Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 6

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copyvio, G11, copied/close paraphrase of https://www.facebook.com/pg/anoice.japan/about/?ref=page_internal Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:V. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable, third-party published sources. They got played once on the BBC in 2014, but were never placed in rotation. There are a handful of reviews by tiny (i.e., not reliable) music sites and plenty of user reviews on the bigger sites, but no professional reviews. They've released a number of albums, but on their own label. The individual band members are in other bands, but they're not notable as well. The best I can say is that the band does appear to exist though I'm not sure they'd meet WP:BAND even if any of those criteria were sourced. They do have some cool songs and videos at least! Woodroar (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. = paul2520 (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. This seems like a well covered and nicely detailed article, and it would be a shame to see it deleted because it doesn't have enough sources to meet WP:GNG yet. Pinging User:Macoron6on to see if he would allow it to be moved to his draftspace. -- Henry ^TALK 02:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. After a little more digging, this is probably a WP:COI issue and is definitely a WP:COPYVIO. File:Anoice in Shenzhen.jpg, the main image for this article, is the same image used on the band's website and their Facebook page. Note that User:Macoron6on claimed it as their own work. The initial version of the article appears to have been copied from the band's biography as well. The current version has been edited somewhat but still contains significant blocks of copyrighted text. I'm sympathetic to the above suggestion to draftify the article, but as a copyright violation this would really need to be recreated from scratch. Woodroar (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage. Nikki♥311 21:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails the GNG. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I felt a guy with as many accomplishments as this would have enough coverage to have an article so I went and looked around, the only decent source I found was this, and that really isn't enough.★Trekker (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yeah, it's true. I created the article 3 years ago, I was young and I needed the money. As today, I don't see sources proving his notability. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable, fails GNG - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 01:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Although it is a well-documented occurrence, this bit of trivia does not meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 21:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Got a certain amount of newspaper coverage back in the day, some of which is in the article, some more is here: [1][2] Not bad exposure for 1891 - I think it just clears the notability hurdle. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The newspaper reports from the time should technically satisfy GNG, per WP:NTEMP; the GNG standard is essentially equivalent to "well-documented". But in addition, the phenomenon has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Strange and Unexplained Physical Phenomena, which is legit enough to have been cited a half-dozen times in scholarly publications, and was the subject of a History Channel episode, besides the thorough treatment on the Indiana Digital State Newspaper Program blog. FourViolas (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; I agree with Elmidae's point about coverage back in the day & what FourViolas said. = paul2520 (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Based on sources provided by editors above, subject meets notability guidelines. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Squeaks by GNG per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Washington (1565-1616) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. See other AfDs for this user's articles. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 20:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - being the great great great grandfather of George Washington is not in itself notable. There are no other assertions of notability in the article and I can find no other myself. Search results appear to be just a long list of genealogy or similar sites. -- Whpq (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/merge to List_of_United_States_political_families_(W)#The_Washingtons^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being the grandfather of George Washington is not enough to make him notable per WP:NOTINHERITED and there is absolutely no other information in the article to make a case for notability. Tillerh11 (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Whpq. Also, the article has no sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOTGENEALOGY Agricolae (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article is not properly written, sourced, and formatted.TH1980 (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article with no substnace, no sources and no actual claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - wrong birthrate - 1568 - I think. An article probably could be developed on this Washington - [3][4][5][6][7][8] scholar hits - if someone is inclined to do the rescue work. At current form TNT is begging.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs) 12:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete MensanDeltiologist (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - he's one of many remote ancestors of a famous descendant. An argument could be made he could pass if somebody wanted to do the work. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Washington (1545 - 1620 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a geneology site and none of these Washington members are notable in their own right. See other AfDs for this user's pages Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 20:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Being the great-great-great-great grandfather of George Washington is not notable. There are no other claims of notability in the article, nor do my own searches turn up any indication of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Whpq. Also, the article has no sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/possible speedy delete: There's no CSD criteria this would fit under, correct? Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 04:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct (unless the creator is a sock of a banned user, for which I see no evidence). It is not a hoax, made up, or gibberish, and it does give a statement why the subject is notable (even if the claimed basis for notability is not a valid one). Anyhow, it is too late now. Once an AfD begins, speedy requests are usually rejected. The only possible way of shortening the process now is an early close based on WP:SNOW. One thing you could have done is to include all of the Washington deletions under a single AfD. Agricolae (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:NOTGENEALOGY Agricolae (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I shudder to think the mess Wikipedia would become if we started including such geneological articles. We may have a few, but this is one of the worst cases. Nothing of substance is said at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per TNT, lack of sources, and this individual does not seem notable in a BEFORE (beyond brief coverage of ancestorship).Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he's one of many remote ancestors of a famous descendant. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As with other similar nominated articles this individual is not notable in his own right and the article basically just says he was the great-great-great-great grandfather of George Washington and so is not really serving any useful purpose. Dunarc (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The !keepers in the previous AFD all appear to be either undisclosed paid editors or have some link to the subject. There were no sources presented to demonstrate that either WP:NARTIST or WP:BIO were met. From what I can see, none of the sources listed in the article demonstrate any significant impact, and BIO is definitely not satisfied. My own searches have not turned up anything better. SmartSE (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is a dearth of secondary, independent coverage in reliable sources. There has been no persistent and in-depth coverage in news outlets or the literature. Fails both both the general nobility guidelines and WP:ANYBIO. @Smartse:, please remember to asume good faith from your fellow editors, a quality that was singularly lacking at AN/I. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there is so much self-promotion going on here that WP:TNT is the only reasonable way to go. Some sources may establish marginal notability, but all of them have been blended into a piece of promotional writing that makes it impossible to assess the article objectively.96.127.242.226 (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Even if there is a borderline notability, the article so promotional in it's tone. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:AUTHOR also applies to visual artists. The references suggest that he passes at least point 1. And promotional tone can be edited out.

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

And any promotional tone can be edited out. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: Which references do you think demonstrate that are regarded as important? SmartSE (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm in agreement with IP and Arthistorian1977 that it even if Marcou is notable, it is so promotional that it needs a TNT. --Theredproject (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Washington (1498) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

See John Washington (1475) and associated AfD page. Fails WP:BIO, again no need to have a page for anyone's 5x great-grandfather, really. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 20:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability is not inherited, so people who have no notability claim in their own right do not get Wikipedia articles just because they happen to be ancestors of notable people. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a genealogy site — Lawrence Washington would have to have achieved something encyclopedic in his own right, not just be a branch of somebody else's family tree, to qualify for a standalone article about him. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being George Washington's great-great-great-great-great grandfather is not notable. There are no other claims of notability in the article. A search turns up just genealogy sites. -- Whpq (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Only one great to the nth degree grandfather is notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Whpq. Also, the article has no sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:NOTGENEALOGY Agricolae (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a geneological database.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - TNT, no sources in article, and I don't see much that could be sourced about this individual beyond being an ancestor.Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Being an ancestor of someone famous does not make someone notable and there is nothing in the article to suggest any other grounds for notability. Also as noted above there are no sources to support the claim made. Dunarc (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination MensanDeltiologist (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he's one of many remote ancestors of a famous descendant. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails to meet notability requirements. Most third-party online coverage consists of paid articles, press releases, etc. UnstableAngina (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No coverage apart from passing mentions and routine business announcements. Kleuske (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Rajendra menon: The current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable. Please expand it to explain that and it may have a chance of not being deleted.Accesscrawl (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article doesn't make a meaningful claim of notability and no sources could be found in a Google search that would support such a claim. Alansohn (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG with no significant references. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with above, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Washington (1475) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Totally fails WP:BIO, I really can't see where we would find sources on George Washington's 6X great-grandfather. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 19:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability is not inherited, so people who have no notability claim in their own right do not get Wikipedia articles just because they happen to be ancestors of notable people. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a genealogy site — John Washington would have to have achieved something encyclopedic in his own right, not just be a branch of somebody else's family tree, to qualify for a standalone article about him. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Being the great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather of George Washington is not notable. There are no other claims of notability in the article and a search turns up nothing but genealogy sites. -- Whpq (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. He and the other relatives are not so "gr-r-reat!" Clarityfiend (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: Should be speedy delete. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:NOTGENEALOGY Agricolae (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously Washington has a number of 6x grandfathers, and that alone would be NOTINHERITED. However why do we know about this one, three hundred years before Washington? Is that because of some additional reason, which would count towards independent notability? If this was a list of six articles, I'd be inclined to delete. But it's just one - what (clearly something did) has made this one appear, above the others? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andy Dingley:This AFD should have been a bundled nomination. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Washington (1565-1616), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Washington (1545 - 1620, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Washington (1498). These were all created by a new editor with no sources and no assertion of notability beyond being the nth great grandfather of George Washington. So four articles and not six as you stated aboce. I'll also note that I did look to see if there was some other notability but there's none. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • So is Lawrence Washington (1602–1653) up for AfD too? Is a great-great-grandfather notable (by inheritance?) but the great-great-great-grandfather isn't? I see no WP:N policy based distinction between the two of these. "All created by a new editor with no sources" is very definitely not reason of itself to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF - the existence of other equally-invalid pages not up for deletion is one of the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. As to the Lawrence W (1602) page, at first glance it seems to have a lot of material establishing notability, but looking at the footnotes, I get the distinct impression that it is relying heavily on 1) passing reference; 2) non-WP:RS web pages and 3) primary sources, so he may indeed not be notable either, but that would take an in-depth analysis of all the sources which I don't have time for, and anyhow would be the subject for another AfD, not this one. Agricolae (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the reason we have this article, but not one on Washington's other male ancestors in this generation is because of bias towards tracking the male line of ancestry. Nothing about this John Washington makes him even remotely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - TNT, no sources in article, and I don't see much that could be sourced about this individual beyond being an ancestor.Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Exactly the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Washington (1498), this individual does not come close to meeting notability. Dunarc (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he's one of many remote ancestors of a famous descendant. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable modern-day hoax. Received media attention as a book promo but no lasting RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 19:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: a nn publicity stunt; does not meet WP:NEVENT / WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It could be mentioned if there was an article about the book it was a promo for, but if the book isn't notable enough for an article then this definitely isn't._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of coverage. Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus exists that the subject is notable, and any issues with it are no appropriate for AfD. (non-admin closure) ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

See also talk page of merged article: Talk:Church management software

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

Surely this article should be deleted - the first paragraph has essentially zero citations and is simply stating some obvious reasons as to why some churches use software for projecting lyrics. The second appears to be a promotion for church specific management software (rather than a more general piece of management software), and while it contains citations, they're little more than obsolete magazine articles. There's no useful information in this article whatsoever. If the article was going to be improved and expanded upon, it would have happened to at least a degree in the last five years. As it stands at the moment, the page's history shows that it's much more likely to attract vandalism and promotions than it is worthwhile content. It should go. 88.97.39.34 (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the article was tagged for AfD, but the above statement was then posted at Talk:Church software. As the IP editor appears to be inexperienced, I have started this AfD discussion page and moved that editor's rationale here. – Fayenatic London 19:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have curated this article in the past, attempting to make it encyclopedic and non-promotional. I'm a potential user of such software, and have no connection to any product or provider. The page could probably do with updating, to check the links and add more recent citations, and I am willing to do this again. – Fayenatic London 19:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article has just been significantly reduced in length by Theroadislong (talk · contribs), removing material which I had considered acceptable, e.g. [9] removed as "unsourced opinion". – Fayenatic London 07:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That example sentence is vague (What kind of "online products" and why are these distinct from offline software?; What is "collaborative planning of church services" and why is it important to note that as a feature only of online products?; Does "online products" mean web applications or any software that can communicate online?) and potentially WP:WEASELly. I empathize with wanting to keep the article WP:USEFUL, but I'm not surprised the unsourced content was removed. I suspect that much of the removed content is true, but it is anecdotal evidence when it need to be WP:VERIFIABLE. However, I doubt most editors would object if you added a source to support the claim while restoring the content. —Ost (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin I am very surprised you would consider unsourced content acceptable? Theroadislong (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a notable topic of wide relevance to religious organisations, already contains reliable sources such as The New York Times, the disputed content can be discussed on the talk page, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:Deletion is not cleanup. A cursory Google search shows a bunch of hits for pages related to this topic, though the quality of some of them as reliable sources may be debatable. It's still enough for me to be comfortable that this is a real and notable topic. The presence of "obsolete magazine articles" strengthens that impression, as it demonstrates that the topic is not WP:ONEEVENT. Anyone is welcome to further cull or copyedit any information considered to be WP:ADVERT. —Ost (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's part of two series of articles on office software (see [[Template:Office_suite]]) and church administration (see, e.g., [[Category:Catholic_organisations_navigational_boxes]]). Bearian (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – this is a notable topic. Search for "church software" on Google Scholar, you can find multiple papers on this topic. Any flaws with the current article is not justification for deletion. SJK (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT. Nominator blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non notable person. Most sources are passing mentions. 2Joules (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even though nom was blocked as a sockpuppet, several other editors in good standing !voted "delete". Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A promotional and ad like article about a non notable person who fails WP:GNG speedy removed by anon IP 2Joules (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Purely promotional article, all of the sources appear to be PR style blogs, non-independent. CataracticPlanets (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral on this article but note that nominator is a sockpuppet of blocked editor who now also has an indef block. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Promotional & does't fulfil WP:GNG criteria Act345 (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Island View Residential Treatment Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is about a treatment center that is mostly based on press releases, self published websites, unreliable sources like blogs and passing mentions. It does not pass WP:GNG. Apparently the company was acquired by a different owner which rebranded it to Elevations Residential Treatment Center. I have nominated that new page for deletion as well as neither of these articles are notable.

• So I request to Delete this article. Look at the references of the Island view article:

Ref#1 is "Certificate of Incorporation", incorporating doesn't mean it is notable. Ref #2

Ref#2 is self published / website.

Ref#3 says it is about the org's closure.

Ref#4 is not available (404 error), it is another feed item like above, clearly not a reliable source. It seems to be a self published blog.

Ref#5 is another feed item like above, clearly not a reliable source. It seems to be a self published blog.

Ref#6 is a visit report / email that has been published on a blog that further states on their home page that "Categories above include Paid Advertisers." The post evidently a paid post.

Ref#7 is a clear cut Press released on the same blog as ref#6, making it further evident that the blog is advertising island view. Not reliable.

Ref#8 is a preview of Island view's own website.

Ref#9 is from Securities and Exchange Commission, registering a company doesn't make it notable.

Ref#10 is an op ed, mostly negative, nothing that establishes notability.

Ref#11 is passing mention and the news is about an incident that happens to be of a student of the org, not of the org.

Ref#12 not available.

Ref#13 a US court case, does not even remotely establish notability.

Ref#14 another self published / "about us" preview.

Ref#15 not available, title says it is a visit report.

Ref#16 not available but the link from utah govt site seems to be unrelated ref bomb. It would not be a secondary source anyway.

Ref#17 org's own website preview.

Ref#18 a US court case, does not even remotely establish notability, no depth of coverage. Not a secondary source anyway.

Ref#19 is another blog Press release.

Ref#20 a US court case, does not even remotely establish notability, no depth of coverage. Not a secondary source anyway.

Ref#21 this one is about litigation against Island view, even the negative coverage / passing mentions do not amount to the depth required for WP:GNG.

Ref#22 just like above.

Ref#23 WP:FAKE does not mention island view or elevations.

Ref#24 it is the same as Ref#21.

Ref#25 same as above.

Ref#26 looks like a paid / advert review that is no longer available on site.

Above analysis of references prove lack of notability of Island view. Neither Elevations or Island view has established notability. --Nzteoli (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC) — Nzteoli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 10:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 10:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve - clearly notable per WP:GNG and WP:CORP, with significant coverage online in WP:RS. For some reason, the nominator has pasted their previous objections to the cited references, including "Ref#12 not available.", despite the fact that I fixed that broken link during the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Elevations Residential Treatment Center, and that repaired link already cited is significant coverage in the Salt Lake Tribune. Other WP:RS online showing notability include Deseret News[10], another Salt Lake Tribune[11], Slate (magazine)[12], Salon (website)[13].

Repeated claim of #11 is passing mention and the news is about an incident that happens to be of a student of the org, not of the org: it's another article from Deseret News on the state requiring the centre to improve their suicide prevention after a child hanged himself there [14], which is also pretty significant coverage of the organization. I'm struggling to WP:Assume good faith here: both articles have a history of removal of content about the centre's controversial history, sometimes including history referenced by WP:RS, and the nominator is a WP: Single-purpose account: see Special:Contributions/Nzteoli.

This nomination should also have been bundled with the original nomination per WP:MULTIAFD, but the nominator contends that they are separate organisations, despite clear evidence to the contrary. TMG^talk 10:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a new editor does not discredit me as wikipedia says every one is equal here. Your mention of less other edits does not make sense. Anyway, I let's talk about the topic only, the references you gave are still not establishing notability. The reference #1 in your message talks about a Dr. Phil and an incident, but Island view is mentioned as a passing mention. Desert news being reliable does not make the topic reliable due to his lack of depth. Reference #2 is about the same incident, it does relate to Island view as before but it is another passing mention. Reference #3 Island view mentioned as an example of institutions (even its new brand Elevations is mentioned) but neither are accredited with notability. Reference #4 a few quotations from people mentioning Island view and a statement discussing a culture where residential programs are discussed mentioning "Such as Island view" as an example. This does not make this business center notable. I merely nominated Elevations but your vote at the Elevations AFD lead me to review references of Island view and its eventual nomination. Due to that these were two separate AFDs. The evidence of the two orgs being a single org you are giving is a wikipedia page. After reading through the WP:RS, wikipedia itself is not a reliable reference. Let us stop pointing fingers and see what other editors have to say. You can improve the article as you voted but I think they are not notable. --Nzteoli (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further RS: HuffPost[15], The Wrap[16], Courthouse News Service[17]. TMG^talk 12:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability doesn't expire. This article serves as an important landing place for the controversy that took place at Island View. Too many people pushing a POV are trying to put that controversy onto the successor institution, Elevations. The drama took place at Island View, however, and it deserves to be curated appropriately. GetSomeUtah (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment This is supposed to have Elevations Residential Treatment Center merged into it per discussion, but this has not happened. I have my doubts about notability but I would need to look into things further. Mangoe (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started merging, but have run out of time for now. Not much left, mainly merging duplicate references, fixing dead ones, etc. Also, several of the RS I linked to above aren't in the article yet, and I'll get to that soon too unless someone beats me to it. TMG^talk 18:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not notable and does not satisfy WP:GNG. The references are quite obviously self published, blogs. This is an obvious Press Release. The article does not satisfy WP:CRIME to have an article on the perpetrator. As WP:CRIME says "Where there are no appropriate existing articles [...on the event of the crime...], the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:". Both items noted for perpetrators are not satisfied. That leaves the article to have to be notable as a business. The business isn't notable.--103.255.7.2 (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC) — 103.255.7.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • No, there are multiple reliable sources now, as noted above. Not sure why you're cherrypicking one of the unreliable ones. TMG^talk 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • TMG seems to be tagging every one as SPA, well I am not one, I have an edit history and an dynamic IP. A long editing history and really not on USA topics much.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.6.84 (talk • contribs)
    • That's an excellent reason to create an account. TMG^talk 09:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia allows every one to edit, with or without an account. I never wished to create an account and there are many more experienced users sharing my philosophy. These arguments have nothing to do with this AFD. Let's not detrack the discussion. It would also be good if you do not edit or split my comments. I'll note to the admins that I have considered the latest version of the article before making my delete comment and I have still not been convinced to sway my views as the sources do not satisfy WP:CRIME or WP:GNG. --103.255.6.84 (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No point in merging in Elevations, which seems to be merely an ad for that place. Island View was another fly-by-night treatment center lacking notability. Fails at WP:GNG big-time. 198.81.129.195 (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC) — 198.81.129.195 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete: This article is backed up by blogs, not a reliable source. This subject matter is not noteworthy in the slightest. I agree with the poster above that this article does not satisfyWP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:C585:1B00:285D:7C47:7101:E5B7 (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC) — 2604:2000:C585:1B00:285D:7C47:7101:E5B7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete: Island view is not notable as you can see all the references are self-published or with passing mentions or unreliable.This does not agree with WP:GNG. I agree with the previous two comments for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.128.180 (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC) — 66.212.128.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete: Wikipedia should not be hosting articles that are backed up by blogs. There are multiple opinion sources that lack investigative impartial process. This does not meet the WP:GNG standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.81.7.171 (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC) — 96.81.7.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 18:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per The Mighty Glen above. Article meets WP:GNG and, after merge, contains a decent volume of content as well. --HunterM267 ^talk 23:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Provided some more third-party sourcing can be found and added.TH1980 (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per recent article improvements; appears to be best known for the lawsuits against it. The facility is defunct, so the page is unlikely to be used for promotion going forward. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article is well-sourced with a mix of notable newspapers and legal filings. Newslinger (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 18:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No evidence of notability WP:BEFORE turned up only references to the book on publisher and sales sites. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 18:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn. Another editor found reviews of the book that satisfy the notability guidelines for published works. Not sure why they didn't come up when I looked. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 18:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Etzedek24: Eh, no worries - they were honestly not that visible when I first looked. Some of these books, it's more a matter of knowing exactly where to dig for them. I've had the same thing happen to myself on multiple occasions. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

One-time hoax; fails GNG –dlthewave ☎ 17:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to indeed be a non-notable hoax. Some fringe authors appear to have ran with it, but I'm not finding anything particularly notable. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia can keep articles about noteworthy hoaxes that received enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG, but it is not our role to keep an article about every hoax that anybody ever hoaxed — and this isn't sourced well enough to deem it special. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A dab page with one redlink target from a redlinked artist. I couldn't find a good CSD criteria for it, so I'm sending it here. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since it might as well be a redirect, but it goes to a redlinked page. SemiHypercube (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. PROD would also have been an option. – Joe (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Gonna be bold and slap an A9+G8 on it. They might not be perfect fits, but... 1. Treating it as an actual dab-page, it relies on having actual targets, which does make it a page "dependent on a non-existent or deleted page" (G8); 2. if treating it as an article resembling a dab-page, "unremarkable musical recording where artist's article doesn't exist" (A9) fits. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. 2passing mentions and an article written by members of the ONG and the ONG's web site are not enough to show notability. Article creator seems to be a COI editor Dom from Paris (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OhridSponge (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)OhridSponge[reply]

Article has been edited with more thorough explanation of activities and outcomes plus wider references to answer WP:NORG and WP:GNG issues in particular to answer notability.

• Delete. If the redlinked UNESCO Ohrid-Prespa Biosphere Reserve had an article and was notable (my first glance doesn't appear so), I would suggest redirecting there. Without that, I don't see anything that satisfies WP:NORG for standalone notability. Everything I see is mostly organizational WP:PUFFERY language of subject collaborated with group X,Y,Z or content about the geographic area instead. Not to mention that OhridSponge cannot be editing the article directly per WP:COI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails the new standards at WP:NCORP. 2Joules (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Text by confirmed sockpuppet struck. -The Gnome (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Much too promotional for my liking. Co-sign what above user said, most of sources are industry websites or non-notable awards. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 17:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non -notable and too much promotional in tone . Kpgjhpjm 17:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This page seems very similar to other pages such as Furniture Village or Barker and Stonehouse (which definitely reads a lot like an advert in some places, unlike this one) or Harvey's Furniture. I don't see how they can be allowed and this one not. That would be completely unreasonable. Regarding the tone, I have edited it to sound more neutral and less promotional— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickabiddybex (talk • contribs) 22:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a sustainable argument for retaining an article. Problems with articles on other similar firms can be dealt with in their own right. AllyD (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator is a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nominator is a now-blocked sock, but their point about the article failing WP:NCORP stands. Likewise, I fail to see how the article meets NCORP and SIGCOV, as none of the sources assert a credible claim to significance for the company.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article describes a firm going about its business, with no indication of encyclopaedic notability in the text or in shortlisting for an award. Searches find some press coverage of a research release by the firm (e.g. Birmingham Post Jan 2016  – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) but neither that nor anything else that I can see is sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, though I'm not at all comfortable with endorsing the actions of a sockpuppet in any way. We need a better way of dealing with this (unfortunately not uncommon) special case. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Any promotional language has been removed and information regarding notability has now been added. The company's fly tipping campaign has received a great deal of press coverage throughout the years both from the research findings and the development of a recycling tool. The article also now shows the company has been nominated by two independent bodies for 'notably growing a business online' and also includes mention of the exclusive deal struck with a popular ITV show where their products were the main focus of the segment. My argument is that the article has been improved enough that it does now fit the criteria to be included.Chickabiddybex

Please edit your first comment, rather than adding a second keep vote. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 10:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still looks a bit promotional to me . Kpgjhpjm 16:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which part is promotional? I don't see which part is promotional, but can edit anything you think might be. Also, please forgive my mistakes in commenting in the wrong place etc, I'm still learning.User:chickabiddybex —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable company; disagree as to it being WP:PROMO. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on account of subject failing WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT. Nominator blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The page appears to be an ad like promotional page. 2Joules (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G3. Non admin closure. Admin forgot to close the deletion request. "Ronhjones (talk · contribs): G3: Blatant hoax" (non-admin closure) Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hook Island Sea Monster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a hoax with insufficient RS coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 17:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While pseudoscience adherents have taken this apparent hoax and ran with it, I couldn't find any sources that adequately meet WP:FRIND. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Prime example of single-sighting, blown-up, practically information-less cryptid. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G3 --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT. Nominator blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maradona (2018 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

per WP:TOOSOON. 2Joules (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see how WP:TOOSOON applies. It is due for release (quote the article) "mid-July". I reckon that's seven days from now, which is when this AfD will end (excluding relistings). It seems to have a lot of coverage already, so passing WP:GNG on that basis. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 05:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

RS coverage does not meet GNG; likely hoax –dlthewave ☎ 16:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Couldn't find any sources that met WP:FRIND. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No reliable sources available. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. Randykitty (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails pornbio and gng and nowhere near close to standards required for a blp. Esp one where a potential blpvio that is certainly undue keeps being edited back in. Should be deleted and redirected to List of Penthouse Pets. I'd do that myself but doubt everyone would accept me as a neutral admin for pornbio related stuff. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect per nom's accurate analysis. Escaped redirection in the past due to other potential redirect targets (list articles now deleted as not reflecting notable subjects). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing that rises to the level of notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks significant secondary source coverage to pass WP:BIO. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per PORNBIO & GNG & all that shizz. –Davey2010^Talk 21:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Poorly sourced puff piece previously deleted, fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning Delete but could be convinced otherwise. He needs to be considered as an artist. Here is his CV [18]. I'm uncertain about this one. He has numerous vanity shows/spaces on his CV which is a red flag (NYArts, Agora for example). He claims to have been in the Venice Biennale: he was included in a group show that SWATCH sponsored. It was curated, but seems like it was part of a promotional campaign by SWATCH. [19] According to this promotional coverage [20] it seems like the most notable artists in the show were Von Barge, Yan Wang Preston, Chiara Luzzana and Luca Bray, none of which have existing en wiki pages. Cool hunting [21] also talks about the work of Joana Vasconcelos and Chiara Luzzana and about the curator Carlo Giordanetti. --Theredproject (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable. There's one reference, so I won't A7 it. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - titular chiefs of smaller regions are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearian and nom Apparent BLP lacks sources and fails WP:V.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A Non-notable fringe "living dinosaur", as the previously deleted Ngoubou, Muhuru, Burrunjor, Ropen, Kasai Rex, Emela-ntouka, and so on. There is essentially no coverage in reliable sources. tronvillain (talk) 13:51, 6 July

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. tronvillain (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. tronvillain (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. tronvillain (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No high quality sources found. It's not notable, it's not verifiable. Slideshow Bob (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Somewhat to my surprise, this 1987 book published by Brill Publishers has an entire chapter on this ... alleged creature: [22]. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC) I've restored some deleted material drawing from this source and another source published by Penguin for discussion purposes. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, A Living Dinosaur? is the fringe source that originated the story. --tronvillain (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expound upon why these books published by respected publishers are fringe and do not go to establishing notability of a possible (or mythological) creature? (not disagreeing, just asking for information why this isn't a Loch Ness Monster situation). 24.151.50.175 (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! It's a fringe theory because it departs significantly from the prevailing views in zoology, archeology, and any other relevant field you care to name. And as seen at WP:NFRINGE:"A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers." Mackall is the main promulgator/popularize of this fringe theory. This contrasts with subjects like Mokele-mbembe (the primary subject of A Living Dinosaur?) or the Loch Ness monster, which actually have received such coverage. --tronvillain (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the cogent response. Color me convinced. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as receiving no substantial coverage in reliable sources beyond promoters of fringe theory. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No notable coverage in reliable sources that I can see. WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES is an already low bar, but since no one has shown it exists yet, that seems to be a pretty clear indication that it fails even that notability metric. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge to its more famous "cousin", the Mokele-mbembe. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there doesn't seem to be any scientific papers talking about this "organism", nor any actually reliable sources. Thus, it should be deleted, as it does not seem to exist. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on account of lack of notability. Wikipedia, the last place one can still find living dinosaurs. Exterminate before it breeds. -The Gnome (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. promo by undeclared COI editor, no proper sources or evidence of notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Coverage in reliable sources, please.....Fails WP:NCORP. ∯WBG^converse 13:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO as owner of the Bali Times the 8 references that use this as a source can be ignored for notability as being affiliated, of the 8 sources that remain 3 are passing mentions (Macaron, Freelibrary, Fin24) 1 is just quotes by the subject in a PR piece (Elixir) 1 is a legal notification 1 is a court report on a lawyer's website dedicated to "elder law" 1 doesn't support the claim to having won an award. After a search the only source that supports this claim is The Bali Times which is owned by the subject. the last source is a tabloid piece about the court case that suggests he tried to swindle an old lady out of $2 million Dom from Paris (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Honestly, I don't know how anybody can argue that this run of the mil business person is notable in any way. The sources are not independent of the subject or are so trivial as to laugh. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems to be a publicity gimmick. The interviews in Bali Times are really funny. Dial911 (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, with thanks. But this will be raised again as sure as sunrise. -The Gnome (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This actor, according to the article, is "best known for appearances as Lieutenant DeSalle on the original Star Trek series", all three of them. I'm a Star Trek fan, but I drew a blank on DeSalle. DeSalle is not mentioned in any of the three episode articles. Fails WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. G-searches are turning up nothing useful to establish notability - blogs, user generated sites like IMDb, subject's Star Trek trading cards and a few trivial mentions. CBS527^Talk 08:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. I remember him as DeSalle but his brief appearances on ST don't make him notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia does not create articles on bit part actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to Draft:Trevoh Chalobah. bd2412 T 15:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, non notable athlete without a senior appearance, and classic example of WP:TOOSOONOrtizesp (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep He may not have made his debut yet, but it is the fact he has an FA Cup winners medal despite never playing a competitive game, THAT is the very thing that makes him notable! Either he makes his debut soon and passes WP:Football or he remains the answer to a great quiz question. User: Hildreth gazzard User talk: Hildreth gazzard|talk]] 06.19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Once he actually passes WP:NFOOTY (which he probably will by the end of August), the article can be restored. Number 57 13:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - in lots of publishers like East Anglian Daily Times, BBC Sport & ITV News Joaomufc (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Where's the source that says he actually has a medal? Even if he does, why does that make him notable? GiantSnowman 16:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • He put on his "Insta" (as I believe the kids call it) that he has a medal...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Draft Looks like a player who will qualify for a wiki article, but as of right now fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft - Although he has played for the England Youth teams and part of the article is sourced, it will only pass as an article if he makes a league or a senior team appearance. Iggy (Swan) 21:16, 30 June 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) 08:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Draftspace - clear case of WP:TOOSOON and article is certainly not notable yet, however I believe the best idea would be to move this to someone's draft space and than could be re-moved to be an article if and when the subject passes the notability guidelines. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:10, 2 July 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) 13:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or draft as WP:TOOSOON Atlantic306 (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep About 5,570 results in news search. Some of these are stories specifically about Chalobah. He passes WP:GNG. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the oddity of his being on the roster for the FA Cup championship may or may not be enough for GNG. As he is almost certain to become notable by appearing for Ipswich in the course of the next two months, we should keep this, even though WP:NFOOTY is not met yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can't say for for sure that he will play, Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Kosack (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:NFOOTBALL: Fail. WP:GNG: Not so clear. Over 8,000 search results on a Google News search is a lot for a player who has yet to make his senior debut. However, being an FA Cup winner (ie having been included in the matchday squad for the winning team in the final), especially at the age of 18 and having yet to even take to the field in a first-team match, makes me think this topic has sufficient encyclopedic value. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was getting over 5,500 news search results, now I'm getting over 9,000! I don't know what to think. Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now 10,500...? Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're searching right, I get 6800 results. Either way, I don't think new search results are particularly valid, Youssoufa Moukoko still doesn't and he has 10K plus results, and won't get a Wiki page until he formally debuts.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on account of subject failing WP:NFOOTBALL, which I find to be too strict, but it is what it is. If subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL, then WP:GNG on its own is not enough. -The Gnome (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua E. S. Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Jamez42 (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. His key work is None of Us Were Like This Before, but I can only find one independent review from a reliable source. Newslinger (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR both as a writer and journalist.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteI found his one interview with Gulf News. Had it been more interviews in reliable secondary sources like this one, I would have voted as keep. But this is probably the only one on the internet. So, delete. Dial911 (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This business industry fails WP:GNG. There is no coverage in independent reliable sources apart from press releases. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Besides a short local news mention, the only reliable source I can find is this Xinhua article which describes a single exhibition at the expo. Newslinger (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article appears to be a compilation of every mention of Mr. Rovine on the Web. All of the sources are either primary sources or non-independent and of questionable reliability. I couldn't find a single independent, reliable source providing any significant coverage of Mr. Rovine. Therefore, the subject appears to fail WP:BIO. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promotional, fueled by primary sources, and fails WP:GNG. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable academic and author. This is a review of his book in American Journal of International Law, a notable academic journal. See the citations for his work at this Google Scholar search Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in this but the provided information doesn't appear to satisfy WP:SCHOLAR. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, this link says that he was listed in various biographical directories. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm listed in various directories too, but I don't get my own Wikipedia article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely possible that you would pass WP:GNG. There are many notable people who do not yet have an article. (Anyway, I think that Arthur Rovine is notable.) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Notable. The citations in GScholar show that this person satisfies WP:PROF. Bear in mind that law has the lowest level of citations of all fields of study, with the average law professor having a h-index of 2. Rovine is far above that. His h-index is at least 11, which is more than four times the average. He also satisfies WP:AUTHOR with multiple periodical book reviews. For example, "Digest of United States Practice in International Law" (1973 and possibly other years) is, as far as I can see, reviewed by Netherlands International Law Review, American Journal of International Law, Texas International Law Journal and Denver Journal of International Law and Policy (according to the index, which says it was reviewed in Spring '76). I suspect that I would find many more reviews of his books if I kept looking. This is the sort of query you have to run to get GBooks to give you all the relevant results: many strings of fragments and keywords, not just the persons' name, or even his book's title, in speech marks. James500 (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Given that Joaomufc has been blocked. Sandstein 08:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable indivual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: -- agree she is insufficiently notable actress for standalone article. Quis separabit? 18:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Save -- it has already been decided to keep her.Voicebox64 (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added two additional sources that indicate some notability. ABY 124431132 (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - The local newspapers articles cited in the article seem to be sufficiently in-depth to confer notability. Deryck C. 12:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - appears in Uproxx & East Anglian Daily Times plus more Joaomufc (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep meet notability in some sources. Emily Khine (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incorrectly filed. The article filed for AFD is a redirect to a draft page and this is where the AFD notice was applied. AFD does not apply to pages within the draft space - an MFD needs to be filed if a deletion is still felt to be warranted.

No big deal; Kleuske probably just didn't notice that the article was a redirect to a draft. I didn't realize it either and until I actually restored the AFD template the page creator removed themselves and left them a warning... oops.... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP Sources mentioned are either WP:PRIMARY, routine business announcements on an IPO or short puff pieces. Was a draft, but moved to main space by main only author. Kleuske (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sack (unit)#Coal. Consensus to not keep, but a split between delete and merge. Redirect is a compromise that allows editors to decide whether to merge any content from the history. If that does not occur, the redirect may be RfDed. Sandstein 08:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article is based on a fragment of a table in a book known for unreliable claims; it is misleading, in that a "large sack" is actually a container, a sack of a larger size than normal. More rationale at my user page. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC) @AndyTheGrump, Anna Frodesiak, Archon 2488, Johnuniq, Kikichugirl, NebY, PamD, and War wizard90:: pinging other editors involved in previous AfD discussion. To clarify, I think this article should be deleted because it is not an appropriate topic: I think there could be an article on coal measure (beginings of a draft), which would put the various bits of information in context. "Merge" is not really an option, because there is no information here which is both nontrivial and accurate. And there is no evidence of the expression large sack as the name of a unit, even though clearly big sacks were used, along with middling-large, quite big, and other sacks. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I can find several earlier references to 1 large sack equalling 2 cwt (one from 1986, one from 1919); I didn't check further. I didn't find any measurements in this unit, but numerous cases of someone carrying coal in a "large sack", so maybe it was a standard delivery. I have to say I'm having notability issues with this. Mangoe (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Sack (unit)#Coal per below. Mangoe (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable --Danski454 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Sack (unit)#Coal. OR comment: when I was young (1950s in Britain) a large sack of coal was indeed two hundredweights. I'd hardly call it a unit but it was a standard measure of coal. It was certainly carried by one man and these sacks were the normal size for emptying into our coal shed. Thincat (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's nothing misleading or unreliable about this as it was well-established and documented as a standard measure of coal. There may be scope to merge with other similar units, as Thincat suggests, but this is not done by deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and question - this article reads more like a dictionary definition than an encyclopedia entry, so could it be transwikied to Wiktionary?Vorbee (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge as per thincat (talk · contribs) --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this and other articles only sourced to Cardarelli 2003 (such as Stack (unit) or Aum (unit)) should be merged somewhere if no other references exist; as noted that discussion can happen at some other forum. Several regular participants feel it's likely such references exist for this specific unit, and I'm not interested in conducting a detailed search. If they could provide such a reference this will be an easy Keep closure, otherwise I see no reason not to merge with Sack (unit) (purely an editorial opinion). power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: exactly. This decontextualising of fragmentary information seems to be a common problem, perhaps caused in part by editors who think that if only they can create 500 articles this is somehow significant. (See Cyrillization of German‎ for a completely unrelated example.) Imaginatorium (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I find a table in an arithmetic book from 1885, and a 18XX "cyclopedia". I'm still leaning towards a merge; the notable topic is "archaic English units of weight for measuring specific goods". power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]