Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

Guide to deletion

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Maison

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

Fails WP:NBIO. There is no coverage except in the local news sources, and the person is not notable other than as a transgender teenager with a transgender parent. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, tending towards, but not yet voting for weak keep. Subject has been on ABC,[1] The Mirror[2] and other noted outlets. Again, Im not saying this means subject is notable enough, just saying.....Antonio today is my birthday Martin (coooooomooooooo?) 05:09, 13 August, 2018 (UTC)
Delete - whenever we have any question about a minor child's notability, I always go to delete. There is not much coverage outside of a couple of news features, so I would err on the side of protecting this person's privacy. Bearian (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should respect the privacy of minors unless there is overwhelming evidence we should do otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per User:Bearian and nom. Redditaddict6 9 18:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kelly ( philanthropist)

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO; searching up "Sean Mike Kelly" excluding Wikipedia comes up nothing but other people. Article was created by an editor who games the system to become autoconfirmed so they can make this article. theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The Entrepreneur source is an opinion piece from a contributor, which is not reliable. The HuffPost piece is also a contributor article, and the MyCentralJersey piece is written by an "editorial intern". Other sources appear to be passing mentions, unrelated to the individual himself, or not independent from the person (including interviews). — Newslinger talk 23:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my analysis on each sources listed as of revision ID 854659736:

social network link, so not a reliable source.
opinion piece. briefly mentions Kelly there but is not the main subject.
opinion piece. Kelly is not the main subject there.
opinion piece. no mentions of Kelly.
how can a video even be used as a source? and once again it doesn't mainly talk about the subject.
opinion/contributor piece of HuffPost, as pointed out by editor Newslinger, so not a reliable source.
written by an editorial intern, per Newslinger, meaning an another opinion piece.
talks about Russell Westbrook. and I don't see any mentions of Kelly there.
talks about JaVale McGee showing off his jerseys. once again, no mentions of Kelly there.
yep. another HuffPost contributor/opinion piece. no mentions of Kelly there.
a blog guide on how to use instagram stories. that's it.
opinion piece. even claims so on the bottom of the page that they "publish pieces written by outside contributors with a wide range of opinions, which don't necessarily reflect our own."
opinion piece by a contributor. basically talking about why some Instagram accounts make millions while others don't.
links to his profile at Kivo Daily, where he is a contributor.
same thing as above.
a podcast. i don't even understand how can a podcast be used as a source.
unreliable primary interview by a founder. per Newslinger, interviews are not reliable, because that means the author of the source becomes affiliated with the subject.
unreliable primary interview by a contributor.
unreliable primary interview.
unreliable source. doesn't even have anything on there, besides the photo.
unreliable primary interview.
unreliable primary interview by a founder.

and that's that. theinstantmatrix (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References in article

Delete - no reliable sources exist, period, therefore, he fails WP:V. He seems to be quite run of the mill and up and coming as they say. Bearian (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a lot of links, but none of them support or constitute a claim of notability nor could I find anything additional in a Google search to substantiate a claim. Alansohn (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG not met. More nonsense from an extremely obvious, undeclared paid contributor. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails Wikipedia:GNG guidelines and only brief mentions in sources. Tinton5 (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Innovit

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. No independent reliable sources could be found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC) I have improved the Innovit article by adding more reliable sources to address the concerns raised in the discussion. Please let me know if there are additional concerns, or if the flag can be removed. Thanks. Jahub (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references seem to be PR I found some additional sources, but none seemed to be independent. fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with above, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺15:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very weak sourcing with press releases and business listings. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:59, 17 August 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 Professional development. Vanamonde (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Professional school

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

Unreferenced arbitrary list Rathfelder (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Professional development which includes training for a profession, graduate schools, and also a hatnote to vocational school. Note that Professional education also goes to professional development. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Professional development. No need to lose the contents of this article in the process. bd2412 T 00:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What does this list provide which is not better provided by categorisation? Rathfelder (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It provides a list, so that if the reader is already reading this article, then they don't have to go look at a category page. Also, is there a category containing all of these items, and would it be appropriate to have one? bd2412 T 11:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A list is static. A category is more likely to be updated. Rathfelder (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to professional development. A professional school is an actual type of school and probably warrants a page. However, at this point a merge is probably the best option. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Ruthmann

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

Autobiography of non-notable academic. GScholar lists 32 publications that have been cited 371 times with an h-index of 11. Of the requirements llisted in WP:ACADEMIC, Ruthmann seems to come closest to meetiing #8, as he has been "editor" (not clear whether this was "editor-in-chief]) of the International Journal of Education & the Arts. Even if he had been the chief editor, however, this is not a "major, well-established academic journal" (it does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:NJournals). He has co-edited two books published by respected publishers (Routledge and OUP), but I have been unable to find book reviews (other than on booksellers' websites), so this also misses WP:NAUTHOR. Of the independent sources, some (like the teachrock.org one) don't even mention the subject. Others (like P2PU) only mention him in-passing. Fails WP:ACADEMIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - our general rule for associate professors is that they would have to have published at least one major work. I don't see that. The subject does not quite yet pass "the prof test". Maybe soon. Disclosure: my domestic partner is also an associate professor at NYU. Bearian (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough here to show that Ruthmann is notable. This does not pass our rules for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find significant coverage for him. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of newspapers published by CNHI. Not strictly the consensus, but nobody objected, and WP:ATD, WP:CHEAP. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The North Jefferson News

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

Non-notable subject, a WP:BEFORE search has turned up no useful sources to get the subject up to the WP:GNG standard Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 21:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of newspapers published by CNHI, in line with Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals. It's a reasonable search term, and Wikipedia has basic information about the paper (location, frequency, publisher) to which we can direct readers. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:52, 15 August 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.

Being away from Wikipedia, I did not see this deletion request. I fail to see why other weekly newspapers owned by CNHI are notable but this one is not. If I had a way to object to this redirect, I would most certainly do so. I will note that I worked for this newspaper for seven years, but left more than two years ago. Realkyhick (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Work San Fedele

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

fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 21:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sigh. More Jesuit promotional spam. Article is sourced by the article subject multiple times, remaining sources are not adequate for GNG.96.127.243.251 (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Tagged by me as G11 and executed by SeraphimBlade. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 05:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat

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

Fails WP:GNG. Small supporting office of the Superior General of the Society of Jesus. No independent notability. The Banner talk 20:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough third party coverage to satisfy GNG or any other notability criteria. It may be WP:NOTEWORTHY enough to mention in Superior General of the Society of Jesus, but I would be opposed to creating a redirect since the title is generic. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although not binding policy, it is worth noting that this office also fails WP:NCATHOLIC. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and here we are again, dealing with yet another low-notability Jesuit organization. I searched and could find only passing mentions in Google books. Nothing in terms of the independent, in-depth sourcing we require to establish notability. It would be terrific if those who created such articles got a better grip on notability in future, or nominated any existing low-notability articles they have created for speedy deletion. It would save a lot of time.96.127.243.251 (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per above.∯WBG^converse 13:41, 14 August 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. Vanamonde (talk) 05:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Life (2007 film)

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

May not meet WP:NFILM notability. Also no references used. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFD for film maker:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Penney (3rd nomination)

AFD of his films:

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)e">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see how the subject meets WP:NFILM. PK T(alk) 12:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFILM.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trūata

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

Delete Notability is not inherited so although the names of the companies involved in setting up this company are all notable, there is no indication that this company is notable in its own right. References are not intellectually independent and fail WP:ORGIND. Wikipedia is not a yellow pages and is not a platform for promotion. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺19:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject of article has received

As such, it meets WP:ORGCRIT (and therefore also WP:GNG). As such, it should be kept. Zazpot (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to go and look at the definition of independent a little closer. HighKing⁺⁺15:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A news search does return a number of relatively recent sources. However, the majority of these seem to be of the "republished press-releases as journalism" variety - which is specifically called-out in the relevant INDEPENDENT/CHURNALISM guidelines. For example, the FT piece from 15 March overlaps in time/date/content with the original 15 March press release. And the "company creates 75 jobs" pieces on the Irish Times. RTÉ and elsewhere in June all reflect the June press release by the company. Otherwise the half-dozen other mentions are of a trivial nature (frankly to be expected in this day and age), and confirm only the organisation's existence rather than its notability, and provide no evidence of LASTING relevance. At *best* this seems like a case of TOOSOON. However, while I am not saying this is the case here, the manner and pattern of this article's creation are very similar to those patterns seen with accounts involved in paid-editing. That pattern, together with the promotional tone of the first revision gives me pause relative to the WP:PROMO guidelines. Firm delete recommendation from me. Guliolopez (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there do not appear to be any source that verify the topic's own notability. The fact it was setup by notable organisations is not good enough. ww2censor (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we're not yellow pages, or a business directory. NCORP and CORPDEPTH in particular. Just seems run of the mill to me with PR and churnalism. Widefox; talk 10:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also agree with others' analysis above. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor is it a type of Yellow Pages. References are not independent and fail WP:ORGIND, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺15:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Eh, HighKing, as the creator of this AfD, and as an editor with an existing 'delete' recommendation "on record" (both implicitly by opening the AfD thread, and explicitly by your introductory 'delete' statement), it seems a little redundant to have a second/duplicate contribution further down in the thread. I recognise that this is a discuss rather than a vote, and am perhaps not as active on AfD threads as others, but it seems a little unusual for a nominator to 'second' their own nomination. Did you perhaps forget that you'd already opened and contributed to this thread? Guliolopez (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thank you, that entry was made in error, I only intended to respond to Zazpot's comment and got distracted as I was looking at other articles for deletion at the same time. I've struck that second !vote. HighKing⁺⁺16:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notbale. Spleodrach (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Science College

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

Non-notable unaccredited college lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Appears to fail WP:NSCHOOL. reddogsix (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Worth An Article: THis school has been growing silently for sometime and has ties with a very radical far right movement. I think it needs to stay for awhile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercopone (talk • contribs) 19:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Supercopone: can you provide third party citations to back up this claim, or anything else in the article? See general notability guidelines. From what I can see, the only sources covering the college are the college itself, YouTube videos, and unreliable blog posts. Also, please sign your comments by adding four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Supercopone is the creator of the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. A Google search didn't turn up a single reliable source, which means this information is not verifiable. Brad v 20:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't source it either. Fails WP:NSCHOOL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:NSCHOOL. No suitable article for redirect or merging, as the parent organization, Young Earth Creationists ministry, appears to be little more than a group with a website, a camp, and a college (ostensibly), but the website seems to consist mostly of vague mission statements and requests for donations rather than real, verifiable information. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fundamental WP:V failure. Bakazaka (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of available sourcing to meet notability guidelines. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- This is a very small college. The lack of fees charged must mean that some one (who?) is subsidising it heavily, unless the three staff are moonlighting from other jobs. I do not support the Young Earth Creation theory, but it seems to be a widely held FRINGE theory. This makes me wonder if it may be useful to keep the article to expose what it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find proof this "college" even exists? Brad v 15:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Young Earth creationism article already exists, so people looking for theories can go there, and I'm sure there are schools/programs/organizations that support research into this. This particular school still has yet to be notable either as a school or an organization. There are many other educational and Christian camps that have presence on yelp and social media and are not notable enough for Wikipedia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~as test website.~~ The only information about the organization Young Earth Creationists, Christ Camp Project, and Creation Science College is the website itself. The Christ Camp Project has a copyright year of 2023. None of the degrees they offer have any useful information about who teaches the classes and the subjects listed at the Masters section look like individual lectures rather than full courses. [3] The Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube links in the corner go to Wix. Tuition verbiage reads: "Right now there is no tuition for any degree programs. Enroll, take as many courses as you would like. If you meet the requirements to graduate simple complete the form and a review will be conducted. " [4] There's not even literature about the classes or WHERE to take them. ~~This seriously looks like someone making up a fictional website to practice making web pages.~~ AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC) updated 00:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed the blog has been active the past few days asking for money and help [5] [6], so this looks more like a startup organization, per WP:ORG still lacking in secondary sources. Too soon to be notable here and would be strongly self-promotional if kept. Striking above verbiage about it being a test website. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Give this a few months.76.164.99.199 (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? If you have material that supports its notability, you should post it here. Please see WP:PRIMETIME AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:35, 15 August

2018 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:GNG , WP:NSCHOOL and has no reliable sources . Kpg jhp jm 16:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article on a non-notable, unaccredited "college" that doesn't pass WP:NSCHOOL. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:26, 19 August 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 Cyrille Regis#Death and legacy. Agreement that the notability for the pre-season game is not demonstrated. There seems a rough consensus that a redirect is reasonable, with the agreed target Cyrill Regis (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regis Shield

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

A pre-season match that doesn't appear to have enough coverage to meet WP:SPORTSEVENT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect I don't think it's notable, but was wondering if the term should be redirect to the West Brom article. Govvy (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's an "annual" event that's been played for a year, but regardless of the oddity isn't sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG.
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable friendly competition, played only once to date. Fenix down (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - could consider a redirect to Cyrille Regis#Death and legacy, where it is already mentioned (I've just added it). Giant Snowman 13:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply That sounds like a sensible solution. Govvy (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cyrille Regis as mentioned above. --Jameboy (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. Maybe in future it'll become notable, but at the moment it's a match played once. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to either team wasn't an option, but I didn't consider a redirect to Cyrille Regis, which sounds fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:50, 15 August 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. General Consensus. (non-admin closure) Yoyowhatsup2 (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MeTwo movement

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

Not a movement but a hashtag; I'm not sure it's relevant enough to justify a redirect (probably to Mesut Özil). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Keep in mind that the sources for this may not be in English but German. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep it is clearly relevant. Keep in mind that this is not the English Wikipedia but Wikipedia in English. This movement is very heavily debated in German mass media over a long period of time. Which is what is defined as notable in the guidelines. Not to mention that it has been debated in Austria and Switzerland too. And it has even been debated in British mass media.--APS ^talk 21:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Two reasonably substantial articles from The Washington Post and Chicago Tribune would seem to contribute to notability. There are other sources as well, such as a slightly longer analysis at the Gatestone Institute, though I believe that it is considered a less than reliable source. This should fall under the WP:NNEWS guideline, which means that it may not meet the requirements if there is no WP:LASTING significance—on the other hand, this has been covered internationally, which is a point in its favor with WP:GEOSCOPE. Since this is a recent event, we are unable to evaluate whether it will receive persistent coverage. I think it is appropriate to keep this article at least until a clear evaluation can be made per WP:RAPID. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adegboyega Oyetola

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

WP:NPOL doesn't appear to be met for this political candidate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won — a person has to win election to, and thereby hold, a notable political office in order to clinch notability as a politician, and absent that they have to have preexisting notability for other reasons independent of their political candidacy. But this makes and sources no credible claim that he would have qualified for an article on any grounds other than the candidacy itself. So no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but nothing here is enough to already earn him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I started the article because the subject is very popular in the state and has been in politics for a long time. I've read the notability criteria and I'll go with deleting the article based on the fact that he has not won an election. If he wins the gubernatorial election, I'll start the article again. preciousayara (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a promotion for an upcoming election, couldn't find significant coverage for him. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This person is just a candidate for office at the moment, and the most prominent position he has held so far seems to be chief of staff to a provincial governor, which is insufficient for NPOL in my book. There is some coverage, hence "weak delete", but from what I'm seeing it's a lot of press releases, announcements, and endorsements: not much substance. At the moment, I'd say this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Vanamonde (talk) 05:42, 20 August 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. Vanamonde (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conejo (rapper)

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

A rapper; the only references I find are related to a manslaughter charge. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I waited a few days to make a decision and find some sources, but most of them seem to be focused on his 2002 murder charge. This rapper is not notable enough for inclusion. MX (✉ • ✎) 15:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete – There is a reason that this page keeps getting reposted. The rapper is well known both in California, Brazil and Mexico. There is a distinct cultural eurocentrism to the manner in which this issue is treated. We are adding English content to Wikipedia for content that generates quite the buzz, within Youtube, Social Media and in underground hip hop media. This is again a very hostile (but implicit because of how it is couched in technical wikipedia terminology) attitude towards Chicano culture. 21:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Nyc media research (talk) NYC Media Research

Not 100k, but 1 million views on music platforms -- The rapper is notorious in SoCal - just a bunch of white boys or dudes outside of the culture not really trying to see culture that has been existing. Go figure. These songs were played on Power 106, Los Angeles local hip hop station. You need to respect our culture by not interjecting when other people create historical memory. . TiemposDuros (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Tiempos Duros[reply]

- Leave me out of it Tiempos Duros - Not trying to get into it with anyone over this in a racial sense. What I would like, though, is for the deletion process to not be so capricious, but I think the fleshed out citations will do well. Nyc media research (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Nyc media research[reply]

Added References To Show The Shield Soundtrack power~enwiki

There - I connected it with some mainstream content. Master P was on it - is that good enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyc media research (talk • contribs) 02:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not disputing Conejo's contribution to the underground scene, and according to AllMusic, he has released several albums on labels distributed by EMI ([7]) which may indicate meeting point #5 of WP:MUSICBIO very weakly, but despite that I can't seem to find any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources that really show how he meets the guidelines for inclusion. I'm happy to be proved wrong, but for now I think he fails the general notability guideline. Sorry. — sparklism ^hey! 07:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. The point about EMI's distribution deal does not service your argument. The point you don't wish to dispute is what actually makes him notable. The artist had a major distribution deal because of his real world notoriety; there is a large social media presence as a result and that actually led to the coverage in the Los Angeles area after the false accusations of murder. It would be a Hip Hop Police like story. For those outside of the hiphop scene, the story is actually notable because a task force is assigned to major hip hop artists on both sides of the country's hip hop scene: Los Angeles & New York. Thus, in the same way Mobb Deep had a task force on them, Conejo had a major task force placed on him because of his notoriety. Finally, the page has been placed up multiple times by different wikipedia editors if you look at the delete history. This should be yet another indication that different editors (with limited time) have argued in action for his notoriety. Thanks for replies, but no apologies needed. Don't need them f you feel sorry for having a different opinion, but what I am sharing is verifiable. Nyc media research (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Nyc media research[reply]

@Nyc media research: Which of the guidelines for inclusion at WP:MUSICBIO do you believe this artist meets, and where are the reliable sources that back that up? Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 15:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparklism: Yo I can answer that one. Conejo (rapper) was on the radio all the time before he went independent! Power 106 , provided the theme music for the Shield and soundtrack .

RE: requirements WP:MUSICBIO SoCalKing (talk) Puro SoCalKing

Do Not Delete . Mi voto es para eso - thats my 2 cents on the issue. If he wasnt big in Los Angeles (why would he have to blow up on USA today; is wikipedia just about reiterating whatever made a bunch of noise on the five news channels this country has or does well known stuff from a community count for all communities). Anyways ,check out their take, he's been known in the game. SoCalKing (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC) SoCalKing[reply]

Interesting. I doubt that unitedgangs.com qualifies as a reliable source. Artists do not need to "blow up on USA Today" in order to be included, but they do need to pass the guidelines set out at WP:MUSICBIO, which I (and others) don't believe that Conejo does.

I see this is your first edit to Wikipedia, SoCalKing, and I note that you're !vote here looks remarkably similar in style to the !vote by Nyc media research - you've even signed your comment in slightly the wrong way, just like NYCMR did too. I generally like to assume good faith, so I hope there isn't any socking going on here. — sparklism ^hey! 20:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Conejo talk page

These rappers are known and important which is why I joined up to write posts. Our bad if you dont like my copy paste. Dont got all day to post stuff up exactly how you like, Im just making my point. Understandable you guys are tripping off the culture not being documented by outlets you know, but at the same time you're also asking for too much hand holding when it comes to sourcing and defacto slant wikis to the major commercial outlets. While you may not like the subject matter, the issue of content experts is why unitedgangs.com and others qualify - theyre good on their lane of expertise. Youre focusing on one part, though, only. The guidelines for musicians WP:MUSICBIO state he needed to be played on the radio (he was) and he has the soundtrack contribution alongside the EMI distribution deal from like 1999 to about 2002. So keep focusing on flicking your nose on us "I doubt that unitedgangs.com qualifies as a reliable source", but he meets at least 3 of the points well:

Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

&

Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

&

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).

This is all validly satisfied, unless, you think Power 106's Pokos Pero Lokos segment somehow indicates they are puppets, or whatever, too. — SoCalKing ^{some bs.}09:34, August 16 2018 (UTC)

@SoCalKing: Looking at each of these points individually:

Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network

The point about placed in rotation is important here. Are there any sources that show that Conelo was placed in rotation on the radio? It's not the same as just getting your songs played a few times.

Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability

The second part of that guideline is very important - the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Where are the reliable sources that back up the claim that Conejo is a prominent representative of the scene? Finding a reliable source for this claim would really help.

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications)

You're talking here about his music being used in Music on The Shield and his inclusion on the album The Shield: Music from the Streets. Again, this is not backed up with sources, and the guideline states that "if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article".

You may be right to argue that there is a cultural bias on Wikipedia, but in the short term that doesn't change my view that Conejo does not quite meet the guidelines for inclusion. Finding sources to back up the above claims might change that. — sparklism ^hey! 07:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparklism:Yo, let me reply. This is Brendan Schaub giving you a basic summary of Conejo . As for the The Shield: Music from the Streets reference, here is one from a trustworthy conservative news outlet and its not the only way he meets those categories. Just way too much resistance on someone who by their very nature could not go on some corporate outlet and rep the style: they were on the run. Also, the rotation was from back in the day - how would we get those rotation lists for when Lets Ride was out, I mean that stuff wasn't as prevalent online and they've switched ownership and archiving multiple times. That track was on rotation for a short period, he would show up (as you can see from the Youtube clips) all the time to Power 106. It was a consequence part of his local notoriety in SoCal. Finally, the gangsunited.com is one such source that is aware of that style of music. -SoCalKing

Comment see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nyc media research. — sparklism ^hey! 07:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

Hurricane Hector (2018)

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Figfires^{Send me a message!} 17:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I created this article as I figured it would be an important storm at that time, but I now see it for what it is. Hector is simply a fish storm of little to no importance whatsoever. With that being said, I propose the article be deleted. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 17:02, 12 August 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 August 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So Hector should not be covered on Wikipedia whatsoever? That's what deletion means if you ask me. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It is already covered in the seasonal article (Im sure some additions/adjustments would be needed). It simply isnt important enough to have an article of its own. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 17:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure why you opened an AFD then; a simple merge proposal would do. "Importance" isn't an appropriate word to be quite frank, largely because storm articles are sub-articles of the season that got split off when nessecary, and thus it's easy to see a situation where a shorter article could be written on a storm that killed 15 people in 1985 compared to 2015. Right now, the MH is 853 words, way too long to fit in the season section (although I'll look into cutting it down later). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If a tropical cyclone is notable for meteorological reasons, I think it's valid to keep an article for them as long there's enough info to make one, like Hurricane Genevieve (2014). ABC paulista (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcin Bułka

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY despite the PROD being rejected by an IP who evoked that rule. Bulka has never played a competitive game for a professional club, he played a couple of showpiece friendlies in the summer and sat on the bench in the Community Shield. Apart from routine coverage of those games, no in-depth coverage from reliable sources to attain WP:GNG [8] Harambe Walks (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure on what grounds the person who removed the PROD believes this subject passes WP:NFOOTY. As I explained in the original PROD, he's never played in a competitive, senior match for a fully professional club. Sitting on the bench doesn't cut it. – Pee Jay 23:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league or a senior international fixture and does not have enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL and there isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 20:46, 14 August 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. Vanamonde (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Tiwari

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

This article was created six years ago, and in that time, we don't have any better sense of how this guy is notable. He was credited as a producer on a short film that won an award. Other highlights of his career, according to the article, says that he's produced infomercials. That's not sufficient for notability standards, I'm sure. I'm not aware of too many producers who have Wikipedia articles, but I'm skeptical about this one. His short was Last Train to Mahakali. A Google search for his name and "Last Train" produces virtually nothing of note. He only has one credit at IMDb. This seems to be a vanity article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/restore redirect: An article repurposed from a redirect by Man tiwari with substantial later editing by Actor Manish Tiwari. The article is riddled with subjective preening about family background and aspirations, perhaps appropriate for a personal site but not here. Any notability would appear to rest with the uncited claim that he "shot to fame" by co-producing a short film; I am seeing no evidence which supports this or any other claim to notability. Fails WP:FILMMAKER, WP:BASIC. (The politician Manish Tewari does appear to be named as "Tiwari" in some English-language sources, e.g. Times of India, so restoring the original redirect may be the best outcome.) AllyD (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
per AllyD above Delete and restore as redirect to Manish Tewari. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO, promotional in intent, content and composition - could be a G11, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:46, 19 August 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. Term seems to have received sufficient coverage/usage in additional sources (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medawar zone

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

Not noticed outside of a single obscure paper with vanishingly few independent citations. jps (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to be a well used term/concept going by the number of books/papers that discuss/refer to it ie. Individual-based Modeling and Ecology, Thinking Strategically: Power Tools for Personal and Professional Advancement, Hammer or Tongs: How Best to Build Agent-Based Models? in Advances in Practical Applications of Agents, Multi-Agent Systems, and Complexity: The PAAMS Collection: 16th International Conference, PAAMS 2018, Into Complexity: A Pattern-oriented Approach to Stakeholder Communications, Integrating Short- and Long-Range Processes into Models: The Emergence of Pattern in Patterns of Land Degradation in Drylands, Becoming a Successful Early Career Researcher, Pattern-Oriented Modeling of Agent-Based Complex Systems: Lessons from Ecology in Science, and Choosing a Research Project. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This does appear to be a reasonably widespread term appearing in several books, research papers and popular sources. Those sources just need to be included as inline citations. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 08:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had already encountered this before in various papers by Grimm et al., and a Scholar search confirms my suspicion that the term has sufficient uptake. Needs more content and better sourcing, natch. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obscure doesn't mean non-N. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sourcing uncovered by Coolabahapple Chetsford (talk) 18:03, 18 August 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. There is general consensus, both here and elsewhere, that being a nationally-elected politician is sufficient for notability. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Sirotkin (politician)

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

Non-current member of the State Duma, who haven't written any state laws and haven't any significant coverage in the independent sources. He clearly fails WP:GNG. Also, according to WP:NPOL (which was hugely referred during previous nomination): "Just being an elected local official, does not guarantee notability". Corvus tristis (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The State Duma is the lower house of a national pariament, analagous to the House of Representatives (United States) or House of Commons (United Kingdom). In any event, elected legislators at the state level in the United States are also automatically notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC) '[reply]

Once again, I citing for you WP:NPOL: "Just being an elected local official, does not guarantee notability". If he is really notable than his article should have at least one independent source. I have tried to find it, and even in Russian there is a lack of sources. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would appear to pass WP:NPOL if he was a member of the State Duma, but it's outside my cultural ability to verify so am only commenting instead of voting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingFlyer (talk • contribs) 00:49, August 13, 2018 (UTC)
Keep Without too much difficulty, I found the Russian Wiki page which has a couple promising links and this article from Interfax http://www.interfax.ru/russia/495955 and this article stating the subject was elected to the Russian Central Election Commission. --Enos733 (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The same question, how the fact that he was elected make him notable? What he have done as member of State Duma or Russian Central Election Commission to get any notability outside one sentence "Sergey Sirotkin a former member of State Duma and current member of the Russian Central Election Commission"? Russian wiki article has only bullet points of his biography. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a community, we have long held that representatives in a national or (state/province) parliament or assembly are notable because of their ability to enact legislation that affects us. We also generally agree that lists of elected officials are an appropriate for local officials when there is not sufficient sources to write a substantive article. It is in the continuous seeking to be comprehensive that all we need to have to write an article about a national elected official is some verification that the subject served in the position. --Enos733 (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enos733, I definitely support that we should cover all representatives of the parliament when their actions affect whole country, but I've always thought that it comes from the accepted bills, but not from just seating in the parliament, I didn't see any notable action from Sirotkin besides pushing the vote button. I assume that I miss something, so will be grateful to you for clarification. Corvus tristis (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In this context, "local" means "not national". He is an national elected official, and therefore automatically notable, which means he does not have to pass WP:GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL is a secondary criterion, WP:GNG is primary. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets NPOL as a member of parliament in one of the most powerful nations on earth. There are sources available, and I added a few. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Singh

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. No significant coverage in reliable sources and the little coverage there is just passing mentions or business profile. Razer(talk) 14:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable individual. This is far from the depth or persistence of coverage demanded by even basic compliance with WP:ANYBIO. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of setisfying either GNG or BIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:11, 16 August 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 as no valid rationale was given, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of color

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

Either my time machine has sent me to ancient Greece, or my continua device has sent me to the deranged imagination of Sir Alan Sokal. This article does not seem to acknowledge the latest developments in science, such as this one, discovered in 1671 by Newton and mentioned in the lede of article Color: Color categories and physical specifications of color are associated with objects through the wavelength of the light that is reflected from them., which clearly states that color is a reducible property, while this article still gives undue weight to the claim otherwise. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see a policy-based reason for deletion in the nomination. The philosophy of color is obviously a notable topic. For instance, see the SEP entry on color and sources therein. While the current article is not well organized and could use a lot of improvement in sourcing and prose, it has a few of the basics of the field. Any issues of undue weight or non-neutrality can be fixed by ordinary editing. Hence, keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 13:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Deletion is not cleanup, and content problems are not a valid reason for deletion (unless the article has no content at all). WP:UNDUE content can be removed, but that does not mean the whole article should be. I believe this falls under WP:SK1. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – As per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nom gives no reason for deletion (either policy-based or not), just reasons as to why the article is allegedly in need of improvements. A more adequate place to raise these issues would be WP:CLEAN. Impru20^talk 18:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep criterion 1. Nominator's rationale amounts to the assertion that the past few centuries of epistemologists have failed to recognize that a question they were discussing had actually been solved by Science. This seems to be trying to pick a classic kind of Two Cultures fight, hence the Sokal reference, but it is not a deletion rationale. FourViolas (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep under WP:SKCRIT#1. I see that the article hasn't received much attention over the past year. Nowak Kowalski, it would be great if you could update the article yourself since you appear to be knowledgeable on the topic. WP:BOLD. — Newslinger talk 23:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was keep. Enigma^msg 21:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Astoria (cinema)

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

Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:NCORP. Google search gives results to other places with the same name. Run-of-the-mill cinema, considering that it isn't the oldest. » Shadowowl | talk 21:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has coverage in reliable sources as shown in the article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As can be seen in Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country and its many subcategories there is no shortage of articles on cinemas in the English-speaking Wikipedia, and I doubt that all of these articles would be about "the oldest" cinemas in their respective cities, so this can hardly be the only criterion for giving a cinema notability. But are there any specific notability criteria regarding cinemas/movie theatres that could be used as a guideline here? Having asked that I would also like to say that Astoria was hardly a run-of-the-mill cinema; it was one of Stockholm's grandest, used by two large film companies for their premieres, and at the time of its closure it was the last of its kind in that city. The building where it was situated is still known as "Astoriahuset" (the Astoria building). /FredrikT (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, it definitely needs to be renamed. There are and were countless cinemas called the Astoria all over the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More than a run-of-the-mill cinema (has a specific place in the history of cinema in Stockholm) and passes GNG. As mentioned in the article, Astoria Cinemas took their name after it and considered it their flagship cinema. Later, the planned demolition of the building ("Astoriahuset") has become a hot potato in Stockholm politics (I've added a sentence about this). /Julle (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It should be noted that the article has been significantly expanded since it was brought to AfD. /Julle (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more sources have been added and the article has been expanded. Obviously another drive-by nomination picked from Category:Articles lacking sources from January 2007 (see article tag in Special:PermaLink/853448297) where WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE is ignored. Discussions like these do not need relisting, they need withdrawal. Sam Sailor 08:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:SNOW. Please AfD wisely! gidonb (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Enigma^msg 21:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John H. McConnell

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

It seems there are no reliable sources covering his biography, other than pages of organizations he owned or funded, obituaries and a brief story part of a Forbes about "Who Got Rich This Week". MarioGom (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr. McConnell passes all requirements for WP:GNG. A Google search shows many resources that could be added to improve the article. Flibirigit (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flibirigit: Is any of those sources published in a reliable source not founded or owned by John H. McConnell (e.g. [9]) or an obituary (e.g. [10])? --MarioGom (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In additional to a Google search as per Flibirigit, there are lots of pre-Internet sources (such as newspapers) for anyone willing to bother. Rlendog (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is just one of many possible examples (this one via newspapers.com) [11]. Rlendog (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Worthington Industries is also being considered for deletion. Perhaps the two articles could be merged. Leschnei (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I always thought that a Times obit meant you "made the grade today". I am agnostic about whether a merger of his business into his bio is feasible. Bearian (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of newspaper articles on him. And a Times obit does generally mean you made the grade. -DJSasso (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. I did a quick BEFORE on newspapers.com and it appears there is enough content to properly source this article which, as noted by nom, is currently insufficient. Chetsford (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has significant press coverage. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 21:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Willes

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to a couple of name checks. The primary sources in the article are not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hate to do this, because I think we should allow articles on hymn creators as such. But since writting widely published hymns is not a default sign of notability, we really have nothing showing that Willes is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom + He's a failed missionary who led some random college. He made no contributions to the Mormon Church other than two hymns. No notable independent sources. Redditaddict6 9 13:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not provide significant coverage that would allow this BLP to pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 21:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aspekt

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

Non notable group, page is unsourced and can probably not be expanded since the group is no longer active since 2006. aNode (discuss) 10:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Received almost no notice during their existence and nothing since. WP:EXIST is the relevant policy here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No independent coverage. No displays of notability. Redditaddict6 9 13:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 21:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AppBi

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

Promotional article about a non-notable company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Creator Rehulu has little edits outside this topic. MER-C 15:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The page is largely setting out the company's wares. That might be removed by normal editing, thought that would leave minimal stub content. The given references confirm that this is a company going about its business, but neither these nor anything found from searches provide sufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPIP and WP:NCORP. No references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺20:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete creation of article about this subject at this moment is completely promotional. Onkuchia (talk) 06:44, 14 August 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 Move to draft. The only source here is not a WP:RS, so deleting this due to failing to meet WP:V would be defensible. But, moving it to draft space for further work seems like a reasonable compromise and supported by WP:ATD. Note that running it through the WP:AfC process might be useful to get some outside review, but isn't strictly required before moving it back to mainspace. But, please, don't just move it right back without finding good sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nea (book series)

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

A Finnish young-adult book series; the article looks to be a translation of the (unsourced) article on Finnish Wikipedia. I haven't found any references in English or Finnish, though I'm not confident my search in Finnish was exhaustive. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check all the titles? I checked the newest and oldest few and found no sources out of blogspot or book directories. They have not been reviewed, maybe because they did not achieve bestseller status. I should think this will be deleted. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 00:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Low brow bestsellers often receive no reviews according to P N Furbank, "The Twentieth Century Best Seller" in Boris Ford (ed), The Pelican Guide to English Literature, Penguin Books, 1961, volume 7 (The Modern Age), p 430. The fact that 24 of these books were published from 1989 to 2015 prima facie implies these books must have consistently sold well (otherwise they would not keep publishing new ones). This is a good example of how GNG creates bad systematic biases. Another possible explanation is that GBooks might not be digitising the contents of Finnish libraries. Most of the stuff in there in snippet view, even in foreign languages, where it identifies its provenance, seems to come from large university libraries in the USA, such as Michigan, California and Indiana. My understanding is that GBooks still contains less than a quarter of all the books that have been published. I am not in a position to conduct a paper search in a Finnish library, but if Finland has undigitised periodicals for librarians and teachers (which typically contain reviews of children's books), it would be desirable for someone to conduct a paper search. I am not sufficiently familiar with Finnish literature to tell you which periodicals you should be looking for. James500 (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. I don't have any sources to contribute here, but I also don't feel like I can say there aren't any. The article could potentially be rescued by a Finn so it should be moved to the draft area in case that happens. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think draftspace is meant for articles actively being worked on, which to be fair I can't really tell if this article is or not. Another option is a soft delete where anyone wanting to work on the article again can ask for a WP:REFUND. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:09, 20 August 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 need for a redirect may be explored separately. Vanamonde (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HornBlasters

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

Doesn't appear particularly notable to warrant an encyclopedia article, just a lot of promotion. it's a small private business that sells air horns. MartinezMD (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, references are either not about the company (the subject of this article) but about some of the products, or are based on company announcements. References fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:SIGCOV. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺20:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Terror on the Streets as an WP:ATD, though that topic may not be notable either. Two of the reference links don't work, and they all appear to be about the pheonmenon of loud horns, rather than this company. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bola Adeboye

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

Zero references at Google Books and just 5 passing mentions at Google News, seems to fail WP:BIO. Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For Google Books, I did not find any publishing on there but I found on Amazon here.

There are plenty of notable people in Nigeria whose notability is more pronounced on Traditional media than on online media and I think this man falls in that category too which may be the reason for the low mentions across Google News. Ladispeaks (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The amazon bio looks like it was written by himself or his publisher, who seems to only publish books by Adeboye. There simply aren't any independent, reliable sources to create a verifiable encyclopedic article.--Vexations (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find substantive intellectually independent coverage; there is a fair amount of fluff readily available. While a person in a similar position in the west may quite possibly have enough coverage for an article, I'm uncomfortable keeping purely on that basis. Vanamonde (talk) 07:07, 20 August 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 Ivy League#Other Ivies. Vanamonde (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Ivies

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

An essay with only one reference. Not clear that this is really notable. Rathfelder (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Ivy League#Other Ivies as that gives a definition of the term "Ivy" and has examples of Little Ivy and other similarly named colleges. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As I recall, the hysteria over "Baby Ivies" all started over this 2003 NYT article, which isn't currently included in the page. Nonetheless, that article doesn't even contain the term outside the headline, much less define it. I can find a few other scattered one-line references across the web, almost all about New York preschools. AngusWoof's suggestion to redirect makes sense to me, with the term added to the 3rd sentence in the section and a citation to the NYT piece. MarginalCost (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - article seems really muddled about whether it is talking about a specific subset of private schools catering for babies and called "Baby Ivies", or private schools in general.Tacyarg (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article makes lots of simplistic and unsupported assertions without sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources in the article that refer to the term; being a headline of a 2003 NYTimes article doesn't mean it's notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:44, 20 August 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 Lamb of God (band). Seems consensus that NMUSIC is not satisfied and that the obvious redirect target is justified. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Morton (musician)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. The sources are way too weak to show he is independently notable. The redirect was removed several times this seems to be the best way to get policy based consensus. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lamb of God (band). There's barely anything properly sourced here, and he's really only known for being in one notable band. --Michig (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lamb of God (band). I am very familiar with this musician and his band and must conclude that his individual article can't get too far beyond fancruft about his gear. Everything else available about him pertains to the band as a whole. Admins might want to do what it takes to prevent reversal of the redirect. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OKCoin

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency exchange. All sourcing is currently pegged to RS. No sign that true RS has covered it beyond the fact that it stopped Yuan-Bitcoin trading (of which there does seem to be mainstream news coverage). This is not the sort of significant coverage necessary for an article. A large percentage of the current article is occupied by a "Controversy" section which again is sourced to cyrptocurrency specific sources and thus not RS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The cryptocurrency topic area is rife with promotionalism and fraud. We must insist on the highest quality of sources for such articles. This article is referenced exclusively to credulous promotional cryptocurrency "news" sites. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In case it wasn't clear from context the second sentence should read "All sourcing is currently pegged to non-RS." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as cryptocurrency spam. BTW the OKEx article appears to be about the same company. It should be deleted as well. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Anderson

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

Non-notable hockey player with no reliable independent sources found. Tinton5 (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am surprised that someone with autopatrolled rights and a new pages reviewer would create an unsourced stub article about a probably non notable player. I haven't done a search to see if he has played a game yet and not sure what a "prospect" is meant to mean. It looks like a case of TOOSOON but will hold back to see if the creator can provide a source to show he meets WP:NHOCKEY i.e. has played a game for his team. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way WP:TOOSOON for a hockey player with no sourcing or claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He hasn't, in fact, played for the Devils; this kid's a sophomore in college, and while he's certainly a good prospect, he's years away from a professional career, let alone meeting NHOCKEY. Ravenswing 15:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting NHOCKEY or GNG and should not have been created by an experienced user. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG and the accomplishments to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Has yet to play in even a minor league professional game. Being on some USA junior teams may indicate he'll be a notable hockey player, but that requires a WP:CRYSTALBALL right now. Papaursa (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iran at the 2006 FIFA World Cup

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

WP:CONTENTFORK of 2006 FIFA World Cup squads and 2006 FIFA World Cup Group D. Even if this article were to have a prose addition, it would still be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Iran's campaign was a group stage exit, as were all its others, so there's no element of intrigue here. There are pages for countries at the Olympics, even as obscure as Marshall Islands at the 2016 Summer Olympics, but that is an overview for a multi-sport event - there's no Marshall Islands in weightlifting at the 2016 Summer Olympics. Quite frankly, this article is pointless. Harambe Walks (talk) 04:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the reasoning for deletion: there are similar articles for most countries in the 2006 FIFA world cup finals. It could be a perfectly acceptable article if had additional content. In its current state, however, it adds nothing to the Group D page. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are three others and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Harambe Walks (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that it is relevant is because the arguments have already been made in relation to other articles of the same nature at the previous deletion discussion, the result of which was Keep. What new arguments are you making? What has changed? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@T0mpr1c3: Your input seems week, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the FIBA Basketball World Cup (for Israel at the 1970 FIFA World Cup) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombia at the 1998 FIFA World Cup Hhkohh (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have an opinion, but have not answered my question. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify it's unsourced at the moment and shouldn't be in mainspace, but it should also be an easily notable article with some care and sourcing. SportingFlyer talk 12:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Keep I've gone ahead and added a few sources. The article can continue to be sourced with narrative context about Iran not found other places per WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 08:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Iran at the FIFA World Cup, 2006 FIFA World Cup Group D and 2006 FIFA World Cup cover enough, this extra article of the copied content seems pointless. Govvy (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it seems to me to be a problem with the article's content being copied rather than the general notability of the topic, though. No problem with deleting it, but I don't see a problem with recreating it since I think it's easily sourced properly. SportingFlyer talk 00:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a couple sentences and sources. Not great, but it's a start.

Delete Agree with Govvy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the FIBA Basketball World Cup Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is notable and has a historical value for Iranian football. فرهنگ2016 (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- فرهنگ2016 Why do you think it is notable? Can you give some evidence about this? Hhkohh (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hhkohh World Cup games usually have global coverage. These games are part of the history of national team football and have national and global coverage. فرهنگ2016 (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and multiple users above, everything in this article already exists (and in better / more easily readable form) on different pages. 21.colinthompson (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, simply not needed. Giant Snowman 08:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A section in Iran at the FIFA World Cup should suffice. – Pee Jay 14:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Iran at the 1998 FIFA World Cup was PRODed by Govvy. I removed the PROD on the basis that there was already a discussion ongoing here on the same issues and so it should just be bundled here if people want it deleted. Smartyllama (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Cinematic Universe cast members

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

Meant to be a category Ebyabe (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is an unnecessary category and it's a category bloat. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors. As a category it would contradict WP:PERFCAT as categorizing actors by (arbitrary) performance, and as an article it would likely fail notability as trivial spin-off, or largely duplicate the list. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question This isn't even a category like it claims, shouldn't it be speedy deleted?★Trekker (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Article space, even if accidental, so we should treat it as an article (versus WP:CFD). It's a plausible search term for an existing list article, so a redirect is warranted per alternatives to deletion. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Speedy delete as per WP:G6, as a page unambiguously created in the incorrect namespace (an intended category created as an article). This should have probably used the speedy deletion procedure instead. Impru20^talk 18:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The head count is even either side, and whilst the arguments for keeping are relatively weak, the arguments for deletion are even weaker. The result therefore defaults to keep (no consensus). – Joe (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Havatum Em

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

Not notable and not enough coverage. Harut111 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 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 July 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An album by a major artist such is Sirusho is most certainly notable. Sirusho isn't so famous in the English speaking world but to Armenians she's very famous. Hard to find English sources but there is coverage in Armenian. [12][13] Additionally this is a Armenian Music Awards winner for "Best Selling Album." --Oakshade (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Armenian sources you mentioned have nothing to do with the album. They are just about Sirusho and they just mention "in this year, she released this album" nothing more. The article says nothing about that award and we do not know if it's notable. Harut111 (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oakshade - can you tell us what the album's highest chart position was in Armenia (or other countries if it charted there.) Ross-c (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I have been unable to find the exact chart position, given that this is an album by a very popular Armenian artist, and included one of her most popular songs (the title track), I think that the chance of this album not charting in Armenia (and therefore satisfying WP:NALBUM The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart. is incredibly small. Especially since she has had number one singles in Armenia. I'd be happy to change my vote to delete if it is shown that it didn't chart (unless other information satisfying notability comes to light). But, I don't think lack of information about the Armenian charts in English on the internet should consign much Armenian music to non-notable status. OK, we can't accept just anything, but the paltry information that is available such as https://www.armenianvendorstore.com/Sirusho-Havatum-Em-p/759.htm (described as a 'blockbuster album') suggests that this is a hit album by a big star. The article should stay on the likelihood that it's notable unless a better case can be built for its deletion. Ross-c (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I can't find a reason to keep. Nomination is valid. Redditaddict6 9 13:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Worthington Industries

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

6 are from Worthington Industries itself.
1 is unrecoverable dead link to WSJ.
1 is a mere company listing from Yahoo Finance.
There is a single likely relevant and independent source, from a wide company history listing.
All major contributors to the article were single-purpose accounts dedicated to the company. Most of them blocked. MarioGom (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is too promotional in tone and feel.TH1980 (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional issues can be addressed through cleanup or stubification of the article. Per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required, the article can be improved so it should not be deleted. Cunard (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

Analyst reports

https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/WOR/price-target/^WebCite contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:
Here is more information from the analyst reports:
1. This 24 February 2015 article^archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:
2. This 4 April 2017 article^archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:
3. This 12 April 2013 article^archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:
Other sources
1. Mouawad, Jad (2008-04-28). "John McConnell, 84, Steel and Hockey Magnate, Dies". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The article notes:
2. Leib, Jeffrey A. (1986-02-09). "The Promise in Profit-Sharing". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The article notes:
3. Vartan, Vartanig G. (1986-04-23). "Market Place; Steelmakers With a Niche". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The article notes:
4. McCarthy, Erin; Beckerman, Josh (2014-09-24). "Worthington Industries Profit Falls". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The article notes:
5. Mason, Everdeen (2013-12-19). "Worthington Industries' Profit Falls on Write-Down; Revenue Up". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The article notes:
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Worthington Industries to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The analyst reports from Jefferies Financial Group, JPMorgan Chase, Macquarie Group, Credit Suisse, and Topeka Capital are sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations.
Cunard (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep company passes notability guidelines, despite the poorly written article. Flibirigit (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, article might need a clean-up but the topic is notable, reference can be found that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺20:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily passes GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:11, 13 August 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 Stephen B. Allen. – Joe (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Together Forever (1987 film)

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

Video produced and distributed by a church, rather than a film with any cinema release. Does not meet WP:NFILM The only reference is a dead link and I was not able to identify any in-depth secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. If it is kept, it would need rewriting as it is currently non-neutral. Mortee (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - the reference might be paywalled, not dead. › Mortee _talk 12:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Mortee (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mortee (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Made some improvements but still may not even meet Stub quality. Defer to others on whether to delete. Deaddebate (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to creator Stephen B. Allen. Unreliable sources like IMDb aside, the film lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. No evidence of historical notability, and other possibilities in WP:MOVIE seem unlikely based on search for independent reliable sources. Bakazaka (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - I hadn't thought of redirecting to Allen. Together Forever (1987 film) only mentions him as a 'see also'. Stephen B. Allen lists this as one of his films, but cited to an IMDb page that doesn't mention him. No objection to a redirect if that's the right target. › Mortee _talk 12:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Deseret News story about an actor in several LDS films that briefly discusses Allen's executive production role in the series of films that includes this article's subject [14]. While the source isn't sufficient to establish notability, it's usable for verifying factual info like this. Bakazaka (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested above. gidonb (talk) 17:14, 19 August 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 withdrawn. My original thoughts were probably right. ansh 666 06:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

British Society for Surgery of the Hand

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

This honestly seems like it should be clearly notable, but I'm really not seeing it. I can find lots of sources which mention it and/or its members in passing, but there doesn't seem to be anything independent that discusses this organization itself - in terms of alphabet soup, it would seem to fail WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:SIGCOV. Searches under "Hand Club", "British Hand Club", "Hand Society", and "British Hand Society" are either too broad to be useful or turn up the same sorts of results. Frankly, I hope I'm missing something here. ansh 666 01:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. National specialist society hosted by the RCSEng. This is not going to get huge numbers of ghits given its rather niche clinical area, but they publish a medical journal and all. JFW | T@lk 10:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, I soon found an account of the formation of the society from two prior organisations in 1964. FWIW, I've had hand surgery myself and so have some familiarity with the importance of this field. Andrew D. (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep per rationale of 2 editors above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been expanded since nomination and I believe that the sources now demonstrate notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the improvements. ansh 666 06:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ReviveMed

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

Delete This was originally an article on Leila Pirhaji and it was decided to rename the article to the name of the company, ReviveMed. Whatever chance the article had as a bio (references to establish notability are easier) it has no chance as a company/organization article. The reference are either PRIMARY sources or are the usual TechCrunch/Forbes/Bloomberg "profiles" that all fail WP:ORGIND as they are not "intellectually independent". ORGIND states Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺15:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously I can't use "If Jesswade88 created it, it's notable" as a rationale (that's just a heuristic), or even it's just had an AfD closed as speedy keep (since consensus can change) but I can pull up a whole bunch of news sources, and I really can't see how this MDI source or this Forbes report are problematic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Well Ritchie333, I expect you know this already but your link to Google and a "whole bunch of news sources" isn't any good for the purposes of establishing notability (see WP:GHITS) especially when a look through the first dozen entries fails to uncover any story that meets the criteria for establishing notability (see WP:NCORP). The MDI source is extensively based on an interview with the founder and CEO and fails WP:ORGIND as it is not an "intellectually independent" source. And the Forbes reference is a one sentence mention-in-passing to explain that Dr. Leila Pirhaji is the founder and CEO at ReviveMed. and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. You also appear to be a little confused because, if you read the rationale for nomination above, you'd understand that the Leila Pirhaji AfD which you say was closed as speedy keep was was not the result of a consensus reached by the community but a result of the withdrawal of the nomination because the article was changed from an article on Leila to this article on the company, ReviveMed. And .. while we're looking at the older AfD and seeing as how you've mentioned the article creator, I find this: Admit it is maybe too soon. - Jesswade88. HighKing⁺⁺18:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An directory-like page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Too soon per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both the CEO (under whose name the page was originally created) and the company lack Notability. huji—TALK 18:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and move to La vie compliquée de Léa Olivier. – Joe (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Complicated Life of Lea Oliver

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a novel series, not properly referenced as passing WP:NBOOK. The "sources" here are an online bookstore, the book's own publisher and a Q&A interview in which the author is speaking about herself and her own work, not independent critical analysis -- which means they aren't notability-supporting sources. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have added another citation. (No view taken on whether that's enough to tip this AfD.) Bondegezou (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG due to coverage in GNews and elsewhere: [15]. (Note: If a book was published in French-speaking Quebec, searching for an English translation of its title, instead of "La vie compliquée de Léa Olivier" or something like "girard audet"+oliver, will not get you very far). This series of books has sold more than half a million copies: [16]. James500 (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Quick question - have these books ever been published in English? If not, then the correct article title should be "La vie compliquée de Léa Olivier". I don't see where there's ever been an English translation. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to La vie compliquée de Léa Olivier. I was able to find enough coverage just through a quick search to establish notability for the series, which is apparently wildly popular in Canada. One thing I did notice, however, is that the series was never published in English and per naming conventions, the article should have the French title as the article title rather than the English translation. The translation isn't wrong, however it's not any official translation, which is the main point. There's definitely more out there - I only did a quick search - but I've added enough to establish notability and I've cleaned up most of the promotional prose. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OldHouseWeb

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

Fails WP:NCORP. » Shadowowl | talk 19:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yup, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺20:18, 12 August 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. Vanamonde (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Cleaner

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

No indication of notability per WP:NSOFTWARE. References are just places to download mixed in with articles written by the company itself. ... discospinster _talk 20:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found [17] [18] though I'm not sure if the first one is reliable and not sure if the second one is independent. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 17:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found plenty of sponsored and otherwise non-independent content, and a good amount of coverage in unreliable sources, but no substantial coverage in reliable sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Available references are the download links, far from significant coverage. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:06, 18 August 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. Vanamonde (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Neto

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

This article does not meet WP notability creteria. I has not reliable citations. BrantleyIzMe (talk) 09:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not meet GNG and not found notability creteria. Emily Khine (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely ridiculous. Did you even look four sources? Brazilian web portal Universo Online has 41,000 results for him [19] Globo.com has 2,890 [20] How would you like it if people said Burmese celebrities weren't notable because they couldn't read the sources? Or didn't even look for any? Harambe Walks (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 20:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be a notable youtuber with 23 million subscribers, 2.7 billion views and 23 rd most subscribed youtuber, has some national coverage,and some notable awards, thanks Atlantic306 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep just because this article is terribly written doesn't mean that the subject is not notable. The statistics on his views and subscribers tell us half the story, and there are years worth of stories related to him from Brazilian national media (Globo, Terra, UOL) used as references in the pt.wikipedia.org article. English Wikipedia has a subconscious bias in terms of inclusion and quality of biographies of media personalities whose medium is not English, and to delete this article would just highlight that Harambe Walks (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject appears to be well covered in major Brazillian publications such as Exame and O Globo. Further analysis of the sources by someone more familiar Portuguese would be appreciated, but I believe the sources found with a minimal WP:BEFORE search are easily sufficient to establish notability. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in Brazilian sources per above. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:49, 18 August 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. Michig (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Wasserman

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Sourced only to IMDb. Adam9007 (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lots of credits, but lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The closest I could find was two sentences in a "where are they now" article.[21]. Nothing in his official resume suggests he'd pass WP:NACTOR. Pburka (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources are directly about Wasserman. The article doesn't give away enough information about the actor apart from the credits. BetaN2 (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only wrote this in the first place because I saw there was a French article on him and I think there might have been an AfC request, but I'm not sure. I never ended up being able to put time into expanding it and it doesn't seem like there's that much to expand on anyways.snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 01:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bit part actors are not notable and IMBd is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Mokotoff

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

Article created by the subject. He certainly has a lot of awards and so on from organizations he founded or of which he's a board member. Passing mention in a NYT article. E Eng 01:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it's true that this article was created by the subject, the article was created back in 2005 and has been substantially changed by other editors to the point where it, in my opinion, can no longer be considered an autobiography. Looking through the article, I'm seeing a bit more achievement-wise than just awards from organizations he's affiliated with and a mention in the New York Times, so I think a cleanup may be more appropriate. Aspening (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aspening, the achievements don't count unless there's significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Can you point to the sources satisfying WP:GNG? Everywhere you look there are self-written bios, passing mentions, awards from organizations run by the subject, and sources that don't mention the subject at all. E Eng 08:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG / NAUTHOR. Not an autobio - very little of the content is actually authored by GaryMokotoff (who did create the initial small page, and has made a few corrections/changes over the years - but over 90% is other users).Icewhiz (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Passes WP:GNG / WP:NAUTHOR based on what sources? E Eng 11:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Besides mentions of his works, see - [22][23][24][25].Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? The first is a 10-paragraph profile of a company of which the subject is the founder, and the others are passing mentions. Which specific prong of NAUTHOR is met, and in what way? E Eng 13:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV in multiple publications over the course of many years, and per being the founder of a notable organization and co-author of Daitch–Mokotoff Soundex. Nom, perhaps you are unaware that it is not necessary to meet category guidelines such as WP:AUTHOR, if a chap meets WP:GNG, and this one does. That said, some assertions on the page lack sources. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, of course I'm aware of GNG. Someone above said he met AUTHOR, so I specifically asked about that. I am now asking for the nth time for someone to explicitly point to the sources meeting any notability guideline, whether that be GNG or any other. E Eng 01:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV as developer of Daitch–Mokotoff Soundex and author of multiple notable books in field of genealogy including Where Once We Walked; agree that better sources needed for some parts, however, that is not a reason to delete the article but rather a challenge to improve it. Chefallen (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on his work as an author in the field, as well as his development of a phonetic algorithm for surnames, all of which is backed by reliable and verifiable sources about the subject. Alansohn (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please list the sources qualifying for notability? E Eng 13:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
revisiting When an editor argues this hard for a position opposite to the one I have taken, I tend to doubt my judgment and revisit. In this case, the sourcing that comes up in searches is persuasive. Yes, the article needs trimming, yes it needs improvement, yes there are a lot of dead links and a lot of PRIMARY sourcing. But WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. That said, I have added a couple of sources that solidly support notability to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, thank you for taking the time, but I'm still at a loss to identity the qualifying sources amid what I'm sure you'll agree is a large list of sources which do not contribute to notability. I'd appreciate it if you'd take the trouble to list the three or four sources you feel most strongly lend notability. E Eng 23:46, 15 August 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 Macalester College#Student organizations. – Joe (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mac Weekly

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

Non-notable college newspaper. Fails GNG. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Macalester College#Student organizations, where the content also appears. Kablammo (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kablammo. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Strauch

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

Biography whose only source is a link to the subject's website. Also, the subject doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Adam9007 (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: quite a few passing mentions in reliable sources, but no substantial coverage. Doesn't meet any of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing fails WP:GNG, does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO Chetsford (talk) 17:01, 19 August 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Jansen

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

Is not notable according to WP:NBASE. Does not pass GNG. Sources available either are routine (game performances) or not significant (general prospect overviews). Will not have sustained interest absent meeting WP:NBASE. Should be deleted & redirect to prospects list for time being. This rationale is explained in further depth in this essay I wrote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players#Danny Jansen, as it was before, until notability is established (which coincidentally may not be too far off). Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 00:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a redirect vote is a delete vote. Who knew? Close it. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 18:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: You should withdraw this. Jansen is being promoted to the majors today. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I avoid these Wiki policy discussions because I have made no attempt to understand the policies. However, it seems to me that whenever a player is added to a 25-man major league roster, then he gets his own page (heck sometimes just the 40-man roster). Why is Jansen different? There should be a firm policy that editors can follow. Perhaps something like, doesn't get their own page until first major league start (probably tomorrow in this case) or appearance. Or better yet, not until they have played in 10 games (a bit more notability that way).~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpfan776 (talk • contribs) 13:32, August 12, 2018 (UTC)

@Cpfan776: We have a firm policy. WP:NBASE says playing in one MLB game makes one inherently notable. Common sense, though, suggests there's nothing wrong with splitting him off sooner than his debut. Especially since if he does get hurt in warmups and never plays, there's likely enough sourcing anyway for WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Obviously notable now. Should have never been AFD'd anyway. A discussion on whether he was notable to have an article or be a redirect should have taken place on Jansen's talk page or WP:baseball.--Yankees10 18:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so this is closed, right? Cpfan776 (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this should now be a keep. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Obviously notable now. We can't close this as withdrawn because Trut-h-urts_man !voted ~~delete~~ redirect, but if he strikes that vote, we can finish this and stop wasting everybody's time. Smartyllama (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, he !voted redirect, not delete. Nonetheless, this couldn't be speedied unless he changed it, which he has. Someone uninvolved can close this now, or nom can close it himself as withdrawn probably. Smartyllama (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. Total time-waster of an AfD nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. FWIW, he now meets WP:NBASE, too. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given nomination has been withdrawn and there are no outstanding non-keep !votes, and the rationale doesn't apply anymore anyway, either Barkeep49 as withdrawing nominator or any uninvolved user can now close this as speedy keep so we don't waste anyone else's time. However, per WP:NAC, I cannot as I am involved and only a nominator withdrawing their own nomination can close if they are involved. Smartyllama (talk) 14:46, 15 August 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. Michig (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Walk of Fame

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

No significant coverage since 2010. No evidence to suggest that anyone else was inducted since 2010. The "official website" is an archive. Searching through the parent organization's website provides nothing related. Delete. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No recent notable coverage; most of what appears is on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Home Lander (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it hasn't changed since 2010, it's probably going to be forgotten anyway. Nathanm mn (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding any information on it from the past eight years other than passing mentions (and there isn't really a lot of coverage of it even from back then), and the "official website" link had to get rescued by InternetArchiveBot, which is a pretty telling sign that it isn't something that took off. While coverage does not need to be continuous for something to be notable, the relatively minimal coverage from around the time of the walk's launch leads me to believe it is ultimately not notable. Aspening (talk) 05:00, 12 August 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.