the AfD of Nicole Kersh and the references that nudged that article to a Keep decision are all based on interviews. While references like those may be used to satisfy the criteria for notability for people, it specifically fails the criteria for organizations. Merging this content to Kersh's article appears like the sensible thing to do (perhaps one day WP:PEOPLE will also exclude references extensively based on PRIMARY sources from the criteria for establishing notability). HighKing⁺⁺ 22:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Seriously? Re-list? There is clear consensus for a merge; with every commenter either in favor of it or mentioning it without objection. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a consensus for merge, as Anachronist has said. Kb.au (talk) 00:06, 27 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Robertson (bassist)

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

Contested prod. Subject is non-notable. Only one of the provided sources are a reliable source that cover the subject at length. None other can be found. WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This appears to be a very important musician in the psychobilly genre. In addition to the reliable source the nom mentioned, Bass Frontiers Magazine did an in-depth piece on him which includes significant biographical content plus an interview.[32]. Other coverage already in the article can arguable count like the Rich Mullins podcast which is very in-depth on him. --Oakshade (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just added more credible references to this page, links to relating wiki pages, and also polished up the text to make it more professional. Mark was a central member in A Raggamuffin band, the band of Rich Mullins, one of CCM’s most famous artists. All the other band members on the wiki page “A Raggamuffin Band” have their own wiki page, so it’s only fitting that he keep his wiki page. Mark’s page was created in 2010 and it wasn’t ever proposed for deletion until now. He was also part of This Train, which was the opening band for Rich Mullins’ tours, he sang lead vocals on a song from Rich Mullins’ last album “The Jesus Record”, he both produced and performed on Rich Mullins’ “Canticle of the Plains” album, as well as Mitch McVicker’s Without Looking Down, all of which would be considered notable accomplishments. And all of which have references on his wiki page. Sethowens (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to Legendary Shack Shakers as a plausible search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to recent improvements, and in agreement with @Oakshade: above. I suspect that the article simply needed better sources at the time of the AfD, and the nominator could have given it chance with an edit tag instead. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:57, 2 February 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 The Chronicles of Amber. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 09:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Amber (omnibus)

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

Not needed. If really necessary information about collected editions could be added at The Chronicles of Amber --wooden superman 16:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only non-redundant content is the listing in the Anthologies section, which could be added to the main article. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Merge to The Chronicles of Amber (though remove the useless infoboxes). Keeping the redirect is bizarre but necessary for attribution. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 26 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strippergate (Israel)

This is pure Wikipedia:Content forking. The only notable person is the father, and so the text may be included there. No reason for a new lemma in Wikipedia. --Hannover86 (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename to Yair Netanyahu. I don't think the event meets LASTING, though it did have SIGCOV, it is really NOTNEWS (at present - the sort of event that is in the airwaves for a cycle or three). Yair himself, however, does meet GNG by himself. He actually does have an entry on hewiki - [33], and did pass a deletion discussion in August 2017 (following different political statements and a bruhahah over some cartoons) - hewiki AFD - and he should pass enwiki's GNG threshold (since he has been covered as a subject for years) which is actually lower than hewiki's notability guidelines in this case.Icewhiz (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I we can rename it to Yair Netanyahu and write about the anti-Semitic Meme he had posted. The meme that was liked by the head of KKK.--APS ^talk 13:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is ample space to cover the incident in Yair Netanyahu (who should meet GNG). You also have WP:COMMONNAME problems here - the news cycley incident isn't known as strippergate (Ha'aretz in English used this in a piece, not used in Hebrew, not used widely in English) - it also involved a bit more than strippers (i.e. Yair discussing possible sexual "sharing" of his girlfriend, and talk about how a gas tycoon was enriched by Bibi). My 2 cents is that the event itself is really a NOTNEWS thing as a standalone - but fit for inclusion (carefully with enwiki's BLP policy) in Yair Netanyahu.Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: clearly relevant because of the corruption debate in Israel. At least as notable as gamer gate and pizzagate.--APS ^talk 13:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore this guy is known for trying to shut down articles like this. With the wildest claims. According to him I as a Jew am anti-Semitic because I, like most of Israel, dare to write about this topic.--APS ^talk 13:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on Benjamin Netanyahu. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS its clearly "news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" --Shrike (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a lasting relevance in Israel. At least more relevant than gamergate and pizzagate. Not to mention that the German Wikipedia, known for its fast deleting policy, actually kept their article.--93.207.55.36 (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)— 93.207.55.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Shrike (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia:Content forking. I have no idea whether Yanir Netanyahu is sufficiently notable to support an article - most offspring of heads of state are not. The incident coverd in this article fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOTNEWS. All the citations are news reports from a single day, a little over two weeks ago. Has anyone cared since? It's too early to tell. Mangoe (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Too many wikipedians seem to be slavishly devoted to transferring everything in the news into a bloody article. It's bad enough with Trump issues. If a politician farts, or their kid cusses, it doesn't belong in a bloody encyclopedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As others have rightly pointed out, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I hesitate to use that as a reason myself, because I'm trying to think of a newspaper that runs two sentence articles. No, we can't simply rename this to the BLP involved (unless you'd like to see how quickly we can delete a BLP1E). Merge? Meh. If this is significant to any other article, it's already there. Comparisons to Gamergate controversy and Pizzagate conspiracy theory are absurd. Both are clearly -- indisputably -- notable. (If you think either is not notable, please take it to AfD and ping me, just so I can watch.) If, several years down the road this has proven to generate meaningful coverage, we can easily recreate to two sentences that make up this orphaned mini-stub. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:40, 31 January 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. WP:NPASR. T. Canens (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Felgueiras

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

Article seems based entirely on inherited notability (and not very strong one at that). No substantial coverage of the person seems to exist. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's a pt.wp AfD at pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/Sandra felgueiras and the result was delete with the comment 'a journalist merely doing her duty'. However, it's 9 years old. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep there's some Portuguese coverage (though it's arguably "tabloid-style"): [34] [35]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Danielle Stislicki

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

Fails applicable notability criteria, namely EVENT. Also seems to fall under the pillar policy NOT John from Idegon (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's the disappearance of one person. If it was drastically different to the vast majority of disappearance cases (such as the events surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann) it may be notable. However it isn't, so it needs deleting. Stui (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Unresolved disappearances like this are a hard case for WP because, by their nature, they generate news reports over a long period. But unless one is willing to argue that all such cases are notable, this comes across as routine local coverage of such an event. So it's another case of WP:NOTNEWS. Mangoe (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There may be news reports on this case, but that is nothing unusual. It is routine, it is news.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing makes a better case for this outcome at this point than this line: News of the case loomed large over the metropolitan Detroit area, but did not receive much national coverage. You might as well just come right out and write "This story is not notable as of January 2018." I'd also take note that every source cited comes from the same local Detroit website. Should it get national attention, which it well may, then it can be recreated. Daniel Case (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news. As an avid listener to WJR I have heard her name more than most people, and am sure there is nothing but routine news coverage here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Chetsford (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I personally choose to abstain from the debate due to my personal interest and bias with cases of this nature, but I would like to point out that there are a variety of sources and media coverage for this case, which implies notability, in my opinion. If this article is to be deleted, I would certainly like to see it be recreated if there is any resolution to the case. It does appear that the current person of interest/suspect is a potential serial killer and could perhaps have his own article on the site if the suspicions of his guilt are corroborated by forensic evidence. If a murder or manslaughter charge is brought upon him and if he was to be convicted without the presence of her body, the case would be notable, as a conviction of this type without a body doesn't happen often in the United States.--GouramiWatcher^Talk 06:21, 2 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Ayers

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

Contested PROD, with that tag removed for what looks to be a case of crystal ball use. Ayers doesn't pass any of the applicable standards for his professional career, and is presently only an assistant coach, which doesn't seem to get him over the line in that regard either. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not seeing independent, reliable sources that establish WP:GNG. Most sources I can find are short blurbs on being hired for various jobs (routine coverage not to the level of in depth profiles) or are published by non-independent sources (school websites, School fan sites, etc). Rikster2 (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He played professionally at the highest level in Finland, however, that doesn't qualify under WP:NHOOPS. His other pro play was in the NBA D-League which also doesn't qualify under NHOOPS. References are almost non-existent in article. Those found in a BEFORE search are fleeting and incidental; what one would expect for an assistant coach at a D1 school; primarily in the form of mention in box scores and game recaps. Therefore, does not pass GNG either. No prejudice for recreation if / when he becomes a head coach. Chetsford (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here's an entire article about him from the Chicago Tribune. Did the nom and delete voters do wp:before? FloridaArmy (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and I saw that 9-sentence piece and included it when I said “Most sources I can find are short blurbs on being hired for various jobs (routine coverage not to the level of in depth profiles) or are published by non-independent sources (school websites, School fan sites, etc).” It’s routine coverage and even if it were a long article one source doesn’t meet GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete enither his level of playing nor coaching rise to actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He played professionally in France [36], in Finland, and D League [37]. So yes he is notable for wikipedia, just like hundreds other players.--Bozalegenda (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of those meet WP:NBASKETBALL and even if they did there is a question as to if he meets WP:GNG. The sources have to be there. Rikster2 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should delete hundreds of others players. And that list on WP:NBASKETBALL is bullshit. Playing in some American ABA?! or Australian League can not be more important then playing in French LNB Pro A or German BBL. I mean did someone ever watched any game of American ABA League??? Ayers played at the highest level in France so he should have article on english wiki, just like there are articles about him on French, Italian and Finnish wiki.--Bozalegenda (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I made a mistake, i was thinking about ABA league from 2000. But it doesnt matter, playing in France is more reliable then playing in Australia.--Bozalegenda (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that’s an opinion to have, but it doesn’t make Ayers meet any WP guideline. And I have tried to find legit sources to say he meets GNG but can’t. Rikster2 (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the absence of GNG, NHOOPS establishes the following criteria:

Have appeared in one game as either a player or head coach in ... (specific list of leagues follows, none of which Ayers played in)
Were selected in the first two rounds of the NBA draft. (Ayers was not selected in any round of the NBA draft)
Have won an award, or led the league in a major statistical category of the Continental Basketball Association or NBA G League. (no source establishes that this applies to Ayers)

Another set of criteria for amateur athletes can be found at WP:NCOLLATH; again, none of this applies to Ayers. Chetsford (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That list of leagues on WP:NBASKETBALL was probably made by someone who dont know anything about world basketball. Playing in French Pro A league is more reliable then playing in Australia or Israel. French league had two teams in Euroleague only couple years ago. Also, if Ayers is notable for three other wikipedia's then he also must be reliable for english wiki.--Bozalegenda (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the list (which, as I understand it, was created collaboratively among the participants at the relevant Wikiproject) features the number of problems you say, then you're welcome to take up the matter in the appropriate forum. At present, though, it's proved an eminently suitable statement of the consensus of a range of editors, which is what Wikipedia is founded on. Different language Wikipedias have their own standards of notability, by the way, which is a specialised case of this well-known argument to avoid in discussions like this. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mate I am one of the most active editors here for world basketball, and no one consulted me about that list. So that explains how much is that list reliable, probably was made by some non basketball editors. There is no way that playing in Australia could be more reliable then playing in France. Every day i'm editing articles about some players who are not even close to be notable like Ryan Ayers. If you want to delete Ayers article then first delete LiAngelo Ball and LaMelo Ball. How could they have articles and Ryan Ayers not, that's nonsense.--Bozalegenda (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bozalegenda - it is not true that you didn’t have the ability to have input on leagues being added to WP:NBASKETBALL. It’s true that no one posted anything on your personal Talk page, but the last major change was advertised at the Talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball (see here). The truth is, you rarely engage in these consensus discussions, yet you complain about the results. Just so you know, there is a discussion underway about adding the Philippine Basketball Association to the guideline now at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Adding Philippine Basketball Association to WP:NBASKETBALL? - feel free to contribute. The issue with Ayers is that he doesn’t meet WP:GNG, which is the overriding guideline anyway (WP:NBASKETBALL is meant to show athletes who will probably meet GNG, not a replacement for it. As for the Ball brothers, they haven’t achieved anything but unfortunately they both absolutely have the sources to meet GNG - plenty of reliable, independent sources have discussed them at length. That is not the case with Ryan Ayers. Tell you what, if you can find the sources to prove he meets GNG I will change my !vote. They don’t have to be in English, but they would need to be independent, reliable sources that cover Ayers in some reasonable depth. Rikster2 (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing here is that list of leagues on WP:NBASKETBALL is bullshit. Ryan Ayers even played in EuroCup [38] and after EuroLeague that is most important competition in Europe. I just dont get it how Australian League could be more reliable then EuroCup or French League??? Non basketball editors, and people who dont know anything about world basketball (people who are watching only NBA) are making this wikipedia ridiculous. And now you want to add league from Philippines before EuroCup, French or German League????? Nonsense. And there are plenty of sources for Ryan Ayers on web, but i dont want to waste my time to make this article looks better and to someone delete it.--Bozalegenda (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that strongly about the list of leagues there, or the proposal which Rikster referred you to, then you're entirely free to contribute those strongly-held views to the relevant discussion/s. This isn't the relevant place to have that conversation, but you've been advised what the appopriate locations are. If, on the other hand, you want to rail against existing policies and guidelines, you're welcome to do that wherever you wish, with the caveat that it won't bring about the change you so fervently desire. To your point about the "plenty of sources" regarding Ayers - if sufficient sources are added to an article as to get the subject over GNG, it'll be kept. You will be achieving the result you claim to want to achieve if you do that. The choice is yours. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added more sources, so i hope that now is everything ok.--Bozalegenda (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, none of the sources that you added are from independent sources. One team site, one league site (they will announce their own transactions whether notable or not) and one short transactional press release from the Austin Spurs reprinted on a sports site. Rikster2 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of his standing in NBASKETBALL, Ayers clearly meets GNG per the sources in the article and two more I was able to dig up. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago Trib article came up earlier in this discussion - I really don’t see that as significant coverage, it is a short blurb about his hiring at a college in their local coverage area. The Goshen article probably qualifies as a significant piece, but one reference doesn’t really prove continuing coverage in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rikster2: are you kidding me right now? Should we add a 100 sources so you could be happy??? You dont even know to add refs in articles, you are just doing some minor edits in infobox and that is not making this wiki better. Just realize man Ayers is reliable for wikipedia, there are plenty of sources on web about him. Just type his name on google and you will see. He played in EuroCup and that competition is about 20 times stronger then Australian League, he played also in French first division. So yes he is reliable whether you like it or not.--Bozalegenda (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shut up, man. You won’t even engage in what leagues should be in WP:NBASKETBALL, you just want to complain about it. If you don’t like what I have to say then stick to the discussion and tell me why these sources demonstrate notability per Wikipedia guidelines? Since you added a bunch of league links (non-independent) I am guessing you don’t actually know. Non-independent sources are fine to establish facts, but not notability. Rikster2 (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In article you have sources from ESPN, Chicago Tribune, Sportando, Eurocup... all this sources are valid in hundreds of other articles, and they were never deleted. So there is no need to delete this guy. On web you have sources about Ayers on French or Finnish language, reports from games. The easiest thing is to delete article, if you want to do something good for english wiki then add sources to article and everything will be ok. Off course if you know how to add a source.--Bozalegenda (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, you can stop with the insults, they aren’t constructive. Second, the question isn’t if Ayers can be found on the World Wide Web. The question is if there are significant sources that meet WP:IS and constitute “significant coverage” (that’s bolded at WP:GNG). The team, League and Eurocup pages are not independent. Game reports and short transactional announcements like the Chicago Tribune and sportando (sportando is literally a collection of one-sentence signing announcements) don’t constitute significant coverage in my mind. They may in your mind, but make that argument based on logic and facts not just “of course they are.” There can be disagreement on what constitutes significant coverage, that’s what these discussions are for. Also, yes, there are many poorly-sourced articles on WP. The difference is that this one was challenged through the AfD process so I, and anyone else, are just stating an opinion to help reach a decision. In my eyes, the only source that is both independent and rises to the level of a piece constituting “significant coverage” is the Goshen Times piece editorofthewiki added. To me, that one is longer in length and goes into more detail about Ayers as an individual than transaction blurbs do. But to me you can’t call one article “significant coverage.” If other sources meeting WP guidelines exist, let’s find them. French and Finnish language sources are fine, but they’d also need to be independent reliable sources - for example, newspaper articles or articles from independent magazines like Basket News. I don’t have any bias on this guy. I don’t care if the article stays or if it is deleted, I just gave my opinion. If all these sources are out there - ones that meet WP:IS and WP:RS, then show them and I am happy to change my !vote. In any case, an admin is going to have to sort through this to make a call since this isn’t unanimous either way and bringing forth sources that meet this criteria - and/or making an argument why you disagree that things like the ESPN blurb constitutes “significant coverage” - will help your case. Admins need to look at guideline- and fact-based arguments, they aren’t just counting votes. Rikster2 (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. He doesn't meet WP:NBASKETBALL either. Per WP:WHYN, significant coverage is needed "so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." He's not encyclopedic enough to WP:IAR and keep an article that will never be more useful than a stub with past stints listed.—Bagumba (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He definitely doesn't meet WP:NHOOPS and my own search didn't turn up what I believe is sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Reinitzer

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

His daughter wrote a "novelized telling of his story", but that's about it. He doesn't satisfy either WP:BIO or WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable for stand alone article; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's a soldier who served well without notability.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. Seems the main source is a book by his daughter. An additional paragraph in a 2014 FP piece. Does not pass GNG at present.Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Also, his daughters book was published by xlibris, which is rather a vanity press, without more reliable coverage, the article fails WP:NPOV. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:16, 31 January 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 21:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hopper

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, as there is at most 1 significant role listed, and whether the film is significant is unclear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough significant roles to pass notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 27 January 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 21:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lasser Park

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

Non-notable municipal park. Fails WP:GNG, no reliable source coverage. Even the town's website doesn't tell you anything about the park other than it has two football fields. Rusf10 (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete WP:NGEO does not discuss parks at all; without a change to that page there is no argument to keep this. Clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:24, 26 January 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 per WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Hagennos (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ghatkesar railway station

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

Non notable minor Railway station. Does not pass notability guidelines under Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations). Fails Wp:GNG Hagennos (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Longstanding consensus that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. A mainline rail station serving a population center of over 20,000 is certainly notable and I doubt such a station in the US or UK would even be considered for deletion.--Oakshade (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article itself states that "The Ghatkesar Railway Station is serviced for 18 trains daily. Most of these services pass through the station." That in Indian Railways means these trains do not stop at the station. The only trains that seem to stop at this station are minor trains. (https://etrain.info/in?STATION=GT). The population center is served by Hyderabad Railway Station or Secunderabad Railway Station. Hagennos (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring as we make no distinction as to the frequency of trains. Grand Forks station literally has 2 trains per day - 1 in each direction. It's a working mainline station. Just like Fontana station only has "minor" trains and no long-distance ones, it's still an inherently vital function of a small city.--Oakshade (talk) 04:28, 27 January 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 . Based on long standing consensus that all Railway Stations are notable I am closing this discussion as per WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Hagennos (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shankarpalli railway station

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

Non notable Railway station . Fails WP:GNG and also delete under WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE . The criteria for notability of Railway stations are clear in Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations) Hagennos (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Longstanding consensus that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. Mainline rail station in which it's impossible not to have extensive coverage in government reports, assessments dating back to the colonial British period when the station and line were built. Consensus wisely decided long ago that rail stations are notable and it is disruptive and pointless for editors to spend time an energy scrutinizing the thousands of stations when editors' time can be much better spent creating new articles and improving existing ones. --Oakshade (talk) 02:53, 27 January 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. This is a train wreck thanks to the SPAs. No prejudice against speedy renomination, preferably with extended-confirmed protection on the AFD. T. Canens (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cardano (cryptocurrency)

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

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

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

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

Another cryptocurrency article with poor references and promotional content. A quick WP:BEFORE didn't unearth much more in reliable sources. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage, Google News gives 16k results, 5th largest crypto per Coinmarketcap.com, and a stub is not a reason for removal. Rather than to complain about references, improve. prokaryotes (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I mentioned to the project on Twitter that the main thing it needed was WP:V WP:RSes, and they tweeted this - I haven't looked through, but there may be material. They are getting a bit more coverage - David Gerard (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Drewmutt. The more reliable sources are mentions of Cardano, not focused on them. Other sources are from Cardano, related sites, or the value of it. _{Adotchar| reply here} 00:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep 15 billion+ market cap, users who actually use it, it is the 5th largest cryptocurrency, etc. But, the arguments for delete are equally valid. It isn't a small entity, but being big doesn't make it notable. There aren't many reliable, secondary sources. _{Vermont | reply here} 14:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adotchar Isn't that a proposal? I'm not aware of any consensus surrounding this...CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is currently discussed here. prokaryotes (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Prokaryotes said it all. --分液漏斗 (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great source of information and as the Cardano project matures so will this site. Thank you. --Inti27 (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- — Inti27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
- Currently the 5th largest market cap of all cryptocurrencies: 17 Billion USD according to https://coinmarketcap.com/
- Other, much smaller cryptocurrencies have Wikipedia entries, for instance:
  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogecoin
  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litecoin
  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namecoin
  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nxt
  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash_(cryptocurrency)
- Founder Charles Hoskinson is a well known figure in the cryptocurrency space.
  - Google "Charles Hoskinson" --> 127,000 results
- Lots of media coverage, reviews and interviews, etc.
- A renown developer team including Prof. Aggelos Kiayias and Prof. Philip Wadler from University of Edinburgh, and Prof. Elias Koutsoupias from Oxford.
  - see https://iohk.io/team/
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elikrieg (talk • contribs)

Keep:

What more reliable sources do you want? There's a ton of info/references available on Youtube, Google relating this project, and by no means are they 'low value' or 'promotional' in nature. This is a no-joke, peer-reviewed, academic project that has been developing since as early as 2015. Not sure as to why/how Drewmutt came to the conclusions that this WP Page is another 'low quality cryptocurrency page'.

Please view https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/cardano-blockchains-first-use-case-proof-university-diplomas-greece/ where you can take a university course.

Cardano started a research project with Z/YEN Think tank, regarding blockchain tech. that has the Dutch government interested in the protocol: https://www.banklesstimes.com/2017/12/05/cardano-foundation-selects-z-yen-for-blockchain-research-program/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Nexus conference 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1fNLSjAgHg

IOHK/Cardano Foundation whiteboard presentation regarding the Cardano project can be found on Youtube (blacklisted link?)

One would almost question the objectivity of the individual that put this article up for deletion.

-On a sidenote, I have never used Wikipedia talk before, nor edited anything before and have 0 experience in this field. Whomever wants to use the references I have given above, feel free to edit/implement them into the article. Forgive me if this edit looks messy.Katsumoto87 (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability established, lots of news in reliable sources and lots of youtube videos. --Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cardano technology is very serious, and will enable cascading disruption across multiple industries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:1123:4019:dde7:7466:960b:1465 (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2018‎

Keep There are numerous citations in major publications here are a few notable examples.
1. Cardano: This Crypto's Potential Is Its Greatest Strength And Weakness - https://seekingalpha.com/article/4140873-cardano-cryptos-potential-greatest-strength-weakness
2. What’s Behind Cardano’s Rising Popularity in South Korea? - https://hacked.com/whats-behind-cardanos-rising-popularity-south-korea/
3. CRYPTOCURRENCIESCardano: A New Disruptor in the Cryptocurrency Market? - https://themarketmogul.com/cardano-disruptor-cryptocurrency-market/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by AiMingQi (talk • contribs)
- — AiMingQi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: New accounts, 1-5 edits. Of course, their opinions do matter, but smells a bit fishy (or should i say socky) to me. Possible WP:SPA issues. Also see this. _{Adotchar| reply here} 01:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, this isn't socking. User David Gerard reached out to Hoskison via Twitter and got a response. It's OK for David and Charles to communicate about this. The new accounts are probably associated with Cardano. That is also OK. Dawnseeker2000 01:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that those two people doing this is violating Sockpuppetry guidelines. Evidently my comment wasn't clear, I'm sorry about that. My point was that people are creating accounts for the sole purpose to comment here. That isn't necessarily an issue, except if one of those people creates two accounts for that purpose. This is a contested AfD, and I am withdrawing my delete. I've done some more googling into this. Although the article isn't great, there is notability per this. _{Adotchar| reply here} 01:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for clarifying (I re-read your post and that helped as well). Dawnseeker2000 03:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cryptocurrencies are generally ephemeral. I have read articles such as this which say that it is basically a 'twist' on the more relevant Bitcoin cryptocurrency, so I don't see how it is relevant. However if it is shown that the numerous sources from quasi-news groups such as Cointelegraph, GlobalCoinReport, Cryptovest, newsBTC, Bitcoin Magazine, CryptoNinjas etc. are actually relevant independent reliable sources, then maybe this is notable. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly would you think those sources are unreliable? Benjamin (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To just take one at random, the cryptovest "about us" has as their "mission statement": Staffed with a team of cryptocurrency experts, we are committed to providing sound recommendations on the best and safest coins to invest in. Sound recommendations are not independent media coverage from an established source with a history of editorial oversight. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is cryptovest even in the article? I don't see it. Benjamin (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles I am referring to are ones I found via the article, they are examples of what I found when searching before making my comment. All those "crypto" type publications have reported on this crypto-currency multiple times, yet none of them are reliable or independent sources, hence my recommendation. To expand on this, it would seem that the authors of the articles are often either given or bought (at a low price) some of this crypto-currency in order to create the article, and others are basically reporting on everything with the word "crypto" or "coin" in it indiscriminately, often copying directly from press releases. It seems to be a web of self-interest and unreliability. However, I don't have the time or inclination to sort through every single article, so there may be scope for identification of proper sources. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable through extensive coverage in reliable sources. If the article has problems, fix them. That's not a reason to delete. Editor edit warring my Snow Keep should be sanctioned. Claiming 'none of the criteria' have been met and attacking the credibility of me and '90%' of the people voting keep. WP:AGF WP:NPA. Consensus is clear, this is a waste of time. There is no chance this article gets deleted. Isenta (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one should be sanctioned for anything at this point. It takes two to edit war. You made a bold edit in closing this before the full 7 days had run. You were reverted. The next step is not to reinstate your preferred version and close it again, it is to discuss it witht he person who reverted you. I would suggest you read WP:NAC as it provides good guidance when a non-admin should close an AFD prior to 7 days. ~ GB fan 11:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's not even allowed to re-open it. Only me, an uninvolved admin, or a deletion review, can re-open it. Isenta (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isenta No that's not how this works at all. Like all discussions, deletion discussions must be decided in accordance with consensus and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you are not fairly experienced, or are unfamiliar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, do not close such discussions. You closed a controversial AfD with very differing answers 3 days after it was opened. You're not an admin and you've not got the experienced to even be making these judgments. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isenta PMC = Admin. She reverted a NAC that was hastily done to a discussion that was not complete. _{Adotchar| reply here} 12:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware they are an admin. If that's the case, obviously I should never have reverted them. Isenta (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It's clearly notable and has adequate coverage in sources that is only going to increase in the near future. Benjamin (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My instinct is this is largely hype, but the (currently $13 billion) market cap will be enough reason to keep. Looking at [39] it's very strange that over 80% of the volume is at Upbit. (Upbit discussion) This article [40] from the end of November says very few people have any idea as to what this project is all about and suggests it's largely hypeware. I've cleaned up the article more ("3rd generation cryptocurrency" appears to be their promotional terminology that's not otherwise well-defined). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your link explains the generations briefly, https://oracletimes.com/south-korea-and-upbit-upbit-driving-cardano-to-the-moon it's not just a marketing word. prokaryotes (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not established based on what we personally think. If it has significant coverage in reliable sources, it is notable. Doesn't matter how trivial or important we feel it is. And this has significant coverage in reliable sources. Isenta (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This cryptocurrency is and has stayed in the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap for the last two or so months. There is no reason for the deletion of this article as it is very significant in this community. omegshi147 • talk 07:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't looking for a reason to delete the article. We're looking for reasons to keep it. By that, I mean that notability must be *proven*. Furthermore, notability is not established based on whether the said community believes the article's subject to be significant. _{Vermont | reply here} 10:16, 1 February 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. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tiberius Claudius Cleobulus

Withdraw from nominator - Book sources have been added by User:Iazyges. Meets WP:POLITICIAN. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tiberius Claudius Cleobulus's grandfather is Manius Acilius Glabrio Gnaeus Cornelius Severus; however the relationship does not confer nobility and it is not inherited WP:INVALIDBIO. Source found mainly on Roman family tree / genealogy. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to grandfather's article (giving him a mention there first - perhaps more of a Merge). This person himself seems to have no notability, just known to have existed. PamD 10:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact he probably could be deleted A7 - there is no assertion of any importance or significance.Pam D 10:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the article has been expanded to show that he held a significant political office. It's a pity the original article creator didn't show any sources or indication of notability. PamD 10:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CASSIOPEIA: I've added sources showing he was a suffect consul in 210. Per WP:POLITICIAN, that establishes notabilitiy. Vote speedy keep and recommend a withdrawal. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:52, 27 January 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 09:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unifying Model of Sexual Identity Development

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

Treats a single model from 2011 that does not appear to have seen further uptake and/or discussion since. Not notable as a scientific concept. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. PROMO by a SPA. Agricola44 (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 03:41, 26 January 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 09:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VIPJourneys

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

Non-notable business whose featured product shows on non-notable website blogs like World News Network, TheHollywoodTimes.net, UsWeekly.com (not the magazine), and the contributor section of Huffington Post. Travolution is a maybe, but it's a news announcement of the product. That leaves a Spanish newspaper that briefly mentions the name but it is not clear whether it's the same business or another business of the same name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11. I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article which makes no claim of encyclopaedic notability, with advertorial, passing mention and routine announcement sources. No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Fails WP:ORG. Ajf773 (talk) 18:48, 29 January 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 09:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Star

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

Non-notable, potentially hoax-show. I can find no evidence in any language that this exists outside of their own self sourced website. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stay- This is a television show and two episodes are currently available. You can view the Aryan Star playtime on the IRIB Nasim official website. With respectMohammadtgr (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion- Watch the third episode at 5 PM from Live IRIB Nasimسینما جامه (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question, @Chrissymad and Meatsgains: Have you performed a search for sources in Persian? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Lankiveil: I searched for a lot of resources. This app is made and exists in Iran.91.107.140.229 (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lankiveil It was created by a notorious hoaxer who is trying to promote himself. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:32, 28 January 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 09:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HolidayMe

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

A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable online travel agency. Does no meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Significant RS coverage cannot be found; what comes up is trivial mentions and self-promotion link. The first AfD closed as "Delete" in Oct 2016; there are no new indications of notability since then. The ranking on "Top 100 Startups In The Arab World 2017" strongly suggests it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: blatant business promotionalism. Quis separabit? 02:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Discussed as a startup in late 2016 by Gulf Business; like many, perhaps hundreds of online travel booking startups without any especially redeeming features to make it encyclopedic. If WP is WP:NOT a routine business directory this doesn't belong. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potted business promotions article. scope_creep (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skerries Community College

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

Delete: non-notable school. Google search did not provide any evidence of notability or notable alumni. Quis separabit? 02:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The school is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I always thought that schools serving this age group were inherently notable, coverage or not, notable alumni or not. I agree there is little to show notability. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 11:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC concluded that secondary schools are not inherently notable, Roxy. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It also concluded that this should not lead to AfD nominations for the sake of it! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You guys don't make it easy, do you! -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 10:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus and for my usual reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough reliable 3rd party sources to satisfy GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the RfC that Necrothesp so delightful chooses to ignore. And so clearly states that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a relevant argument. The Banner talk 14:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, obviously you couldn't be bothered to read my other reasons! Apparently in your view all opinions that a secondary school is notable should be discounted. Because. you. are. right! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per community consensus. Note that I had no idea that Necrothesp is an admin, was not intimidated, and the discussion here predates the discussion at AN. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 05:37, 30 January 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 09:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merritt Cabal

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:NMODEL and significant RS coverage not found. Cyber Girl of the Year honour is not significant and well known; the article on the program has been deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playboy Cyber Club (2nd nomination). K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable ~~porn actress~~ model, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I wouldn't really call a Playboy model a porn actress. But regardless, does not meet WP:NMODEL.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I was meant to have amended that before hitting Save, I've since amended, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:GNG, best left to Playboy Wiki Atlantic306 (talk) 17:48, 30 January 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 09:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaye Sargent

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

An unelected politician without significant coverage in reliable sources. Mattg82 (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsuccessful politician. Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Repeatedly running for office does not , of itself, make you notable (WP:POLITICIAN) No evidence of having done anything else to be considered notable. (WP:GNG) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be fair, I believe the actual rationale for creating this had more to do with her having been the past leader of a political party than with having been an election candidate per se. But being leader of a minor fringe party is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass anymore in the absence of enough sourcing about her to pass WP:GNG, and there's nothing approaching enough press coverage to get her over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a defeated candidate for elected office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 30 January 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 09:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Core Sergeants

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

Fails WP:GNG. Significant coverage not found, and the undeleted article was mistakenly re-deleted per WP:G4 when the previous deletion was a prod rather than an AfD. One of the non-English sources in the article appears to be a blog. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-The creator of the article has created three articles about Hard Core Sergeants with different spellings. The other two, Hardcore Sergeants and Hardcore Of Sergeants, were deleted for being duplicates. The subject shows no signs of notability. The article has only one RS, Risingbd, and the primary topic of the news article is not Hard Core Sergeants. I could not find any other source that helped establish notability.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable; trivia. Kierzek (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MILUNIT.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at present sourcing level. If there are additional Bengali sources I am amenable to changing my !vote.Icewhiz (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence presented that this passes WP:MILUNIT. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:20, 29 January 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. WP:BLP, a policy, has precedence over WP:GNG, a guideline. None of the keeps seriously engaged with the BLP argument. T. Canens (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acquittal of Bassam Al Rawi

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a mess from a WP:BLP point of view. The acquitted person is prominently named and thereby linked to an accusation of which he was found not guilty. It is one of exactly two such articles on Wikipedia; the other is Acquittal of O.J. Simpson (which redirects to the "murder case" article). Simpson, at the time of the murder case, was already notable as a sportsperson; the person named in this article otherwise is not notable. The article also is an incoherent collection of largely unreferenced information, partly wrong, partly based on opinion pieces. There are better sources than the ones cited in the article, but it still only amounts to routine coverage of an ongoing court case (the acquittal is being appealed). It may even be possible to write a valid encyclopedia article about the case (if we presume it is notable, which seems doubtful), but doing so would amount to rewriting it in its entirety; WP:TNT applies, particularly given the presumption in favor of privacy. Huon (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree entirely with nominator. Rogermx (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article was Kept through a AfD process as late as in April 2017. I can not see a reason for deletion, sure the article could need some upkeep but that is not a reaaon for deletion. Clearly within notability per coverage and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As I said above, it may be possible to have a valid article about the topic. This is not that article; it basically alleges that the acquittal was a miscarriage of justice - a gross BLP violation. If it were a little more coherent it would likely qualify for speedy deletion as an attack page. The arguments in favor of keeping it were: a) It's analogous to other acquittal articles (it's not), b) we can't judge whether there's any lasting notability, so we should keep it (not a policy-based argument), and c) it meets GNG (without showing how the available coverage doesn't run afoul of WP:ROUTINE). I find that unpersuasive. Huon (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If a reason for deletion cannot be found, I must assume the article and the nom's deletion statement simply were not read. This newer statement touches on aspects not addressed in the past AFD so simply saying "This article was Kept" signals to me that these new points were disregarded. However, we cannot afford to have a BLP (or any article for that matter) in such an irreparable state. The coverage some will inevitably argue passes GNG but I fail to see how any of it isn't routine in nature.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. The case is CONTINUING to be still in the national news, in part because the appeal of the case is still pending. Moreover, there has been IMPACT; here a January 2018 Globe and Mail story: Nova Scotia hires two Crown attorneys to focus on sexual-assault cases; Note, that this Globe & Mail story states that "a paper published by the Canadian Bar Review, Elaine Craig, a professor who specializes in sexual-assault law at Dalhousie University's Schulich School of Law, said the acquittal "suggests a failure of our legal system to respond appropriately to … sexual assault." Moreover, Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:DINC. XavierItzm (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ongoing coverage/protests of this case - [41] - due to the exoneration reportedly being based on "clearly, a drunk can consent". Deletion is not cleanup.Icewhiz (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- At this point, the case still falls under WP:NOTNEWS. The nominator makes a great point about having an article titled "the acquittal of". If we're going to have such an article, its would seem at the very least the subject of the article should be notable enough to have his own entry. It's my understanding that the ruling is being appealed. If the appeal leads to some precedent setting case, then that case can get an article, but even at that point having an article titled "Acquittal of Bassam Al Rawi" would not be appropriate.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a WP:BLP mess. If there's a notable topic here somewhere (of which I'm not convinced), the article should be nuked & paved in any case. Right now, it fails WP:NOTNEWS with no apparent lasting significance or societal impact. If this is still remembered a few months down the road, then maybe, but not now. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per BLP, an otherwise nonpublic figure should not be linked prominently to a crime he was acquitted of. Also a WP:MILL criminal case followed by routine news reporting, which we don't need to regurgitate per WP:NOTNEWS. Sandstein 09:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein errs in that he dismisses WP:SIGCOV but he is absolutely correct that «an otherwise nonpublic figure should not be linked prominently to a crime he was acquitted of». In fact, it is probably this simple issue that has caused this article to be nominated twice, since, quite reasonably, it may look odd to those who do not realize the breadth and depth of coverage the case has garnered. I think the solution proposed earlier to move the article to Regina v Bassam Al-Rawi properly re-focuses the article to its proper framing and makes it 100% congruent with the numerous Wikipedia entries for legal cases that have received widespread WP:GNG, such as Rylands v Fletcher, Entick v Carrington, Dietrich v The Queen, Roe v. Wade, the Dreyfus affair, etc. XavierItzm (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that national coverage has been intense. Here: [42] are links to the Globe and Mail coverage of this case. I have added a search bar on the name of the judge, and one on the name of the accused. Note also that the [Canadian Bar Review], journal of the Canadian Bar association, has published an INDEPTH article about this case Judging Sexual Assault Trials: Systemic Failure in the Case of Regina v Bassam Al-Rawi. This is a case in which BOTH the alleged rapist and the judge are accused of wrongdoing - in articles and opinion essays that have run nationwide. We Suggest moving article to Regina v Bassam Al-Rawi. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This case is now studies at the university level, a book has been published on the case and the national news still talks about it, cause it is reshaping consent laws in Canada.Snowy Badger (talk) 05:39, 1 February 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 09:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmetic Coffee

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

A short run TV series with next to no coverage in independent reliable sources. Of the independent references included in the article, Style only mentions the show incidentally and body+soul doesn't mention it at all. It's also not mentioned on Australian TV news site TV Tonight. Fails WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW. Kb.au (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First result; not a page on Seven's site, but Vimeo. Alleged 'link' on the Seven site is a 404 (and zero results on the Seven site for 'cosmetic coffee'). Less than ten results under the full title. This is pure paid programming (or 'teleshopping' as they'd say down there) doing the same thing as the acai craze folks did in the United States; paid to place their stuff on TV or drop mentions on soap operas and call it 'as seen on ABC/NBC' even though the news department probably said 'this stuff is stupid don't buy it', but it still aired somehow on their network space. These people just say 'as seen on Seven' instead, though I'm sure the usual 'Seven Network doesn't endorse the goods or products offered within this programme' aired before and after this aired. Finally, according to this source in the article, it aired mainly at 1:55, and since Australia uses 24-hour time for their TV schedules (which that site does), that definitely means A.M.; primetime for teleshopping, but not awake people. Nate • (chatter) 03:25, 26 January 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 09:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mercy College (New York) alumni

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

Unnecessary spin-off of Mercy College (New York) notable alumni section. College only has some 18 alumni with wikipedia articles. They can all be listed at the article. Which they are. Note- Another similar page List of Mercy College (New York) people was deleted. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons stated above. There aren't enough alumni for this page to make sense, although I do wonder at what point a separate page becomes necessary. Just based on the eye test, it seems like the college's own article is an appropriate place to house the alumni list. Gargleafg (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: -- Does every school get a separate page for their alumni? These kind of lists should be limited to those schools which are in and of themselves extraordinarily prestigious, influential, etc. Quis separabit? 02:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Mercy College. Not enough names to justify a separate alumni article. Ajf773 (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge what? The entries currently in the list are word-for-word identical to those in the section, except for the hyphenation in Diamond's entry. The entries in the list without articles, now all removed, belong in Mercy College's section even less than they did in the list. Division into Author, Sports, and Miscellaneous subsections might make sense if there were two or three times as many entries, but with just twenty - and most of them in "Miscellaneous", to boot - it'd just be clutter; and even if it were justified, it's not copyrightable information and doesn't require a merge. —Cryptic 19:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Mercy College (New York). I initially created the article because the Mercy College (New York) article could not accommodate the larger list without creating clutter. But given the lack of Wikipedia article of most names on the list and the college being relatively very young (it was established in 1950, while most colleges established in the 1800s), and also its student population being comparatively small (only about 10,000 students). I believe it's totally unnecessary to have a separate alumni article at this point in time.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 21:36, 26 January 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.

[1] Al-Sumaria News