Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 16

Guide to deletion

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

The result was keep. Although there are a few opinions for delete, the overwhelming general consensus seems to be for keep. (non-admin closure) IWantGears5 (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hillfolk

Hillfolk (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 GNG. Article on a commercial product (a series of two game instructions booklets) has three references, two of which do not actually mention the product at all and are probably not RS even if they did, and the third of which is merely its name listed on a tiny game awards website (see below). Additional background follows:

• BEFORE search: The standard BEFORE search (Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com, JSTOR) finds no RS to the following search strings: (hillfolk AND RPG) OR (hillfolk AND game) OR (hillfolk AND "Robin Laws") except for this brief mention in a holiday gift list round-up on WUVM-FM radio [1].
• Note on awards: The article claims the game won two awards, however: (1) we do not have an inherent notability criteria for commercial products which have won awards but otherwise fail GNG, (2) these are very tiny, niche awards that, themselves, are probably so un-notable that they don't qualify for WP articles. While an award like the Origins Award might be impressive for a game, the "Indie RPG Awards" and "Diana Jones Award" would realistically be the game industry's equivalent to the concrete industry's Alfred Lindell Award for Excellence in Reinforced Concrete Design [2]; something that is a relevant achievement to only a tiny sub-section of the population.
• Redirect / Merge not advised: Redirect or Merge should not be applied because the term "Hillfolk" is too common and is more likely to be used by visitors searching for unrelated, ethnographic/demographic articles such as Appalachian Americans than for info on a small game from 2013. Chetsford (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science Fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - The Diana Jones awards are notable even if the article needs a rewrite (the Indy RPG awards probably aren't). On the other hand as the awards committee is largely anonymous it is not provable that Robin Laws is not on the committee. The Diana Jones award link, now it's been fixed (and hasn't had a bot give a six year out of date link) also gives three paragraphs on the game. The nominator also clearly didn't bother checking the RPGamer link- yes, there is a single sentence at the link, but the single sentence says to click through to a seven paragraph article. (The Indy RPG Awards link is down). Neonchameleon (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Two sources are almost invariably insufficient to meet our standards of "significant coverage". A majority of the AfCs we're declining these days have two sources. Proof of life is not proof of notability. The Diana Jones awards are notable Their existence has never been acknowledged by any mainstream media. They are a niche sectional award like the aforementioned concrete industry award. Chetsford (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Two sources are multiple independent sources, and the sources in question provide in-depth information rather than being single line mentions. Just because you're declining them on AfC doesn't mean that you are following Wp:N when doing so. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

And while on the subject it's just taken me all of 30 seconds to find an article specifically on the Diana Jones Award (rather than merely mentioning it in the context of something that won it) in Polygon. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

in Polygon Like I said, "Their existence has never been acknowledged by any mainstream media." While the mention in Polygon may be fine for the article on the awards themselves, it fails as a demonstration of their wider societal importance to sustain one of their recipients. And, of course, this is aside from the fact that - unlike NFILM - we have no inherent notability standards for commercial products that permit them to overcome the GNG if they have received industry trophies like the Diana Jones Award (for the games industry) or the Alfred Lindell Award for Excellence in Reinforced Concrete Design (for the concrete industry). Chetsford (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem with your argument here is that Polygon is a different industry. The Diana Jones award is for tabletop games, Polygon is for computer games. When the Alfred Lindell award gets write-ups in Interior Decorating magazines let me know - even if both are arguably about building houses. The other problem with your argument is that the Diana Jones award is reliable and does cover the award winners in non-trivial detail in a reliable manner so actually stands as a reliable source itself. (Arguably the solid paragraph for each nominee shortlisted is enough). Neonchameleon (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

And also two sources are categorically enough for wp:NBOOK. RPGamer's one, the Diana Jones award is another. If Boz can dig up much in Designers & Dragons that will make a third. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I have added three more, for a total of five. Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per Neonchameleon. I will add Designers & Dragons to the article tomorrow, even though the nominator has argued against its use in other recent AFDS. BOZ (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: I have added Designers and Dragons along with two other RS: Geeknative and Le Maraudeur. The latter contains quite a bit of additional content in French that could be used to strengthen the article, but I have not had time to do that today. Newimpartial (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Since Designers & Dragons was at question in this AFD, I believe everyone in this thread has been notified or participated in the RSN discussion on the book except for User:Neonchameleon and User:Imminent77. BOZ (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep even the nom has conceded that Designers & Dragons is reliable, and the discussion of Hillfolk is not trivial. The game has been extensively reviewed, received numerous awards, and is a clear GNG and NBOOK pass, even if it might fail NCEMENT. Newimpartial (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• comment, not seeing a huge amount of sourcing, but it has won a couple of awards. CAN i SEE SOME GOOD ARGUMENTS FOR BOTH KEEP AND DELETE.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven - my argument for delete is that, even following the addition of sources, the article lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources necessary to establish its notability and that mere evidence that something exists is not synonymous with notability. Specifically:

• one of the sources (geeknative.com) [3] is a non-RS blog written by an individual guy,
• another source is to a page for insurance quotes in Texas that doesn't actually mention the product at all [4],
• one (Designers & Dragons) is essentially a compendium of every game ever created and while possibly factual doesn't contribute to notability in the same way we generally don't consider Publisher's Weekly reviews to do so (on the basis of the fact that they publish 10,000 per year),
• This leaves just two sources that contribute to WP:N, both of which are on the margins of RS: the volunteer-run e-fanzine rpggamer.com, and a listing on the "Diana Jones Award" website (the "Diana Jones Award" is one of dozens of tiny awards in the game industry. It is awarded by an anonymous committee of as few as one person. From YouTube footage of its "awards ceremony" it appears it's given out in the bar area of a TGI Friday's in front of a crowd of 20-30 people [5] by a guy who just stands up on a table in the restaurant to announce the winners (AFAIK the guy standing on the table is the awards committee); this is not the indicator of a significant award that could transmute significance to its recipients)

Chetsford (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I will AGF, Chet, but you are simply incorrect. Designers and Dragons, as you would know if you had read it, is not a compendium but a history, organized by publisher and discussing trends and milestones in roleplaying over 40 years. The discussion of Hillfolk is far from a TRIVIALMENTION but is actually a substantial discussion of the role of the game in the trends of the 2000s, as you would would know if you had read the mention (or even the WP article you have sent to AfD. (Plenty of games so have passing mentions in Designers & Dragons, but Hillfolk is not one of them).

Geeknative is a respected site written by a journalist who has written professionally on RPGs for The Scotsman and Enworld, and is therefore a perfect example of the kind of self-published source that is in fact reliable.

Le Maraudeur is a professionally-published game magazine in French which offers an INDEPENDENT, multi-page review of Hilkfolk, which you did not mention, for some reason.

I have fixed the link for the Indie RPG awards.

And the Diana Jones award is given by a committee of (more than one) industry professionals, as you would know if you'd read the discussion in, you guessed it, Volume 4 of Designers and Dragons. So, based on your own count, Chet, we now have either four or five RS. Isn't it time to drop the stick? Newimpartial (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I will note that Designers & Dragons is, sadly, not "a compendium of every game ever created"... too many times have I looked for games in there to add it as a source, and did not find them.  :( BOZ (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Weak keep on basis of Diana Jones award; it may not be the Spiel de Jahres, but it's a significant enough award that a recipient of it should meet minimal notability criteria. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I trust that the three RS I added today will help you sleep easy with your !vote, Simon. Newimpartial (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I just realized that this a) won an Indie RPG award and b) that this is being discounted as notable, which would be a mistake. Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the link for that, too. Newimpartial (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Isn't it sad that,thanks to my response to Chet's strategy of provocative posting, this may be my last AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The source for that Diana Jones award states The games in Hillfolk, created by some of the finest designers working today (as well as, it must be admitted, some members of the Diana Jones Award Committee). --Imminent77 (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Good observation. It seems to be an issue that the source is not WP:INDEPENDENT. Chetsford (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Imminent77: what source are you citing? Nvm; found the link in the article; I was looking in the discussion here.

I know NOTINHERITED and all that, but since the game includes settings by a long list of giants in the industry, and since we don't need the DJA to meet WPN and NBOOK, I think if anything the status of the book as a kind of compilation album of industry greats enhances its status, frankly. The DJA is just icing. Newimpartial (talk)

Meh weak keep The Diane Jones award is notable but, as someone with a good deal of expertise in the RPG area and publishing, the game itself isn't particular notable inside that industry so it's not particularly so outside. It doesn't get a lot of press inside the industry. If we went by the WP:BAND band notability criteria as an example (bear with me), it has a notable author but even for bands it requires two independently notable members. I'm honestly on the fence on this one, it's far from a big name RPG line. I also agreed with Chetsford's comment on Designers and Dragons. Yes Designers and Dragons is a notable work. Yes it's a reliable source to source information. However I'd say it's not a source to claim the actual notability of a subject unless the book makes specific notability claims. Having just reread the section on Hillfolk, I agree there's nothing there to denote actual notability other than Shannon choose to write about it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Really? In what sense does "The resulting game is very literary, focusing on themes, storybeats, and webs of relationships. It’s also the first Laws game that feels like it was directly influenced by the indie community ... When you put together those elements you have a pretty good overview of indie game mechanics in the ’00s. The most shocking aspect of Hillfolk (for traditional roleplayers at least) is the fact that it downplays what it calls “procedural” scenes, ..." (which is just the nub of the reference, not the whole discussion), placed in the major historical document of its field, not suggest Notability? All we need for NBOOK is two or three reviews, which we already have; given the pressures of space Applecline faced, his discussion of Hillfolk is at least worth a review. Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Weak keep The product reviews contain significant coverage which seems to be independent of the publisher. While the Dana Jones Award does not, in itself, establish notability it does give a solid marker for significance ie it shows that the reviews are likely not just 'we have to find some game to discuss in this issue' and greatly decreases the likelihood that the reviews are the result of native advertising or a publisher's PR campaign. The material that exists in the article is not, in my opinion, quite enough to demonstrate notability but, I think it likely that sufficient sources exist to get it past GNG. Jbh ^Talk 13:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Won prominent industry award. --GRuban (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Winning the Diana Jones Award is no small feat. Agree with GRuban. Z359q (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Topo Designs

Topo Designs (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:CORPDEPTH. The only good reference I see is [6], which is a local interview. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Power~enwiki I understood the Denver Post to be significant, reliable and secondary, but considering I have yet to find another source that meets this criteria, I do not oppose your nomination for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stussll (talk • contribs) 06:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets the WP:GNG. Besides the Denver Post article, we have non-trivial articles from [7] Rocky Mountain Collegian, [8][9] Hoodline, [10] Business Insider, [11][12] KUSA (TV) and Denver Business Journal (basically same article), [13] GearJunkie, [14] 303 Magazine, and [15] Forbes. Then there are dozens of articles that have paragraphs about individual Topo products or the store, including such big name sources as Wired, Self magazine, Seattle Times, Wired again, Outside magazine [16][17][18], 5280 magazine, Travel and Leisure, Forbes again, and GQ[19]. ---GRuban (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• GRuban How do WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG relate? Given the context, I assumed the criteria in WP:CORPDEPTH should be the standard used to determine notability and thus supersede those in WP:GNG. If there is an existing discussion on this topic you can point me to I'd greatly appreciate it. I'm new to editing so doing my best to get up to speed. Stussll (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • GRuban, Stussll, please be aware that the criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations are described in WP:NCORP. Both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP describe the same criteria but whereas GNG is a general guide for all topics, NCORP provides specific examples and interpretations to assist with companies/organizations. This means that the references that meet the criteria for establishing notability go beyond WP:RS. For example, CORPDEPTH (a part of NCORP) provides guidelines on the type of content expected within a reference. Similarly, ORGIND provides guidelines on the type of content that is considered "independent" and explains that the content must be both "funcional" independent and "intellectually" independent. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete The statement "non-trivial articles" provided by GRuban above caught my eye. This is only a part of the criteria a reference must meet. But, be aware, references must also meet the other criteria detailed in the other parts of NCORP. An analysis of the references listed by GRuban:
  • This Collegian reference relies on statements by an employee, no indication of independent analysis or opinion (intellectual independent), fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This Hoodline reference is a trivial article, fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it contains no in-depth information on the company and fails WP:ORGIND as it relies on information provided by an employee, no intellectual independence.
  • The second Hoodline reference is a trivial article basically stating that Topo Designs was about to open a store in SF and that it sells a wide variety of bags, all handmade in Colorado. It contains no in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV.
  • This 9News article is also a trivial article and fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • This gearjunkie reference has no attributed journalist or author (staff post), fails WP:RS.
  • This 303 reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it contains no information about the company.
  • The Forbes reference is on one of their Blog sites (click the little (i) after the author's name) and fails WP:RS

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, references are churnalism, product reviews, interviews, etc, just the normal press activity we'd expect from any company. No significant or in-depth coverage. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment HighKing I generally agree with your assessment of each of the article's included sources. Although, about the Forbes article...are you suggesting any article written by a Forbes "contributor" fails WP:RS? In this context–where the author has spoken to executives from the companies she is reporting on–I'd assumed she could be considered reliable. Secondarily, what, if any, impact does a source's prior writing (i.e. The Guardian and Quartz), have on their reliability? [Comment added by Stussll, not signed.]
  • Response In WP:ORGIND, see the examples of dependent coverage. It usually comes down to whether the article was subject to editorial control/standards - the "sites" on Forbes do not. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Understood, HighKing – thank you for clarifying. Stussll (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:ORGDEPTH; the coverage is hyper-local and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per HighKing's analysis, and eg The Hoodline provides local news (WP:AUD) and the collegian has no analysis but is instead promotional, with sentences like "Colorado-based outdoor bag and apparel company Topo Designs values the outdoors and community." Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW applies. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 21:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Randy Castillo

Randy Castillo (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)

Violates Wikipedia:Verifiability as almost the entire article is unsourced. Also violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as there appears to be editorial bias and non-encyclopedic tone spread throughout the article in its entirety. Finally, the article is in violation of Wikipedia:No original research as this appears to have been told in a story format instead of an encyclopedia format without any sources which would indicate some original research. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 19:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Yes, there are problems aplenty with neutrality and sources, and it indeed strikes me as original research as well. Yet the subject itself is notable per WP:MUSICBIO criteria #6. The unsourced/unreliable stuff should be excised, but there are obituaries in Billboard and Rolling Stone so an acceptable article could be sourced to those. I think the solution is to first try to fix the article rather than delete. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep: lots of OR in the article that needs to go, but the subject is notable and there are enough sources to be able to create a decent article about him – there's also this article from Ultimate Classic Rock [20] and he's even had a documentary film made about his life which has played at international film festivals [21]. Richard3120 (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Someone needs to do work on it because those templates have been there for almost a decade. The lack of action is why I nominated this for deletion. Either someone needs to work on it and fix the major violations of policy or it needs deleted. The current article is unacceptable and to be honest I don't know how this is considered B class with the lack of in text references.Figfires^{Send me a message!} 23:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Figfires, that's a fair point about the B-class rating - it was done eleven years ago by Wizardman and maybe it's because in those days Wikipedia's rating standards were lower... I just wonder out of interest if he would rate it B-class now. If no-one else beats me to it I'll try and remove the OR next week and add some sources. Richard3120 (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Figfires "Someone needs to do work on it because those templates have been there for almost a decade" - couldn't agree more, but Wikipedia is chock full of that sort of thing and deleting an article because it's crap is not policy and would probably not gain consensus to be one, however worthwhile the argument is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep since Castillo is notable, but his page needs a lot of work. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep plenty of sources - and he's worked with the Prince of Fucking Darkness. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a classic case of WP:NEXIST, as the lack of sources currently in an article is not proof that the subject is non-notable; it's just proof that nobody added them yet. A WP:BEFORE search by the nominator would have easily revealed the sources located by the other voters above, indicating that the article needs to be cleaned up and improved, not deleted. Per WP:NEGLECT you don't have to wait for someone else to fix it then condemn it when they don't. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep (and if I wave this wand and say the magic words ... *piff* *puff* *poof* ... the article is kept!). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Pacific Coast Association of Magicians

Pacific Coast Association of Magicians (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 has apparently been unsourced for eleven years. While there are a good number of passing mentions of the society ("[x] was a member of the ..."), I don't see any of the sort of extensive in-depth coverage in various independent reliable sources that would demonstrate its notability and allow us to write a proper article about it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - I am searching through Bing Search and I am not seeing what seems to be required under WP:CLUB. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 18:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete If we have no sources of any kind that discuss it, which seems to be the case, it clearly would ipso facto fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Chetsford (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, though I admit the sources are few, they aren't nil, and I think there is a strong likelihood there are others off line. The organization was founded in 1933, so a fair fraction of news about it will be from before the Internet age. Harry Houdini's widow attended the third annual meeting in 1935.[22][23] Here is an indepth article about the latest, 2018, annual meeting, [24], The Bakersfield Californian and here is a less indepth article.[25], KBFX-CD. Only one indepth reliable source, unfortunately, and we often want 2 or more to meet WP:GNG, but I am pretty sure there are at least a few out there, for some of the meetings between 1933 and 2018 - they were not always in Bakersfield - so I'm saying "keep", and I hope sufficient others will too. --GRuban (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep (as creator). I created the (sourced) stub over 10 years ago,[26] and it has waxed and waned over the years.[27] I haven't paid much attention to it, but a glance at article history will show that it has been several times larger than its current state. The article could definitely use expansion from an experienced editor, unfortunately I'm short on wiki-time at the moment or I'd do it. I would agree that there was a fair bit of unsourced information in it at one point (not added by me), but in my opinion it has been stripped down to a far smaller stub now than it should be. The topic is notable, this association is well-known within the magician community, has international recognition, and a prestigious set of awards.[28] Sources do exist.[29] --Elonka 23:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep the organization has been in existence since 1933 and has influenced the magic community and fostered the careers of countless magicians including myself. I am not an expert at Wikipedia but over the past few months I have been researching the history of the organization. Most of the history is prior to the internet and the majority of the books, magazines and article I have sourced are not for public offering. Magazines such as Genii and the Diebox are online but not available for public viewing. The PCAM is mentioned often in these well respected publications. A quick internet search will still result in mentions of the PCAM such as [30] or [31], [32] The successful TV duo the Property Brothers mention it in their book It Takes Two: Our Story [33]ShawnFarquhar (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note. I went ahead and expanded the article and added several sources.[34] It could still use more cleanup, but hopefully this will help to verify the claim of notability. --Elonka 01:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. So, now the page has a good deal more unreferenced content than before, still without any vestige of a citation. I took a look at the proposed sources:

1. Scott, Jonathan; Scott, Drew (4 April 2016). Dream Home: The Property Brothers’ Ultimate Guide to Finding & Fixing Your Perfect House. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 0544715675.
2. http://www.conjuringcredits.com/doku.php?id=misc:pcam_publications
3. https://www.kcet.org/history-society/off-the-boulevard-of-broken-dreams-the-knickerbocker-hotels-haunted-history
4. http://auctions.potterauctions.com/pacific_coast_association_of_magicians_group_portr-lot11227.aspx
5. https://www.bakersfield.com/entertainment/magic-the-gathering-convention-brings-conjurers-to-bakersfield/article_c131b222-9b67-11e8-b356-2b0f2668c67b.html
6. https://bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/bakersfield-hosts-magician-convention-for-first-time-in-30-years
7. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/aimee-heckel/behind-the-scenes-with-on_b_6118954.html
8. https://www.surreynowleader.com/entertainment/honoured-for-sleight-of-hand/
9. http://www.insidemagic.com/magicnews/2006/08/cameron-fisk-pcam-gold-medal-winner-magic-success/

As far as I can see,

(1) is book about fixing up houses, with no mention of this organisation

(2) is somebody's website, not WP:RS

(3) is a reliable source with a brief mention

(4) is an auction listing for a photograph of the same meeting mentioned in (3), no value as a reference

(5) is local press coverage of a meeting, presumably from a press-release, most of it sourced to the organisation itself (not available in Europe, accessed through this link)

(6) is more of the same, probably from the same press-release

(7) is a reliable source with a passing mention (I said above that there are several of these)

(8) is a passing mention in local-boy-makes-good local press article

(9) is a blog post on somebody's website, not WP:RS

That does not seem to add up to the "significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources" required by WP:NCORP. If those sources were tabulated as in the example in WP:ORGCRIT, only (3) might conceivably classify as "pass". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Everything in the article has references. Just because it doesn't have inline citations, doesn't mean it's unreferenced. If there's a specific thing you'd like to challenge, you are welcome to do so by adding a {{fact}} tag, but I think you'll find that all the current references match the current information. --Elonka 00:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
• Regarding the Scott book, it is sourced to page 87, which I have added to the citation. Thank you for the Google Book link, but please keep in mind that it is not 100% searchable. In this case, page 87 is not available at Google Books. --Elonka 16:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Elonka; what Gbooks search normally does is identify the page where the text is found even if that page is not available in preview; in this case, it seems that it has not. Since you have the book, perhaps you could tell us exactly what it says about this association? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep given the recent expansion. Article is better now. GenuineArt (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

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 08:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Shayda Award

Shayda Award (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 award.No non-trivial coverage (other than mere mentions of recipients, when they confer it) about the award. ∯WBG^converse 14:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Award is notable and independent of subjects they are conferred. It is awarded by the Indian National Theatre. This award is covered by Trivedi, Ramesh. M. (2005) Gujarati Sahityano Itihaas. (History of Gujarati Literature). Ahmedabad: Adarsh Prakashan as referenced in the article which is book of history of literature (independent, non-trivial source). This award is also covered by several Gujarati sources but English references are scant because it is Gujarati literature award. -Nizil (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited.We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.News-tickers about a conferral in three-four lines or scant mentions in a book hardly passes that. Please provide sources, accordingly.......∯WBG^converse 04:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah: FYI Gujarati sources are fine. Sources do not have to be in English. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Merge to Indian National Theatre. I don't think the award itself merits a full article at this point because of the lack of notability (and apologies, but I can't really do a WP:BEFORE in Gujarati and claim to be able to understand it). That being said, if it is awarded by Indian National Theatre, which is for now can be presumed to be a notable subject unless it is challenged, surely it could be mentioned there and anything considered relevant could be brought over as an alternative to deletion. Then, if sources come to light and detailed notability worthy of an article's worth of content is established, an article could be recreated. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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 08:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Malak Zmarak Khan Mandokhail

Malak Zmarak Khan Mandokhail (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)

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:POLITICIAN and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Especially for a living person, we need some indepth sources before we write an article. There aren't any here. --GRuban (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete lacks WP:SIGCOV, he is a budding politician, nothing done so far is notable fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Even the BIO of his father appears to fail WP:NPOLITICIAN but I am not too sure due to his membership in Jirga of unknown importance.--DBigXrayᗙ 19:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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. editor request DGG ( talk ) 15:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Muhammad Hassan Sherani

Muhammad Hassan Sherani (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 subject was not elected to Provincial Assembly of the Balochistan, this fails to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Also lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources and therefore does not appear to meet basic GNG. Saqib (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I relied on these three sources (which all say he was the winner) when I created the article.[35],[36], [37] Recount might have changed the result as it was a small margin! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Election Commission has issued victory notification for Sardar Babar Khan Musakhel. --Saqib (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• @SheriffIsInTown: Since the creation was based on an incorrect premise, might I suggest you and Saqib save everyone time and trouble by first tagging the article with WP:CSD#G7, and then closing this AfD when the page is deleted? Vanamonde (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Priya Amar Jaan

Priya Amar Jaan (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 sockpuppet creation doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project MUSE, and Questia, by Bengali script name and transliteration, found trivial mentions (in list of films released that season, in lists of films in which such-and-such an actor appeared, in TV program listings, etc.) and the single sentence "Popular actor Shakib Khan lip-synced to the song 'Kintu Ontore Prem Dila' in the film Priya Amar Jaan."[38]. This degree of coverage doesn't meet WP:GNG, and no other evidence of notability has been found that would pass WP:NFILM. Worldbruce (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

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

• Weak Delete. There does seem to be little here, and the creator was banned, but the film does seem to exist. I did a search, couldn't find indepth sources, but it is not my language, I'm going to partly rely on nominator who seems to know what they're doing. If someone finds sources, would gladly change my opinion. --GRuban (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Article created in 2011.[39] I wonder how many results there were for this subject in those days. Capitals00 (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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

• Redirect (or maybe merge) to Shakib Khan, the only notable cast member. Redditaddict69 20:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

There isn't an obvious redirect target, because Apu Biswas, Misha Sawdagar, Andrew Kishore, and Sabina Yasmin are also notable (assuming it's true, as the article claims, that they were all connected with the film). --Worldbruce (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. One passing mention in Google News. Doesn't seem notable enough to keep. Capitals00 (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. There seems a rough consensus (post filtering out partial unsuited justifications) that the accident was of sufficient scale and provoked sufficient national reaction to warrant retention. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

2018 Kiryandongo bus accident

2018 Kiryandongo bus accident (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)

PROD contested by IP, no reason given. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL apply - no evidence of any lasting notability here. GiantSnowman 15:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Looks a lot like WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Basically everything on this subject is simply news reporting, but I concur there is nothing to establish notability other than it's a news event. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

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

• Keep - This article is poorly written and it needs re-editing. It is however notable just as 2018 Kazakhstan bus fire and 1999 Deutschlandsberg bus crash. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree that the other two are notable as well per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; they appear to have the same NOTNEWS issue as I look over them. Red Phoenix ^talk 18:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I am inclined to agree with Red Phoenix ^talk. Whilst the above mentioned accidents are newsworthy, serious and saddening, they are not necessarily notable according as per WP:NOTNEWS. An example of notable, in my opinion, would be if the bus crash was the worst in the country's history, or the accident resulted in the greatest loss of life through vehicular accident in the country's history. This is not an attempt to in any way diminish the seriousness of the event or to offend anyone involved, but it must be appreciated that there are millions of accidents which result in the loss of life every day and the vast majority are not appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The news outlets do the job of covering the ones that Wikipedia cannot. ThePastoral (talk)
• Keep. I think the fact that the President of Uganda declared three days of mourning shows that this was an event of national significance and it has been covered in the international press (WP:EVENTCRIT#2). It's not just one of many daily accidents. If we had an article about Gaagaa Buses I might have suggested merging there and adding detail on their subsequent license revocation, which itself resulted resulted in strike threats, but we don't. Merging to Kiryandongo would overwhelm that article, so: keep, with no prejudice against a later merge. › Mortee _talk 07:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep I think this has achieved the level of coverage required for WP:NEVENT. Another example of a recent, similar accident is the Humboldt Broncos bus crash. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Mortee, since it did receive international coverage from multiple sources which is WP:EVENTCRIT#2. Also would be happy to merge to a Gagaa Bus article if there were one - I did a search, and the company shows up in multiple crash articles from Uganda (most of which didn't achieve this level of international coverage). --GRuban (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per the international coverage it has recieved and per the fact the country is or had 3 days of mourning ... –Davey2010^Talk 21:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Can we for one moment imagine that if 22 people died in a road accident in Britain or America we'd even be at AfD? Of course it's notable. And a clear case of WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Indoor roller coaster. Some roller coasters are indeed "enclosed", but there is no reliable source suggesting a consistent distinction of encyclopedic note between those that are "indoor" and those that are "enclosed"; or distinguishing between the thematic type of enclosure. bd2412 T 15:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

List of enclosed roller coasters

List of enclosed roller coasters (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 phrase "enclosed roller coaster" is not an industry-defined term. It's simply one editor's idea that roller coasters that are enclosed needed to have its own list. There aren't any reliable sources tracking this, so there's no doubt this would be an incomplete list at any given time. I am also notifying WikiProject Amusement Parks. GoneIn60 (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Merge to Indoor roller coaster and remove the list aspect. The article kind of already exists at Indoor roller coaster and it seems to be a Run of the Mill ride list. AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

"Indoor roller coaster" suffers the same issue. This isn't an industry-defined term, and the article will never contain enough information to justify its existence. 90% of the content now consists of an unsourced list. The brief 1-2 sentence description can be merged to roller coaster if it really needs to be retained. WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTDIC --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Merge with Indoor roller coaster. I'm not sure there's a well-defined distinction between "indoor" and "enclosed" and have not found any references that attest to a difference. [40] uses the terms interchangeably. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment – You will find "enclosed" or "indoor" in front of "roller coaster" in various publications. This is like coming across "fast race car" or "tall building" in running text. This doesn't mean the use of an adjective justifies a standalone article. Other than an definition (which is unnecessary by the way), there's nothing else to state. Merging to "indoor roller coaster" kicks the can down the road, as that article will/should be listed in an AfD as well. If a roller coaster that's enclosed is notable enough to have its own article, the description "enclosed", "indoor", etc., can be mentioned there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• We also have Category:Enclosed roller coasters and Category:Indoor roller coasters as part of Category:Roller coasters by type. To my lay-eyes at least, those words seem to overlap each other such that merging might be appropriate in one direction or another, but are not vague comparatives like "fast" such that I don't get the nominator's concern. Indoor/outdoor seems a rather clear and binary distinction. But if there is an issue with these descriptions or classifications, this might be the sort of subject-specific distinction that would be best discussed first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks or Talk:Roller coaster so that a comprehensive view of all of this content can be developed rather than just poking at one list. Subsequent AFDs and CFDs could then point to that talk page discussion for background. postdlf (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The main WikiProject is, for the most part, inactive. There are a handful of editors left, but unless manually pinged, they're not likely to respond. I left a notification there pointing to this AfD when I first opened it. I'm not sure I follow the logic here about how the categories are related. They would have their own inherent problems, because not every coaster in existence passes WP:N and has its own article, therefore the list of coasters within each category would be incomplete. Also any article that attempts to create a list of indoor roller coasters would likely be incomplete as well, as the list itself is not based on any reliable sources. Seems like WP:LISTCRUFT to me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The categories are related because they are just another format for presenting/organizing the same content. So if we're talking about a problem with the classification upon which this list is based, then certainly the categories would have the same issue. I don't understand your comment about a list being "incomplete"; completion is not relevant (nor possible) if all we're doing is listing articles we have that fit the inclusion criteria (just as a category does), and not making any statement that "this is a complete list of all the indoor roller coasters that exist." And if a roller coaster is notable, then certainly whether it is indoors or not would be documented in reliable sources. postdlf (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Well we certainly don't need separate lists and categories for "indoor" vs. "enclosed", so at the very least, one should be merged into the other. Based on Google News searches, "indoor" seems to be the predominant category. My point above was that you have to draw a line at some point to avoid over-categorization, and tracking whether a roller coaster is indoor vs outdoor seems like a trivial detail in which to base a category or list upon. A personal website run by some enthusiast, sure. In an encyclopedia? Not so much. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Merge or Delete; article has not a single source. --GRuban (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced for nine years. No evidence that this is a real term. Don't merge; since this is unsourced, it fails WP:V, so can't be merged. In fact, the proposed target fails WP:V as well, for the same reason. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Do not merge to an article that can be deleted for exactly the same reasons. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - merge voters, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indoor roller coaster which was also nominated for deletion. I agree that two articles converting essentially the same concept is unnecessary, but should keep one or the other. - Scarpy (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep for the same reasons that I gave at the AfD for indoor roller coaster: [41]. This satisfies GNG. NOT is wholly inapplicable. There may be scope for merger with indoor roller coaster, but deletion would be wholly inappropriate. James500 (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Reverse Merge from Indoor roller coaster. Both cover much the same ground and both are lists, but the other does not inducate that it is only a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

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 08:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Steven R. Bangerter

Steven R. Bangerter (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)

Source searches for independent reliable sources are not providing any significant coverage, just passing mentions. Some primary sources are found, but those are not usable to establish notability. The subject does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I could not find any additional secondary sources, so perhaps deletion is appropriate here.Dig _deeper ^talk 14:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete: All I could find is a profile at his law firm which is not independent. No significant in depth coverage from independent sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete: Also could not find any sources that would support any form of notability. Finnishela (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. I found one indepth source that has been reprinted in another place,[42][43] but it is only one, also though theoretically independent, practically it is a hagiography. --GRuban (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. There is apparently consensus that there is sufficient material here for more than just a dictionary definition. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Siberian Express

Siberian Express (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)

Unsourced term apparently made up by some weather reporter. A WP:BEFORE search yields anecdotal articles from 2015.[44][45] Fails WP:GNG. — JFG ^talk 10:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Full AfD list of non-notable cold waves:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 European cold wave: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western United States freeze: N Deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter of 2010–11 in Great Britain and Ireland: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2013 United Kingdom cold spell: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/November 2014 North American cold wave: No consensus; overlaps November 13–21, 2014 North American winter storm and 2014–15 North American winter, potential to merge
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 2015 North American cold wave: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siberian Express: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2017 European cold wave (2nd nomination): Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017–18 North American cold wave: No consensus; suggested merge to 2017–18 North American winter

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 10:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC) — Updated 09:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep https://books.google.de/books?id=QMi5DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA215&dq=Siberian+Express+weather&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr8Ni4iODcAhXSKVAKHd0dBbMQ6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=Siberian%20Express%20weather&f=false https://books.google.de/books?id=5Dx-BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA302&dq=Siberian+Express+weather&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr8Ni4iODcAhXSKVAKHd0dBbMQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Siberian%20Express%20weather&f=false Agathoclea (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#DICDEF. The article here is just describing the word which can be covered in Wiktionary. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Satisfies GNG with potential to expand beyond a definition. James500 (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per Agathoclea's links added to JFG's links (strangely enough). It's a metereological phenomenon, so we can hardly expect its life and times and an interview with it, but the sources show that it is both used often enough, and detailed enough to be worth a short encyclopedia article, rather than a dictionary definition. --GRuban (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: it's a term / phenomenon that people would reasonably want to look up on Wiki. For sources, please see Ask Tom Why: Tom Skilling on meteorology, weather and natural disasters. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Also in The Living Earth Book of Wind & Weather - Page 117 by Carl A. Posey ( 1994):

A bad winter across Europe and the United Kingdom is usually a gift from Russia, and the torrent of frozen air that sometimes spills out into eastern Canada and the United States is familiarly called the Siberian Express. Buried beneath this ...

Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - Usage by press and academia. The "Before" even had someone from NWS use the term. StrayBolt (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete This occasionally media trendy term is nothing remarkable as cold air effecting the U.S. comes from other places as well, such as Canada. A Wiktionary definition would suffice, as WP:ROUTINE coverage does not make this article meet WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not the Weather channel and in the real world, in winter when it is very cold outside, people notice that it is very cold outside, not the catchy names weather forecasters often use to make the weather sound more interesting. Such terms might make weather coverage sound cooler then saying a cold front is moving in from the north-west, but all that actually matters to people in the real world is that Saturday is supposed to be minus 15 degrees. When I was younger and in still in school, we had six weeks straight of sub-zero temperatures because cold air was pushed down from Canada. Do you know what I noticed and cared about when watching/reading about the weather? That it was absolutely freezing outside and in my room, not the trendy way the weather media tried to describe the situation to increase viewership ratings. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Per GRuban. 208.54.87.254 (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per K.e.coffman and GRuban. I didn't have a lot of hope for this article initially, but I think we're well past DICDEF by now. Daß Wölf 01:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

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. Before considering a new nomination, check whether a merger to 2014–15 North American winter can be done instead. SoWhy 14:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

February 2015 North American cold wave

February 2015 North American cold wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:SYNTHESIS of anecdotal weather reports and occasional temperature records. No strong effects or WP:LASTING significance. Wikipedia is not the Weather Channel. — JFG ^talk 10:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Full AfD list of non-notable cold waves:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 European cold wave: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western United States freeze: N Deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter of 2010–11 in Great Britain and Ireland: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2013 United Kingdom cold spell: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/November 2014 North American cold wave: No consensus; overlaps November 13–21, 2014 North American winter storm and 2014–15 North American winter, potential to merge
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 2015 North American cold wave: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siberian Express: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2017 European cold wave (2nd nomination): Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017–18 North American cold wave: No consensus; suggested merge to 2017–18 North American winter

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 10:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC) — Updated 09:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Strong Oppose for all – absolutely no reason to even consider this and the others for deletion. They describe historic weather events that caused a lot of issues in the US, and both this cold wave and the November one garnered a lot of headlines in the news, especially when the very snowy pattern that each caused. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 11:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Winter happens every year, sometimes worse than other years. Sources are contemporaneous weather news that do not provide lasting impacts or notability. Reywas92^Talk 18:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - Major weather event that affected millions, with significant news coverage. The article should be improved and expanded, but outright deletion would rob Wikipedia of information on these specific events (the same could be said for several of the other nominated articles as well). LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Article sources show several "coldest month in history" from Toronto to Montreal to Rochester. That's sufficiently notable. We absolutely do write articles about records, and it's pretty clear these records affected more people than gold medals in luge or broad jump. --GRuban (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Broke records, contributed to deadly events, and has affected people. Satisfies GNG. AmericanAir88 (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

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. There is clearly no consensus to delete this article, but opinion is evenly divided on whether the topic requires a standalone article. This latter question is better suited to a merge discussion. Vanamonde (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

2017–18 North American cold wave

2017–18 North American cold wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:SYNTHESIS of anecdotal weather reports and occasional temperature records. No strong effects or WP:LASTING significance. Wikipedia is not the Weather Channel. — JFG ^talk 10:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Full AfD list of non-notable cold waves:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 European cold wave: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western United States freeze: N Deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter of 2010–11 in Great Britain and Ireland: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2013 United Kingdom cold spell: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/November 2014 North American cold wave: No consensus; overlaps November 13–21, 2014 North American winter storm and 2014–15 North American winter, potential to merge
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 2015 North American cold wave: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siberian Express: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2017 European cold wave (2nd nomination): Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017–18 North American cold wave: No consensus; suggested merge to 2017–18 North American winter

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 10:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC) — Updated 09:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Strong Oppose for all – absolutely no reason to even consider this and the others for deletion. This particular event caused one of the coldest starts to January in North America since at least 2014. If you’re so picky about wanting to delete this then I guess Early 2014 North American cold wave should be deleted as well by all chances.. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 11:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep or merge - Article is well referenced. If this article cannot be kept, it should be redirected to 2017–18 North American winter, or another suitable target. @MarioProtIV:, you might want to comment on each individual AFD submission. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete or merge Winter happens every year, sometimes worse than other years, and broken weather records are quite frequent. Sources are contemporaneous weather news that do not provide lasting impacts or notability. Reywas92^Talk 19:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - Article is well-referenced and had significant impacts across the Eastern US. Multiple records were broken and millions of people were affected by this event; it's definitely notable enough to have an article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Merge to 2017–18 North American winter, we should be focusing on cold waves that had widespread impacts such as Early 2014 North American cold wave. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed we had an article for each winter season. This looks like a great merge target indeed. I would support merge rather than deletion. — JFG ^talk 07:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there seems a three-way disagreement as to delete, merge or keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Satisfies GNG and set many records. James500 (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. Multiple records are notable. Yes, records tend to be broken every few years, but such is the fate of records, Olympic records for example, we still write about them when they are broken. --GRuban (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Merge (to suggested Winter target). I am unclear whether this would satisfy GNG, and in any case, I believe it would be an unwarranted content fork (just because it might be capable of being self-standing, doesn't mean it should). Nosebagbear (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• CEASE MERGING FOR NOW - as the discussion has been reopened, the in-progress merges should cease for now. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You Matter 100Percent

You Matter 100Percent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't believe this organisation meets WP:NORG. Searching for "You Matter 100Percent" yields nothing but the organisation's website and searching for "You Matter" and "U Jin Jo", the organisation's founder, is no better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. As nom writes, I also searched for coverage and could not find any. The organization's own press page, https://www.youmatter100percent.org/articles only contains press about bullying in general, I couldn't find its name in any of them. --GRuban (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Search fails to find WP:SIGCOV of this specific organization, so WP:GNG not met. Additionally, it seems like an effort to promote the founder, whose individual page was previously deleted at AfD. Bakazaka (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

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 08:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

VJ Aarthi Ganesh

VJ Aarthi Ganesh (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 significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:CREATIVE. Created by a single-purpose account who appears to have a close connection with the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Might be recreated if Ganesh gains notability after the remake of Mohini is released. wumbolo ^^^ 16:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Fails WP:NACTOR for now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ray Corasani

Ray Corasani (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 lacks the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

*very, very weak keep WP:NACTOR.1. reads: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.", he has had a few roles, apparently playing "the Muslim guy", mostly in minor roles in minor films and in a n episode of minor TV series. it may be just enough to squeak by. And, a non policy-based argument, our readers like to look actors up and expect them to be here. He gets a a fair number page hits. I think we should strive to be user friendly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. I think the key point of WP:NACTOR.1. is "...significant roles in multiple...". I can accept that his role in The 15:17 to Paris is significant, he plays the villain. But all his other roles seem very minor, bit parts in films and single episodes of tv shows. I also can't find indepth articles about him. WP:TOOSOON --GRuban (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• delete User:GRuban persuades me. There is not enough SECONDARY to support WP:BASIC, and the roles seem to be very minor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

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 08:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Java Champions

Java Champions (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 about a non-notable circle-self-promotion initiative. damiens.rf 17:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I can't see any indepth reliable source coverage outside Oracle. There are bloggers very proud of becoming Java Champions, but they're hardly independent either. --GRuban (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• This deletion is premature as we were just in the process of updating this article to address the concerns expressed. As for the question of independence, as a group, Java Champions are completely independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.78.123 (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and GRuban's rationales. Nothing outside of the close community of Java developers.--1l2l3k (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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 08:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Fayrouz Saad

Fayrouz Saad (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:NPOL. She ran in a congressional primary and lost, per WP:POLOUTCOMES, this page should be redirected to the main election page. There is coverage of her campaign, but she isn't independently notable and we don't typically (or didn't used to) host candidate bios until such time that those candidates became elected officials. Marquardtika (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete losing candidate in a primary election. Previous career was WP:MILL for a political operative. Quite a lot of identity-related coverage of her campaign, but, still, we don't keep losing candidates with no notability prior to or apart form the campaign.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, the in-depth and even international coverage clearly was not just about the campaign but about her as a female Muslim politician, daughter of immigrants, and her unconventional positions. Omikroergosum (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Even if Fayrouz had won the primary that would not have made her notable. Loosing the primary makes her clearly not notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we have decided that passing coverage at election time does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course candidates for the Congress who have received significant and in this case even international press coverage are automatically notable. And she had in-depth news coverage already a year before the primaries, very strange to call that "passing coverage at election time". Primary notability criterion is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Omikroergosum (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. The references including The Independent and Spiegel show that she passes WP:GNG. Looking around, there is more, e.g. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/25/politics/muslims-running-for-office-2018-travel-ban-trump/index.html http://www.arabnews.com/tags/fayrouz-saad http://www.globaldetroit.com/detroits-fayrouz-saad-and-family-recognized-by-president-obama/ The latter, in particular, is not related to the Muslim Wave campaign. Ross-c (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• User:Ross-c, and (the article creator,) User:Omikroergosum, appear to be misunderstand the policy, WP:POL, as verified by WP:POLOUTCOMES and by many, many outcomes that can be viewed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians/archive, is interpreted ot mean that a candidate has had WP:SIGCOV predating and apart from the candidacy. It is often the case that the individual has not had a Wikipedia page before deciding to run for office, but the page has to be validated by discovering preexisting SIGCOV or finding that the individual passes the standards in some category, such as WP:JOURNALIST. The exceptions are in instances of truly extraordinary coverage during the campaign. A recent example is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In this case, however, pre-candidacy WP:SIGCOVcoverage does not exist, what does exist is coverage of Fayrouz Saad's candidacy as part of a wave of Muslim-Americans running in the recent Democratic Party primary, where she placed fourth. It is not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not basing my Keep vote on WP:POL, I'm basing it on WP:BASIC. If a person satisfies WP:BASIC then there is no need to satisfy specific requirements such as WP:POL. Hence I think E.M.Gregory's comment misses the point.Ross-c (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment I think you are both referring to the guideline WP:NPOL instead of WP:POL. I agree with Ross-c that you can meet either one to justify inclusion. NPOL itself states:

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

which as shown by many of the cited sources this BLP subject clearly does meet. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Undecided. I expanded the original stub and added the sections on the 2018 campaign etc. But since Saad has lost the election I don't know whether it meets the notability criteria. I have rewritten it now with some feedback I got from my wikiedu instructors. I saw that Krish Vighnaraja who has a wikipedia entry is somewhat similar to Saad. I defer to the better judgement of those who know wikipedia content more than I do. Thanks. GDevi17745 (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)GDevi17745

Krishanti O'Mara Vignarajah page should probably also be taken to AfD. Lost the primary election, and while she has held responsible jobs, I ran a quick search and failed to find pre-campaign coverage of her.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there seems split views on whether there is sufficient non-standard coverage per POLOUTCOMES to warrant retention
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: The article does meet WP:GNG and does not violate WP:ISNOT. There is significant coverage (more than trivial mentions) from multiple independent reliable sources. Meeting our general notability guidelines justifies inclusion even if she lost the election as I don't think that the article could be categorized as WP:NOTNEWS or any other example of what Wikipedia is not. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Except that all of the sources are WP:MILL campaingn coverage, except those with the theme: "Fayrouz Saad could be America's first Muslim woman in Congress," "These Candidates Could Be America’s First Muslim Women In Congress." There were 5: Rashida Tlaib has a page because she was a state legislator, and she will almost certainly become the First Muslim Women In Congress. Ilhan Omar was already in the state legislature, and therefore has a page. Deedra Abboud and Tahirah Amatul-Wadud, like Saas, were non-notable political activists before the campaign. They do not have pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the sources (including the last two cited by Ross-c), I see that many are not just WP:ROUTINE coverage but do provide in depth coverage. In my opinion clearly enough to meet WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

As I explain above, we have a sort of case law and precedent tradition at WP under which we delete candidates who lose party primaries for house seats. The exceptions are not people who generate coverage during the campaign, they are people who have done something else that has drawn SIGCOV played in a notable band, been a notable teenage fashion model - something. Please scroll up the page, read my post, and link through ot the old deletions discussions. It will give you a better feel for which losing candidates are kept, and why.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, we must follow the currently approved policy and guidelines. WP:POLOUTCOMES is neither, it just points out that a candidate that looses an election does not have inherent notability, but I don't think that it means that we could ignore that it passes WP:GNG and that it does not violate WP:ISNOT. There are many guidelines on notability for different kinds of subjects, but they are all complementary to GNG if either one is met, it warrants the inclusion of the subject. For primary candidates who loose elections to be automatically excluded even if they have in-depth coverage from multiple independent RS I feel that it would need to fall as, or we would need to have it added as a criteria to the list of what Wikipedia is not.

Also please notice that most of the lead does not make reference to the failed candidacy that was mentioned only on the last sentence. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Also please notice that she was quoted by a Spanish source as director of Detroit's Office of Immigrant Affairs (see here) with no mention to her candidacy, and that is not the only international coverage. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

She drew little or no coverage during her the years she worked in non-elective political jobs; never held a major job; was never profiled by a news organization; and got no INDEPTH coverage before she ran in a primary election. A Muslim woman running for Congress was not a first - there were, as I write above, FOUR such candidates this year. But she lost. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Sonneborn. A spate of identity- driven (youngest, or Muslim woman) does not make a losing candidate in a Party primary notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello @E.M.Gregory: I am sorry, but I have to disagree. Please refer to WP:WHATABOUTX. Her notability does not come from being a loosing candidate. The subject did receive significant coverage before running for the election. Examples from 2016: An Hour with Fayrouz Saad, Remarks by the President at Eid Reception, Detroit’s Fayrouz Saad and Family Recognized by President Obama. In any case she has also received non-routine coverage from multiple reliable sources (some of them international like The Independent, Spiegel, Al Jazeera, La Vanguardia, etc. ) which does count towards WP:GNG. The article itself is not centered on the fact that the subject did run for Congress and the fact that she failed does not invalidate the significant coverage beyond routine mentions therefore it clearly meets WP:GNG and since it does not violate WP:ISNOT I do not think that not been elected is a valid reason for deletion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:TOOSOON for this failed candidate and ethnic activist who has held minor and/or local politics related jobs appointments. She has been building a resume, and has had the local coverage cited above by Crystallizedcarbon in local Detroit media, (Hour Detroit). In addition, the 3 sources cited above include a local acrivist organization, Global Detroit: Mobilizing Detroit's Immigrnat Population, and on the White House website when she was part of a group invited to the White House, administrations do this sort of ethno-religious recognition events. Beyond that, her candidacy garnered some coverage in Wave-of-Muslim-congressional-candidacies in the primary elections. This is WP:MILL primary season stuff. She finished 4th in the primary. She may well have a future in politics, but we don't keep failed candidates with this sort of ROUTINE coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not routine for candidates to receive international coverage and the subject has. What is your definition of routine coverage? This international in-depth coverage from The Independent: ayrouz Saad could be America's first Muslim woman in Congress per WP:ROUTINE it's clearly to me that this is not just routine coverage, It is at an international level and it does not just mention the name as been a candidate, it is a very in-depth and long article about the subject, and clearly meets WP:SIGCOV:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The same applies to this article in German from Der Spiegel: Und diese Frau will Donald Trump besiegen? as well as others form other countries mentioned above and many at the national level. Again significant coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources is all that is needed to meet WP:GNG. The fact that some or most of that coverage may have been sparked by her failed candidacy is not a relevant factor towards meeting the guideline, and since she is also known, as shown in the article, for other events in her career (for example quoted by a Spanish source as director of Detroit's Office of Immigrant Affairs without any mention to her candidacy) it is clearly not a case of WP:NOTNEWS. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, I just want to add that while I was writing the Saad article for my wikiedu class, I called the Detroit Mayor's Immigrant Affairs Office and learned quite a bit about Saad's work there. However, this information was given to me by a staff of the office and I cannot quote myself in the article. There is no mainstream or international coverage about much of her work in the Mayor's office. So I have not included any of it in the article. It did make something very clear to me, however: Muslim women in politics in our country do not receive much interest and coverage by mainstream media. Notability for them has additional layers of constraints. It will be very hard for Saad to have much recognition for her public work unless she wins a major office. Thanks much.GDevi17745 (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)GDevi17745

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) 06:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Bruce D. Jette

Bruce D. Jette (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)

PROD challenged as "asserting notability", which is not in my view, a valid reason to remove a PROD since the claim was not that it didn't assert notability, but that he wasn't notable and that it was spam.

Non-notable mid-level political appointee: sub-cabinet, so not inherently notable, and the rest of the coverage is just your standard PR that is normal with any appointment, and routine coverage that isn't in-depth to him, but is brief and discusses what he does in his official capacity. Additionally, notability really doesn't matter here as it is likely a terms of use violation as undeclared paid editing, meaning there is no right for it to even be on the encyclopedia and that additionally it is excluded under local policy: WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep I was the one who removed the prod and I need to see some evidence that there is paid editing involved. Let's say, for the sake of argument that there is, it can be cleaned up because he is a notable figure. Definitely meets GNG with plenty of sources ranging from this NYT article to a Foreign Policy profile toa FedScoop artiicle, not to mention his Army biography. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Let's look at the sourcing you provided: the NYT article is quotes and contains no substantial coverage about him. Being quoted in the NYT is not indicative of notability. The next two are simply routine announcements of nominations for a sub-cabinet office. Foreign Policy is a better source than Fed Scoop, but I would count Fed Scoop on the level of typical trade mags, the difference being that it's industry is the federal government of the United States. Finally, you can't seriously think that his Army biography counts for notability: it isn't independent as it is produced by his employer. I have had multiple of those published by my employers over the years. I'm sure as hell not notable.
    Finally, the GNG doesn't matter as WP:N makes WP:NOTSPAM equal to the GNG, and something must pass both to get an article. This was created in violation of the TOU, the article history shows it clearly to be created for the intent of promotion, and it is simply a resume of a sub-cabinet official. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I wasn't counting his Army biography for the purposes of notability, perhaps that was a bit unclear, I was simply stating it provided biographical info. I really don't think NOTSPAM applies, the article as written looks like a typical politician bio. Jette is not just notable for his most recent post, he also received notability for inventing the packbot which saved lives in Iraq. There are more articles on him, for instance DefenseNews interview and this LA Times piece. As I've said before, any paid editing claims need to be substantiated, and the article can be cleaned up anyway. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
      • LA Times isn’t about him, but his invention. Interviews are primary sources and don’t establish notability. Cleaning up an article created in violation of our terms of use so they get more value out of it rather than deleting it actively harms this project. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete It is rarely called upon to do so, but occasionally, WP:NOT trumps WP:V; this is a classic example. As someone not a million miles away might say, please wait until someone with no COI decides [it's] notable and writes the article; although as the nom points out, the article subject is a middle-ranking politician, and the career trajectory would need to increase proportionately to pass WP:NPOL, as the coverage is currently a dearth of persistent or in-depth sourcing. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no problem with in-depth sourcing. I have no conflict of interest here (and it's never been proven that there was paid editing FYI) and I could write the article, but that seems kinda ridiculous given the effort here already. He is also an inventor and businessman besides a politician, and there are definitely enough sources here to write a decent article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Eesh. There's plenty of sources available, but I don't see any which really grant notability. The best ones are WP:ROUTINE announcements of his promotion. SportingFlyer talk 00:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep as inventor of the PackBot. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep User:TonyBallioni, Note what the Los Angeles Times article cited above actually says: [46] "Jette, who has a doctoral degree from MIT, became a legend in Afghanistan when he suggested that the Army use robots instead of soldiers to search caves for Taliban fighters.When commanders told him it would take months or years to build a robot program, Jette said he could do it in 45 days with off-the-shelf technology, and then did it in fewer."] This is WP:SIGCOV, however brief.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GNG and, basically, Bearian. Yes, he's a midrange political appointee, which often isn't enough. But he actually did something notable in that office, the packbot.CBS News That's a big enough deal to be worth an article. --GRuban (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 08:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep His position is not one that would automatically qualify him for an article, but the references seem to me to be adequate to meet GNG, documenting in high-level Reliable Sources several out-of-the-ordinary things he has done. BTW The article's history is a godawful mess - originally written by someone whom TonyBalioni blocked for undeclared paid editing, then completely rewritten by an IP who said they had been “tasked” to scrub the page and use his Department of the Army official bio; that version was actually a copyvio, being copy/pasted from several sources [47][48], but no-one seems to have noticed that at the time. That rewrite was reversed, so what we now see is pretty much the Biografix version. Even if it was "commissioned spam" as described in the PROD rationale, I believe he meets our notability criteria. --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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 08:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Paul Deasy

Paul Deasy (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)

PROD deleted with reasoning "previously deleted by PROD - take to WP:AFD please" ... player has never appeared in a WP:FPL, as all of his career appearances came in the League of Ireland First Division. Also fails WP:GNG. 21.colinthompson (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG (needs more sources). SportingFlyer talk 06:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - not much coverage, and not in fully professional league. Yet. --GRuban (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFOOTY. Spleodrach (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Kiran Rathod

Kiran Rathod (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 stub almost qualifies for WP:BLPPROD except for the unreliable reference to IMDB.

Google search finds this Wikipedia article and many vanity hits (Facebook, LinkedIn) and fancruft. No evidence of critical attention.

Does not satisfy general notability or entertainment notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep A month ago this article had an extensive filmography, paragraphs of text, and 3 non-imdb sources (whose Reliability I don't know about) but was then substantialky reduced in size with comment "(none of these are rs)". Mouse-overs of a few of the films listed show her listed in the lead paragraph of four out of the five I checked. Better sources may be needed, but it looks as if the article should be kept on the basis of starring/featuring in multiple films. PamD 09:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment: She seems often to be referred to as just "Kiran" eg in Winner (2003 film) and here, which will complicate the finding of sources. PamD 09:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment I have found and added one reliable source (The Hindu), which supports one statement in the article. I have also removed all the unsourced BLP content (ie all the rest, bar the lead sentence), and commented it out from the info box. I have left the Filmography untouched, as the links to articles on the films seem to confirm the info that Kiran appeared in those films, though it's technically unsourced. This article has been tagged since Nov 2017 as needing sources, and none have been supplied (until this one), but the woman does appear notable. None of Jupitus Smart's links seem to work for me. PamD 18:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment An editor has now added some content with Reliable Sources which I think establish her notability thoroughly. PamD 23:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry @PamD:. I seem to be getting rusty at this. The actual links were [49], [50], [51] and [52]. Jupitus Smart 06:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete It is high time we deleted all articles lacking even one reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep She does meet WP:ENT by virtue of having played the female lead alongside some of the top brass of Indian cinema. She has starred as the main heroine in movies like Anbe Sivam, Gemini, Winner and Thandavam. Found some more references, like [53], [54], [55] and [56]. Can be salvaged if somebody has the time to incorporate these and edit the article. Jupitus Smart 18:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:NACTOR She is not an english movie actor and still we have enough WP:SIGCOV in english media. Number of movies also supports her notability. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:NACTOR, and WP:BASIC per links provided by Jupitus Smart. wumbolo ^^^ 12:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Bartok (card game)

Bartok (card game) (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 card game which fails WP:NPRODUCT. » Shadowowl | talk 14:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Suggest redirect and very partial merger to Mao (card game), of which this is a trivial variant. This one's so old its whiskers have whiskers. An article for local folklore created in 2004. Note that the game is in fact referenced in a textbook of game design, but I can't see enough of the source to determine whether it is dependent on Wikipedia. This is played with standard playing cards; not a product. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 16:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable I think. I need to go to bed right now, but I'll list the sources I found tomorrow. SpinningSpark 00:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Introduction to Game Design, Prototyping, and Development, pages 4 to 11, extensively examines Bartok as a game design example.
  • A paper from Proceedings of the 4th Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment, 2007 deals with Bartok over three pages.
  • The Penguin Book of Card Games has a non-trivial entry for it.
  • A paper from Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games has a discussion of Bartok as a design demonstration.

Besides these, there are many pages on the web giving how-to information on Bartok, and they are mostly not Wikipedia mirrors. SpinningSpark 09:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per SpinningSpark's sources. StAnselm (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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. Changes proposed by Uanfala may go forward. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 16:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Banjari

Banjari (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:NBUILD/WP:NCORP. No sources. » Shadowowl | talk 14:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. This is an article about a deity, so neither NBUILD nor NCORP seem to have much relevance here. – Uanfala (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Uanfala: NBUILD/NCORP doesn't apply on temples? » Shadowowl | talk 18:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they do. But the article is not about a temple. Its first two sentences are: Banjari is one of the popular Hindu deity in Orissa. There are many Banjari temples present in Western and Southern part of Orissa.. – Uanfala (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It is a failed attempt to create a disambiguation page. » Shadowowl | talk 20:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. The articles has oscillated in its history between the ethnic group and the deity, and the current version clobbers the two together. The ethnic group appears to be the same as the Banjara, so it appears best to restrict the current article to be about the deity, then move it to Banjari (deity) and make Banjari a disambiguation page (with the addition of an entry for the language). There's no prejudice to the article getting renominated, provided the notability of the deity is challenged. I'm not in the business of evaluating the notability of deities, but a web search reveals plenty of results about various temples dedicated to it, so I'm not particularly worried about having such an article in mainspace (despite its poor present shape). – Uanfala (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with the speedy keep; this should be a DAB page. The page probably needs a hist-split for the deity. [57] is a reference for the existence of a Banjari deity. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per arguments made by Uanfala Accesscrawl (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per arguments above and failed WP:BEFORE. WP:SNOW also applies. gidonb (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

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 08:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Robert Bishop (artist)

Robert Bishop (artist) (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)

Unsourced and fails WP:PORNBIO. Searching brings up a lot of people with the same name. » Shadowowl | talk 10:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete: No inline sources for a bio at all. Plus, there is a slight promotional tone to the article. I don't see it anywhere near WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. That being said, per nominator's comment, searching brings up a lot of people with the same name might render the article as a hoax. EROS ^message 15:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete: Also could not find any sources verifying this is a notable artist. Finnishela (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete: Not a hoax - it's easy to find references and collections of his work - but I couldn't find the sort of reliable sources we could build an article with. › Mortee _talk 20:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

War Kings

War Kings (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 HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete No need for its own article. Team is not independently notable, anything important is already in the member's individual articles so nothing to merge. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Don't see any indepth independent coverage of the team. --GRuban (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - no notability established. Only WP:ROUTINE match results. Nikki♥311 09:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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 Ngong Ping 360. (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Nei Lak Shan Angle Station

Nei Lak Shan Angle Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

Airport Island Angle Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

As I understand it, these "angle stations" are just a part of the infrastructure of the Ngong Ping 360 gondola, and aren't really "stations" because passengers cannot normally board or alight. They probably fail the GNG since much of the news coverage which mentions them is about the gondola's operational issues. There is basically nothing to merge. Jc86035 (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I created the stubs here at English Wikipedia because of the Chinese Wikipedia articles: zh:彌勒山轉向站 (Nei Lak Shan Angle Station) and zh:機場島轉向站 (Airport Island Angle Station). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Another Believer: Personally, I think the Chinese Wikipedia has too many articles about Hong Kong and probably not enough articles about everything else. Almost every bus route in Hong Kong gets its own article, as do about one thousand streets and roads, even though most of their articles would be deleted on sight on the English Wikipedia for not establishing notability. Jc86035 (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect this and Airport Island Angle Station to Ngong Ping 360. I don't think there's enough notability for either angle station to have a standalone article, but they are prominent features on the cable car line and are therefore rightly described in the Ngong Ping 360 article. Redirecting will allow the keyword to be indexed and the reader brought to a page with more context about these angle stations. Deryck C. 13:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I've not really completed a notability assessment, but I agree with redirecting over deleting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Per WP:ATD and WP:R these pages should not be deleted because they could be redirected to Ngong Ping 360, the line of which these stations form part. No comment on notability at this time. James500 (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect Not notable by itself, but a list of stations would still be useful. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect as explained above. The content in the article is already present in Ngong Ping 360.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

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. Also per consensus, moved to Asmodee. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 12:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Asmodée Éditions

Asmodée Éditions (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)

Delete No indications of notability, references are all based on company announcements and fail WP:ORGIND. No references can be found that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Notability is not inherited. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep – I'm thinking that at minimum, Forbes, ICv2, and Polygon count as reliable sources, but no idea about the rest. BOZ (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Articles by Forbes contributors - versus staff - have been described on several occasions as unreliable in community discussions (as indexed here). I'll reserve judgment on the other two. Chetsford (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Quite. We happen to have an article about that contributor. David M. Ewalt. It says "deputy editor of special projects at Forbes". --GRuban (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment this is literally the worst BEFORE I've ever seen. Chet, you are out of the dog house! Newimpartial (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

More formally Keep - just click on the French link from the article, and look at the sources there. No, the French article is not really better than ours, and yes, there are many citations of the company website, but there are also many journalistic cites from independent RS in French. Clear pass of GNG and NCORP. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Yes, too many sources that are just announcements, and that doesn't help, but there are definitely existing sources there and more I can find that are non-first-party/non-primary that at least outline the basic history of the company. And while I would not want to implore a concept of upwards inherited notability, those sources coupled with the number of notable board games under their roof make having at least a landing page to summarize the basics of the company as reported from third-party sources makes sense. --Masem (t) 17:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I am french, and it's a well-known Role-playing game editor in France. More specifically, that source in Le Monde says: Funded in 1995 by a few excited people led by Marc Nunès, the company has just arrived, less than twenty years later, to the first place of tabletop games and pokemon type cards in France. This one from Le Figaro says it's the european leader of board games. Both are more than enough to make the article pass WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete The sources are a combination of broken links, press releases, incidental mentions, and blogs. A standard (Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com, JSTOR) BEFORE fails to find anything further. Chetsford (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strong keep Asmodee is perhaps the second largest board game company in the world now. Publishers of most non-traditional family board games in the world including Settlers of Catan, Pandemic, Ticket to Ride, Arkham Horror and many others. I'll see what sources I can dig up. This AfD feels like it didn't follow WP:BEFORE. Canterbury Tail talk 18:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  Comment thinking further on this I think some of the confusion may be surrounding the name. I can't find any evidence that the company goes by the name Asmodée Éditions any longer. All references I can find, including their own website, indicates they are just called Asmodee these days. This may help with locating reliable sources as no one refers to them as Asmodée Éditions including themselves. Canterbury Tail talk 00:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Asmodee is perhaps the second largest board game company in the world I find it hard to believe "Asmodee" is bigger than Hasbro, Ravensburger, etc. etc. Chetsford (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Due to Asmodee's purchase by PAI partners for about 1.2B euros, annual revenues given around 150-400 million euros. (Hasbro is $5B).This is because Asmodee has bought out a huge # of publishers over the last 10 years. --Masem (t) 17:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

So yes looks like I was wrong on the 2nd biggest. It appears (from my own original research) to be the 3rd biggest (by a hair). No one is remotely close to Hasbro, but Asmodee had a turnover of €442m last year compared to Ravensburger's €447m. Making it only fractionally smaller than Ravensburger at that point, and probably larger by now since they've acquired more this year. Canterbury Tail talk 12:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment: the French version has more sources that we can pull from (I've tried to do that already). --Masem (t) 17:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Move to Asmodee per WP:COMMONNAME. Also keep per sources and size. Hobit (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per coverage by Forbes, Reuters, Ars Technica... sheesh. --GRuban (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Keep there is coverage in hundreds of reliable, secondary sources, as a ten second Google search easily reveals. As per User:Hobit, I also support a rename of the article to simply Asmodee. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete; a merger with Hamidreza Jalaeipour may be proposed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 16:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Mohammad Reza Jalaeipour

Mohammad Reza Jalaeipour (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 for notability . He is apparently an individual foreign student in the US caught up, like so many others, in the current immigration policy . The policy here is ONEEVENT. DGG ( talk ) 08:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Hamidreza Jalaeipour, his father, who is prominent in Iran. It's clear, from the three news articles currently cited, that Mohammad Reza Jalaeipour has been arrested and detained several times by the Iranian authorities over the last 8 years, but I'm not sure that is enough information about him to warrant a standalone article. Sionk (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep It has independent coverage in reliable sources. Some references were added. The sources in Persian are much more. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

*:Delete (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 10:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)striking sock comment. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep has enough coverage in independent sources. Passes WP:GNG.

Knightrises10 (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect per User:Sionk - makes sense. Redditaddict_6_9 01:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think I'm actually going to have to go with Keep here, but a bit weakly. There are a lot of independent sources on the page that significantly cover the topic, so I'd say it passes WP:GNG. I don't think this is a case of WP:ONEEVENT either, as there is coverage of several different events concerning Jalaeipour in the sources. I will say that if the article can't be kept, I support merging some of the more important information in this article into the Hamidreza Jalaeipour article, and redirecting this there.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect per User:Sionk.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep There are enough sources about him moreover he had first 1 rank in Iranian University Entrance Exam and his article in fawiki was also kept Mardetanha (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep though the article doesn't really reflect the sources. The article is about him being a student and activist, while the sources are about him being regularly arrested from 2009 through 2017. That's continued international coverage; though presumably not for any topic he would prefer to be known for. --GRuban (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Mingo Chin

Mingo Chin (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 notability, Non-notable person, badly unreliable press releases.89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Weak KeepThe sources on the article are definitely plumped out with social media posts but a few of them are reliable sources; it's a borderline case, I'll grant, but I prefer to err on the side of keeping when it's borderline. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, perhaps speedily, as entirely promotional under WP:TNT, WP:G11, with no prejudice against immediate recreation. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I went over the sources a second time and did a quick perusal of Chinese content I could access and have changed my mind. Not even marginally notable. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete If he's the "youngest young hacker in China", you'd think we could get one English-language reference to help establish notability... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Operation Tight Screw

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Operation Tight Screw
• Articles for deletion/Operation Tight Screw (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Operation Tight Screw (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Operation Tight Screw (4th nomination)

Operation Tight Screw (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:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. The Article is "media speculation" about a supposedly military operation in 2012 that failed to get the necessary coverage it needs to pass WP:GNG other than news hit. Army denies any such operation.[58] The keep vote in the last 3 AfD were too optimistic with the news hits and focussed on WP:FUTURE and Nominator issues. But come 2018 and even after 6 years since last Afd was closed there is no coverage or content other than passing mentions to merit an article. (Afd1 was closed as No consensus and Afd2 and 3 were Non admin closures)--DBigXray 13:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: Not to be confused with Operation Zarb-e-Azb that started in 2014. DBigXray 12:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. DBigXray 13:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. DBigXray 13:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment. I found some additional references. [59] [60] [61] Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Please note Forums blogs or unconfirmed Media speculations as listed above are not counted as valid refs.--DBigXray 13:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. The article already has some good references. It would be helpful if someone could search in Urdu and the other languages of Pakistan. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• I appreciate policy based discussion. Pakistan Speaks English and Urdu, so sources If exist are not hard. There is lack of detailed coverage hence fails WP:NOTNEWS I am open to withdrawing if we can have consensus.--DBigXray 13:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete -- This has the feel of an article about a rumour. It is not helped by having a series of blank sections for successive years, which suggests that the editor creating it expected to have a series of operations to report on, but never completed it. I recommend deletion, without prejudice to re-creation if there is an article worth creating. I note the first 3 AFDs were in 2012 and 2013, when people thought something might be happening. That lack of anything being added since, strongly suggests that nothing was. Is there anything in the Urdu WP? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete and consider salting. How did this get through the first AfD discussion? Entirely speculative, not enough coverage that meets RS. NOTNEWS applies, in my view. Strikerforce^Talk 18:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Agree, with User:Strikerforce and Peterkingiron older AfDs are perhaps the lab specimen examples of why arguments based on WP:FUTURE with "current news hits of speculative reporting" as sources should be avoided like the plague at AfDs.--DBigXray 19:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• If it had been real, it would have been significant, but we could not know that at the time: it then looked real. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like a more solid consensus first before overturning the results of the earlier AfDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, with no verifiable evidence except of speculation and the military denying it ever happened. No prejudice to recreation if any verifiable information surfaces. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Article: a secretive joint military operation which the Pakistan military had claimed they were going to launch. WP:CRYSTAL: Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. WP:NOTRUMOUR: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nom — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete A bang that fizzled. To quote from the first AFD, "We should wait for now to see if the operation gets more coverage". Well, it didn't. --GRuban (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Loyola University New Orleans. Apparently the sources are not adequate to justify an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Jesuit Social Research Institute

Jesuit Social Research Institute (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)

Seems to fail WP:GNG, promo. Small institute belonging to the Loyola University New Orleans. The Banner talk 10:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a large enough institute to deserve an article separate from the University; it would be awkward on the Loyola University New Orleans page to have such a long diversion from the university article. Also, this institute receives outside support as a joint work with the Jesuit Province of which Loyola is a part. And the impact of its efforts is evidenced in Time magazine, Washington Post, New Orleans Advocate, The Times Picayune, and Seattle Journal for Social Justice, as well as the national Catholic News Service and Philanthropy News Digest. (please add). A search will also find its work included on broadcast news websites. Also, please add this independent reference to the Kellogg Foundation. Jzsj (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Jzsj, a source is only independent if it has no connection to the subject, and write freely and objectively of the subject. The Kellog foundation gave the article subject a grant. Do you understand how that is not independent? The gift of money connects their interests very clearly and makes them non-independent. Can you see this?96.127.243.251 (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Three mentions that they have issued a report, nothing substantial about the organisation. The Banner talk 13:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Frankly, this is more Jesuit spam, sourced entirely by Jesuit and Catholic organizations reporting about other Jesuits & Catholics. As someone wisely said at another AFD, what is the difference between something like the Catholic Reporter and the Plastic Bottle Rpeorter? They are both trade magazines. In the absence of independent RS, this is promotion that fails GNG and NORG.96.127.243.251 (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep See this, this, and this. I'm thinking this passes WP:CLUB. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The last two sources you mention are passing mentions. for WP:CLUB: "The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." There's no CLUB, NORG or GNG notability here, unless you can come up with something resembling in-depth sourcing in multiple reliable sources.96.127.243.251 (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Merge Daask (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC) Keep It's reports and experts are widely discussed in mainstream media like the Wall Street Journal, Center for American Progress, U.S. News and World Report, and Fortune magazine. Daask (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  But this is an article about the organization, not about its reports. The Banner talk 18:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  These links are very deceptive, as they are only passing mentions or at most a few sentences. There is no in-depth coverage in them.96.127.243.251 (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  Daask, have you read the sources? Or, have you just dropped every GHit into the AfD? ∯WBG^converse 11:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: I reviewed the articles I mentioned and thought I was clear that they discussed the center's reports and experts rather than the center itself. When there are sources with good depth of coverage, but we are unsure if they are adequately independent, I think the incidental treatment of the subject in mainstream sources is a useful indicator for notability. Those articles all seem to regard the center as respected and authoritative.

However, I appear to have misunderstood the issue based on the above discussion of the reliability of the Catholic News Service. I'm not seeing any source with significant depth of coverage, from Catholic News Service or anywhere, so I'm changing my vote. Daask (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge Fails Wikipedia:Notability. None of these sources - or the ones listed in the article, except those published by the Institute itself - are about the Institute as such. They're about other topics and mention the Jesuit Social Research Institute in a sentence or two. There's plenty of room to merge into Loyola University New Orleans when you remove all the parts that aren't about the University, and aren't written about by independent sources. For example: the director testified; the director published an article; a fellow presented a paper; all that isn't about the university. Every university has professors that publish articles and present papers, that's what professors do, for most professorial positions it's a job requirement. It would be more unusual to have universities that don't publish articles and present papers. --GRuban (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete or merge to Loyola University New Orleans per Gruban.∯WBG^converse 11:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Merge, which is wat we usuaually do with university institutes of this sort. Very few are appropriate for separate articles. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Saurabh Kumar Sharma

Saurabh Kumar Sharma (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 politician, lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are single line mentions or quotes. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. reddogsix (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Weak delete. I'm seeing one somewhat substantive piece here, but the rest of the sources are all one-line mentions. Furthermore, most of those mentions, and a fair bit of the piece I linked, is related to his election to a post which is not inherently notable; as such I think WP:BLP1E applies here. Also, of the students involved in the JNU sedition row, we have articles on two (Kanhaiya Kumar and Shehla Rashid Shora), and an article about a third (Umar Khalid) was deleted following this discussion. A google news search shows that Sharma has several orders of magnitude less news coverage than Khalid, whose article was deleted. Given that both have claims to notability largely stemming from the same incident, I'd suggest this is precedence for deletion. Vanamonde (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Remove Weak delete tag - Substantive pieces are listed here, here, here, here and [62]. A Google news search shows that Sharma has 1370 results mentions which is good enough for a student leader who is still under age of 30. His election to a post which was highly covered by national media and his action on that post started an international debate, his hunger strike for a higher scholarship for students helped many across India, his leadership against sexual harassment in university makes him worthy of a Wikipedia page. Also, his action started JNU sedition row, and we have articles on two opposing student leaders (Kanhaiya Kumar and Shehla Rashid Shora), which makes it necessary to show information about Sharma to keep Wikipedia neutral of political bias. Comparing him with (Umar Khalid) is unjustified. Kr.saurabh10 (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Kr.saurabh10 Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions there is no comparison among these people and their level of WP:SIGCOV--DBigXrayᗙ 19:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: Considering how popular the name Saurabh Kumar is, in India, I am frankly unimpressed that it only threw 1k google hits. This claim of google hit is useless anyway. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Delete per Vanamonde. The 2016-03-19 piece in the Times of India is the only substantial coverage; the non-English refs provided by Kr.saurabh10 are fairly trivial as well. Student politics are generally not covered in great detail on Wikipedia, simply being a student leader is never inherently notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable student activist lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying either WP:BIO or WP:NPOL. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete I looked at the sources, and realized I was about to write exactly what Power~enwiki and Vanamonde wrote; only one of the sources is really about him, and even it isn't very long, the rest are two sentence mentions. --GRuban (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NBIO due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Failed WP:NPOLITICIAN by miles. Agree with the other editors above. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Vietnam War. If that article becomes too lop-sided, we can look at a spinoff article at that point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Vietnam War myths

Vietnam War myths (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 an essay. Currently it uses just one source, and I believe improving this article is impossible without making a WP:SYNTH combination of all instances that mention misconceptions or out-dated views about the Vietnam War. If some of the myth books are notable themselves, would be better to create an article about a such and present the views there. Pudeo (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Merge to Vietnam War. This seems more appropriate as a single reliable source on the main article than a separate article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Merge with article on Vietnam War. The article on Vietnam War Myths is a comparatively brief article, and a merge should not prove too difficult. Vorbee (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Merge with Vietnam War, I agree there is not enough here to warrant an independent article. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 18:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Do we really need another beachfront for unsourced conspiracy theories about a war? This is a book blurb-turned-article based on one source, and we don't need that here. Nate • (chatter) 23:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Rename and expand to Historiography of the Vietnam War; the article is lousy but not un-salvageable. Adding this content to Vietnam War will not improve that article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Rename and expand to Historiography of the Vietnam War--a notable and interesting topic that it is quite possible to write a long article on. Catrìona (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete This appears to be a summary of a single journal article, so is not useful. More broadly, we try to avoid writing articles from the perspective of myth busting: it is much better to write them by stating what happened, and covering differing accounts of events where relevant. As such, the content in this article is not suitable to be merged anywhere. Nick-D (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Cannot imagine a NPOV article under this rubric. Agree with Nick-D that it is best to avoid writing articles from the perspective of myth busting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Move to historiography or keep. Cheers to the nominator for pinging me. A review article is serious evidence of notability for a term in historiography. With respect to Nick, "Review Articles," being field summaries, are scholarly tertiaries which indicate that a topic isn't just written about across a coatrack of secondaries, but has a genuine topical existence. On top of that there's a contemporary and modern monograph on direct topic in bibliography, and a trivial scholar search produces three unnoted monographs and three scholarly articles. The question for me is up scale the topic to historiography, or keep the "myth" question separate from the general historiography. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  There is a big difference between historiography and myth-busting. I fear that the latter would become a magnet for WP:FRINGE. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

  since 2011 there seem a to have only been one FRINGE/ESSAY edit. The topic may be best served as a subsection of a historiography article though. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Move to Historiography of the Vietnam War & keep: A valid topic and this would be a good start. Sources are suitable for the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Move to historiography and keep or just keep. As Fifeloo and others point out, this is a notable topic. It might be better to move to the broader topic of historiography and spin out as necessary. James500 (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Rename and repurpose as others have suggested. At present it is a very inadequate article, but not beyond rescue. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• Move to Historiography of the Vietnam War as per power~enwiki Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Primarily a dispute over whether to merge or rename and keep as a legitimate contentfork
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Merge – Create section Vietnam War#Myths and transfer the most famous/recognized content there. Valuable info but not enough to be its own article. Redditaddict69 20:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

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. Strong consensus that wp:PROF is satisfied as per sourcing and pre-eminent position. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Jessica Polka

Jessica Polka (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)

Reads like a CV, and I can't see that it passes WP:NACADEMIC. Specifically, the "Fellowships and honors" listed don't look like "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". Bishonen | talk 08:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment It does read a bit like a CV, but that's fixable and not relevant to this discussion. I think its worth mentioning that there has already been a discussion on the article's talk page regarding "self promotion". Quite a few relevant points are put forward by GerardM, Opto kitty and Dario. ThisIsAnAdvert also puts forward their view. Victuallers (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep "Polka is quoted in articles in Nature and Science". I think that the readers of these top division journal's would assume that the journal quotes notable scientists - I do. Victuallers (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Request to remove on 15 August failed and deletion is not going to happen, because Polka has a respectable position as executive director of ASAPbio and got fellowships as well. She has even her own category @Commons, Greetings and salutations from Amsterdam by Klaas `Z4␟` V 11:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding WP:NACADEMIC

Number 2 - Dr Polka has won the ASCB Americal Society for Cell Biology (a UK premier institution in her discipline) award for her graduate work. Dr Polka is one of 20 fellows who ahve won the Jane Coffin Childs Memorial Fund for Medical Research WP:Jane_Coffin_Childs_Memorial_Fund_for_Medical_Research.

Number 7 - Dr Polka has achieved a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity, in improving research culture. This has received national and international attention in major scientific press (5 authored articles in Nature and science). She was an invited & initial founder ASAPBio effort. I further note that Dr Polka has 6,000 twitter followers which is a quantified metric, in support of the view that she is reaching beyond an academic bubble and influencing the wider community . Dr Polka is also invited to sit on panels and other major discussion forums to further understanding of the issues affecting the progression of early career researchers (these are referenced in her article).

These are cited clearly in the Wikipedia page which notes here past and present achievements. This article should be kept for the benefit of wikipedia readers.

In addition to these referenced comments, the editors of Wikipedia should re-consider NP academic and how single editors can trigger a deletion request based upon limited interpretation of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. BenBritton (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:PROF on account of being a go-to expert for her area, multiple times by reliable publications. I don't think "number of Twitter followers" is a number we should consider one way or the other (people get followed by spambots for no fault of their own, etc.), but notability is adequately established on other grounds. In addition, ASAPbio has been adequately covered, and that counts in her favor. XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Polka is widely acknowledged as one of the leaders in the preprint revolution that's changing how scholarly communication functions. I edited the article to further clarify the role she had in this space and on the impact of this initiative. Because of this initiative, she's been featured on mainstream and specialized press, including the New York Times, Wired and Nature. If she doesn't pass BLP notability as a scientist and scholarly communication expert, I frankly don't know who else does.--DarTar (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep as per above arguments Duncan.Hull (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep: prizes, and key role in science publishing culture. PamD 09:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep: I agree with the keep rationales posted by others above. The article probably needs some cleanup, but it should not be deleted. --Krelnik (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - the subject is notable as noted in the discussion above, and the article isn't so bad it needs a complete re-write. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Jessica Jane pile

Jessica Jane pile (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:NAUTHOR and GNG. Nothing found in a before search. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete - not finding any WP:RS coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete sources on page are PRIMARY; neither author not book are coming up in my searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as above, no independent sources, also Wikipedia:Geogre's Law. --GRuban (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

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 by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Reason: WP:A3, WP:G6, WP:G1. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Sad ass

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

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

This is, technically speaking, an article. Is this smth we need here in the main space? Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy keep under SK1, since "do we need this" is not an argument for deletion (also, I'm pretty sure interwiki redirects are redirects, not articles, so they have their own criteria, and in any case, Redirects are cheap. If it looks like it might be useful, it's probably better to give it the benefit of doubt) — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  SK1 does not apply. If we are never going to have this article on Wikipedia (and I do not see the notability of the term) it should be deleted. This is not a redirect.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Plus tagged with WP:G1 and WP:G6. This article purely exist to redirect users to Wikitionary. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted. as having no content. There was no need to bring it to this forum. ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

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:SK#1. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Ferrari GG50

Ferrari GG50 (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 poorly structured and is useless when the article on the Ferrari 612 provides a detailed description about the one-off concept car. U1Quattro (talk) 06:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but why does this need to go to AFD? It seems like what you want is a redirect and merge. Toasted Meter (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Nate Morris (basketball)

Nate Morris (basketball) (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 NHOOPS. Coverage around basketball is all ROUTINE and thus doesn't contribute to GNG. Most signficant coverage comes for arrest but that should not grant a person notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep As creator of article, the subject received significant non-routine coverage in high school (by Rivals, NBC Sports, etc.) and was also featured in an article by The Dallas Morning News about the JBA. News about the arrest adds to notability. Runningibis (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep I disagree with the nominator's premise that the most notable thing he did was get arrested. There are sources about his high school and JBA career for instance, including the Dallas Morning News article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Editorofthewiki: I didn't suggest that his notability was for the arrest. I suggested that the most significant coverage was for the arrest, which (admittedly) does have WP:CRIME implications. But I assume the page was created because of Morris' basketball playing. As noted he fails WP:NHOOPS and also WP:ANYBIO so this is a GNG claim. The Dallas Morning News article is really about the JBA of which Morris is one of two players given coverage. His high school coverage is all routine for a D1 recruit. There is not evidence of sourcing to support GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment I disagree that his high school coverage is routine for a D1 recruit. Articles like those by NBC Sports and Rivals, which are solely about Morris, are not published for every high school player with D1 offers. Runningibis (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. The Dallas Morning News article was primarily on the JBA, and used Morris and fellow basketballer Wek as examples of players helped by the JBA. While this is a cut above a trivial mention, it is not as though this article could be said to be about Morris. I'm unclear on how the coverage in Rivals is non-routine, since they seem to have similar pages on anyone who is a prospect. The NBC Sports College Basketball Talk page [63] is the most outside non-routine coverage I can see, but even then I don't know that it suffices for WP:GNG. Gilded Snail (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Although Rivals has profile pages for every high school recruit, their articles (like the one cited) would be considered non-routine coverage. Runningibis (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
    • It would be helpful to provide links here to the pages you are referring to. When I looked up Morris on Rivals I got this, which is utterly routine. But I think you are referring to this, which is not great but at least an argument can be made that it is not routine (although I am not convinced). Rlendog (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
      • I am talking about the second link you provided. Runningibis (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete neither the college basketball+arrest coverage, nor the JBA coverage, is enough for me. There's certainly many sources, but the college coverage is local and WP:MILL, and the pro coverage is trivial. Possibly WP:TOOSOON; if he continues a professional career he's likely to meet notability guidelines in the future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete He doesn't meet any SNG and I think the coverage is too routine to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't consider the articles on his dismissal from Ole Miss and arrests and the Rivals profile to be routine, but perhaps that's just me. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Athletes being arrested and/or dismissed from their college team is a very common occurrence these days. It seems like you're now claiming that's what makes him notable, given that he doesn't meet the notability criteria for basketball players. Papaursa (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Insufficient indepth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and he doesn't seem to meet WP:NBASKETBALL --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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. Vanamonde (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Vishnu Puran (TV series)

Vishnu Puran (TV series) (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 sources establishing notability and most of the article is just a recap of individual episodes. Should be relegated to a mention on the disumbgation page for the topic Zubin12 (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral, but... I highly doubt this doesn't meet GNG. The Times of India says Bharadwaj is still known for his portrayal of Vishnu in this and its (admittedly somewhat better-known sister series) Mahabharat almost two decades on.[64] As apparently do Bollywood Life and The Indian Express: if a notable actor is notable primarily for playing a particular role in a particular franchise, then surely that franchise is if anything more notable, no? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Weak delete I stand by my assertion that this topic is probably notable, but it seems our biggest guns haven't been able to solve its problems or even make even piecemeal changes without inserting unsourced content or misreading sources. I would be open to a redirect to B. R. Chopra or Mahabharat (1988 TV series) or some other such potential target pending someone with better access to sources putting together a decent article. I suspect eleven years ago I could have put together something better than what I did, but not now, and it doesn't seem anyone can, at least in the short run. I would prefer this discussion not be relisted again or closed as "no consensus" just because only three people have !voted, which is really the main reason I'm changing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete A bunch of recaps of this series, but they can't even tell us what network it was on. Definite WP:TNT case. Nate • (chatter) 23:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - There are many sources for the popular series and I've added a couple for now. Hijiri88 also showed its notability. StrayBolt (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@StrayBolt: The reason I didn't !vote "keep" specifically was because arguing that having starred Bharadwaj, who is famous for the much earlier Mahabharat (from which this was essentially a spinoff, although this claim might be OR), makes it notable is essentially a NOTINHERITED argument. Your Tribune India citation similarly is more a puff-piece about Bharadwaj's history of playing various avatars of Vishnu and just happened to coincide with the premier of this series, but says almost nothing encyclopedic about the series other than its premier date; some of the information you attribute to it, such as "124 episodes" is not supported by it, and wouldn't be even if the source actually did say as much, since it would be too old. The India Today piece similarly is more about Bharadwaj than Vishnu Puran, and doesn't actually support the content you cited to it, as it says four other shows (Jai Mata Ki, Jai Ganga Maiya, Ma Shakti and Shree Ganesh) were "Top 10" in one manner or another, although apparently for the first two this meant top ten a particular network, which is not very noteworthy encyclopedic information without more context -- it actually seems to imply Vishnu Puran was not a top ten show as it goes out of its way to list "mythologicals" that made the top ten and doesn't mention Vishnu Puran among these. It somewhat seems you read my above comment, Googled up more sources about Bharadwaj and threw them into the article, which implies you wanted to !vote one way despite the fact that your argument had already been demonstrated as flawed before you made it: your !voting record and your association (per this, you are one of three active contributors) with a certain disreputable "keepist" WikiProject (itself having a reputation for claiming to improve articles while instead shifting AFD !votes from "delete" to "no consensus") appear to support this. The reason I am not !voting "delete" is just because I don't have access to the main source I used at the time I originally wrote the article, which I believe was a promotional piece on the Mahabharat DVD box set, and can't check if it was itself usable for creating a worthwhile article (even though it definitely wasn't independent and so wouldn't satisfy any notability guideline) -- I definitely don't remember what it said after more than ten years -- but I would be willing to !vote "delete" simply to counteract any apparent "keep" !votes that appear to have been made in bad faith. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 10:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - Major television series (over 100 episodes) on major television network Zee TV which has a higher viewership than ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX combined. Most certainly Hindi language coverage exists. Even a 20 episode show on ABC would never even be considered for deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Commment Perspective is needed however; India around 2000 had a population of 1.028 billion, while the US had 281.5 million, which is a 4-1 difference, so of course anything Indian is going to top American ratings based on a wider audience. However, it's very doubtful all of the episodes beat the American broadcast networks; Zee TV is still a cable/satellite channel, and not all of those 1.028 billion Indians can afford satellite service. If DD National aired this, I might more believe the claim. I'm still convinced the article needs a major repair that needs more than uninspiring loglines and is undecodable to anyone who hasn't seen this series or read the Vishnu Purana. Nate • (chatter) 05:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Interesting blind speculation on Zee TV's ratings based on it being a cable/satellite channel but reliable sources say the Zee Network is in fact the most watched network in India with a viewership of over 740 million.[65][66], compared to just over 25.6 million for CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox combined with ABC at only about 5.6 million.[67] Shows on Zee TV are major.--Oakshade (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

So, are you going to fix the article, based on your OR claim that it must have had high viewership (and therefore been covered in reliable secondary sources!?) because the network that aired it in its first run has high viewership? (BTW, almost nothing on Zee has high numbers in first-run international syndication, which kinda shoots your argument that it has been seen by more people than ABC shows in the foot; I didn't point this out earlier because it's completely irrelevant to AFD, but now that you've made the same argument multiple times I might as well point this out.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

No OR as the reliable sources linked state the networks viewerships. First run syndication is just a red herring as even if there was no syndication, the gigantic viewership of Zee TV of over 740 million of Zee TV stands. I don't believe for a second that extensive coverage in the Hindi language doesn't exist for a show on such a highly viewed Hindi languagne network. Just using common sense instead of being pedantic. --Oakshade (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

It is OR to state that because of the network viewership statistics this particular show (which aired well over a decade before those sources) had such-and-such viewership. Do not even attempt to add this claim to the article. If you have nothing we can add to this article, then it should be deleted or redirected. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is Zee's Annual Report for 1999-2000. Sorry, it might be biased, but probably meets some legal standard for accuracy. StrayBolt (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Not enough for me; I usually need a third-party source to confirm whether a rating is true or not, along with viewership. The Oscars struggle to get their bloated 'million people around the world watch' claim completely confirmed (since it's 2am in Europe and people are in school in Asia, or they're watching an edited version a week after). I can believe that 740 million people may have watched this series in aggregate, but they definitely didn't all watch every single minute of it. Nate • (chatter) 14:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Oakshade: WP:OSE: It would be great if we didn't have articles on random 20-episode shows about which no sourced, encyclopedic information can be written solely because they aired on ABC, but it's not this show's fault that English Wikipedia is filled with articles on shitty American pop culture that are undeletable. Our deletion policy and notability guidelines are based on whether we can actually write anything worthwhile without engaging in original research or unsourced speculation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Wait-Running a source-search but it will take time.∯WBG^converse 06:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 02:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete and mention in the disambiguation page--I can find ample trivial mentions of the work, in English news-pieces about the protagonist and the producer and some trivial mentions in list of serials/films centered around mythology but there's not a single retrievable piece that devotes significant coverage to the serial, in it's entirety.I will check the Hindi dailies of that time but am not much hopeful.∯WBG^converse 16:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The serial has been covered in Sunday-entertainment-sections of a few Hindi dailies but nothing close to GNG.∯WBG^converse 12:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Keep as passes WP:TVSERIES as nationally broadcast and has sufficient coverage to pass that criteria especially as it is 18 years old now so some sources have gone from view Atlantic306 (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

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 under A7. ... discospinster _talk 13:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Little Yay

Little Yay (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)

Repeated recreations by author after CSDs. Only source is Instagram (not a reliable source). Awards aren't sourced and cannot verify (after Googling with a wide variety of search terms) that any of these awards even exist, much less that they have been awarded to Little Yay for the works mentioned. Hell, googling for "Little Yay" (with quotes) only returns a few social media links for "Little Yay Design", which is a greeting card company. Looking at some of the post comments, I see a massive hashtag dump of stuff like "#followforlikes", "#followtrain" and such. Waggie (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Little Yay only makes use of Instagram to promote his morality and message to the world and does not utilize most of other social media platforms or websites, which is why his Instagram page is the most reliable source. I am the manager of Little Yay, and both he and I can approve that as well as confirming to what is accurate and inaccurate.

Prestonhung (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2018 (HKT)

Wikipedia doesn't consider what a subject has to say about themselves to be reliable, especially when they are clearly praising themselves. We don't allow self-promotion on Wikipedia, and we require multiple third-party reliable sources to support all content. Waggie (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete and salt WP:COI and WP:PROMO issues, repeated recreation after admin intervention, not to mention that the article creator blanked the AfD nominator's user page. Bakazaka (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I was going to ignore the userpage blanking thing as a simple WP:CIR issue. Waggie (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete and salt. A7 and G11 are still valid, and the article should not be recreated until notability criteria are met. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete and salt There are many problems with this, as described above, but the lack of general notability is the most fundamental to this AfD nomination. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The Trenton Pickle Ordinance and Other Bonehead Legislation

The Trenton Pickle Ordinance and Other Bonehead Legislation (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 book has no discernible claim of notability and no sources other than the book itself. A Google search turned up nothing useful to add to the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Added some sources; let me know what you think. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Satisfies GNG. Satisfies NBOOK with multiple book reviews. The fact the book has gone through multiple editions is relevant to TBK. The article has been expanded since nomination and could be expanded further still. James500 (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • James500, I had seen the same reviews, but they all seem to be passing mentions, not the in-depth coverage specified by WP:NBOOK. Which sources / reviews do you believe satisfy notability? Alansohn (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    • The reviews are significant coverage. I am sure you can see them, but try, in particular, the book reviews in "N.D. Journal of Legislation" and "Teaching elementary language arts: a literature approach" and "Church and Synagogue Libraries". There is also coverage in "American Flint" and "CPA Journal", in particular, and a considerable degree of anthologisation. None of this could be described as a passing mention. Incidentally, the actual wording of the guidelines is "non-trivial treatment" not "in depth" and it is not a licence to demand unreasonably large amounts of coverage. By long standing consensus which has always been followed at AfD the correct approach to criteria 1 of NBOOK is that two book reviews of normal length will suffice. (Indeed the guideline says "This includes book reviews"). I count at least three book reviews of normal length, so this AfD is over. James500 (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Richard Hyman (aka Dick Hyman) (b 1904 or 1907) also published other reviewed books and publications (such as "Looney Laws" (1946 or 1947) partly compiled from his "It's the Law" column in American Magazine), is included in biographical dictionaries (such as Contemporary Authors), and appears to be notable. James500 (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
      • My motives in making this article: firstly, I remember the book being somewhat recognizable among people I used to know in the '90s and early 00's. I was given one of the later editions of the book as a birthday gift one year. Last week I picked up the book and I suddenly began to get the creeping suspicion that this book of 600 nonsensical laws might not be as credible as I and those around me back in the Clinton years once thought it was. The idea for the book seems to be based on the author's incredulity about a strange law he encountered forty years prior to publishing. My guess is, after that incident, the author just wrote down whatever random strange laws people told him existed-- meaning: no fact checking. In the book, the author says he has a file of 2000 laws, but that he picked the best 600. Originally I was hoping to find a snopes-type article that would shoot down this book, but I didn't find it. -- I was hoping that by creating this wikipedia article, someone would eventually add sources to articles that will have done the homework to confirm or deny both the popularity of the book and the factuality of the statements in the book. -- If there is anything I can do to keep the article going, let me know. If it really isn't worth it, I will not be offended if it needs to be deleted.Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
      • It doesn't need to be deleted: The book is plainly notable. (For that matter, so is the author). From what I can gather Hyman published many books and magazine articles on this subject over a long period of time. His books have been reviewed by university law reviews (amongst others) and stocked by university law libraries such as NYU eg [68]. I haven't found any indication that Hyman's book is not trustworthy yet, and I suggest that speculation about fact checking is not helpful, particularly as it has no relevance to notability, since the coverage (eg in university law reviews) is obviously reliable. What might help is to add to the article those book reviews and similar coverage not already included. Hyman's books on this subject are obviously very popular because of the large number of editions and sequels published. You would not publish a new edition of or sequel to a book unless the previous ones had sold well. James500 (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. There are heaps of full reviews available on Newspapers.com (a lot of duplications, but lots of different reviews too). Some examples: [69], [70], [71], [72]. This covers WP:BOOKCRIT#1. › Mortee _talk 20:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I see some coverage in books[73] though it is not that easy to determine if coverage is significant or just passing mention. Sdmarathe (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 10:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I can't access the newspapers.com references. Of the others, the Inkslingler blog is not reliable, and the other mentions are trivial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know where else they might be available, but the four I linked to are 1) a four-column article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2) a two-column article in the Anderson Herald, 3) a three-column article in the Journal and Courier (Lafayette, Indiana), 4) a three-column article in The Morning Call (Allentown, Pennsylvania) › Mortee _talk 11:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The others are book reviews and they are not remotely trivial. Criteria 1 of NBOOK is completely clear about this. James500 (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

No, they're not. Ref 1 (HeinOnline) is about a different book entirely (The American Legislative Process, by Keefe and Ogul), perhaps the reference is wrong. The link matches the page number and volume in the ref. Ref 2 (CPA Journal) mentions the title only in a footnote, as one of several books by this author on this subject. Refs 3-6 are the newspapers.com refs. Ref 7 is the book itself, clearly not an independent source. Ref 8 is a list of interesting books at the University of Wisconsin's library (by that library), the coverage of the book You can also find books that take a look at the lighter side of the law, such as Legally Correct Fairy Tales and The Trenton Pickle Ordinance and Other Bonehead Legislation. These works are located on the third floor in the call number range KF/184..., as well as, on the second floor at call numbers PN/6231/L4.... is clearly trivial. Ref 9 is a Wordpress blog that simply quotes from the book. Ref 10 is some quotes in an interview on TheDailyBell, a site that focuses its news on deprogramming the lies from the corrupt state and complicit mainstream media. None of these references are sufficient to meet GNG, and none are book reviews. You are simply wrong and I would like you to retract that statement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, we have completely misunderstood each other. I thought you were talking about the book reviews in GBooks, not the references in the article. James500 (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: meets WP:NBOOK, per recent article improvements. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

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 08:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Larissa Wolcott

Larissa Wolcott (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. Two dozen credits for voiceover work but no articles that I can find. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete no indepth coverage. --GRuban (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--1l2l3k (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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. No one advocating keeping this. Deor (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Jaroslava Siktancova

Jaroslava Siktancova (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. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete no indication of notability, and I couldn't find reliable sources about her. › Mortee _talk 20:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet the notability requirments for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - her one named role is essentially the classic Redshirt (character), a character in SF only known for being saved then for being killed. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment This one is actually tougher. She hasn't gotten much coverage as an actor, but she has gotten some as a director and theater founder; unfortunately it's mostly in Czech, which I'm not great at, and the Google translate is naturally imperfect. [74] [75] [76] [77] If someone can cover the Czech, we might be able to save this one. --GRuban (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Have you notified any relevant WikiProject or editors yet? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Of the four references suggested by GRuban the first two appear blog-like entries, the second has her in passing mention, and the third is a note from a radio show she called in to for an interview. Ifnord (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

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 08:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Poonam Dubey

Poonam Dubey (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. Trivial unreliable tabloid-style coverage, created by account with pattern of copyvio, and in all likelihood improperly moved from draftspace to mainspace. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep A Bhojpuri cinema actress with coverage that passes WP:GNG due to these source. [78] [79] [80], Popular for her Item numbers[81], worked in at least 13 films. The majority target audience of Bhojpuri dont read English news, per Language WP:BIAS, the fact that there exists a few sources with detailed coverage, passes the notability test. --DBigXray 09:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I have now added 3 of these refs in the article.--DBigXray 10:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't provide failing GNG as a deletion rationale, but even so I don't think the provided sources pass GNG, much less the higher standard of NACTOR. I did look at the translated Hindi page (and will again since my laptop isn't translating it) but the other sources are a trivial mention in an awards post (that doesn't inherently provide notability), and a routine casting announcement. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per DBigXray and The Times of India does refer to her as well-known Bhojpuri actress.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Times of India referring to her as a "well-known actress" doesn't automatically guarantee notability. It's a trivial mention. The only way she even nears WP:NACTOR is if we decide that the interview cited above is reliable (and since we're discouraged from using interviews to establish BLP notability, I'm hinging towards no) under WP:NACTOR #2 (large fan base) or #3 "prolific contributions". The list of films is included at the end of an article that's not even about her, so I don't see it as being verifiable, not to mention the films are likely not notable. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 05:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

How does "Well Known" equate to "Trivial mention" ? Aren't they on the opposite sides of the notability ? Zee News and times of India are national WP:MAINSTREAM news outlets in India and not tabloids. WP:SIGCOV criteria is met here. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I was not clear .The subject does pass WP:NACTOR #2 and even maybe #1 and agree that WP:SIGCOV is meet by coverage by Zee News and times of India even without coverage from Bhojpuri newspapers.She is described by The Times of India as Bhojpuri cinema's superstar Poonam Dubey and has huge fan following and this states Bhojpuri siren Poonam Dubey celebrates 10 million views of Chana Jor Garam .Please note Bhojpuri is not Hindi and Bhojpuri Cinema is much smaller compared to Hindi cinema.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

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 Article speedily deleted under criterion G5. Contrary to what was said below, the creator of the article certainly had at least one account blocked, and probably more, before the creation of the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Crystal Newman

Crystal Newman (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:BIO. 33 edits by a Sock. 3 edits by Wikipedia editors and 12 edits by 7 SPA editors. Article was G5'd. Completely non notable. scope_creep (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

G5. Criteria for speedy deletion shows that an article doesnt apply for G5 speedy deletion if it was created before the ban/block or after the ban was lifted or user unblocked. The article was created June 26 2018 and the created Tabuhart was blocked on July 30 2018. Article doesn't fall under this criterion. Consider it please. 41.210.146.141 (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Could you explain why this article would fail WP:BIO? The sources are all outside, seem reliable, and most of them are focused on Newman herself (non-trivial). Gilded Snail (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Gilded Snail, More than 2 thirds of revisions have been created by a sock who has been indeffed, with the article up at WP:COI at the moment. Of the remaining revisions, 2 are by Wikipedia account holders on good faith, including another one when I tried to G5 it. The other 12 edits are with 8 separate SPA editors creating revisions, including removing the G5 tag, and minor edits, who are undoubtedly WP:PAID . All in all, it is complete hash of revision history, excluding the two good faith editors with one linking text, another placing/removing a tag. Personally, if the lady is notable, I think the article should be better deleted and recreated with a clean revision history. I don't think she is. I suspect she is just radio personality, is getting some coverage due to secondary notability. But if she is, I don't mind recreating it. And it will be as clean as a whistle. scope_creep (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject is notable, has served for 18 years on radio and TV in Uganda (Oldest private owned radios are around 25 years old), and passes WP:BIO. The article is well sourced with reliable sources directly about Crystal.YaraBo (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep: counter systemic bias. Anyone from the first world with these credentials would be 100% notable. Max Semenik (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Bandwidth (signal processing). Clear consensus to redirect/merge somewhere, but less clear on where. I'm going with the one mentioned more often, but feel free to hash out the exact target on the talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Essential bandwidth

Essential bandwidth (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 "definition" article was just de-orphaned, which is how it came to my attention. It is a one-line poor and imprecise definition of a little-used concept, not really worthy of an article even if we want to mention the concept in another article. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to Spectral_density#Energy_spectral_density, and drop the definition in there (I hesitate to call this a 'merge'). It's a simple concept without much to say about it (AFAIK) and should be well served with a short mention within the larger topic. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with merge and redirect but I think Bandwidth (signal processing) would be a better target, at least if we are just having this simple definition. Merging to spectral density I feel would require the addition of some of the underlying mathematics. I can't agree with Dicklyon that this is "little used"; gbooks comes up with numerous textbooks that seem to think this is an important concept, [82][83][84][85] SpinningSpark 15:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. I too found GBooks and Gscholar references numerous enough to convince me this is a term worth mentioning somewhere in our articles. I tend to agree this is a definition of bandwidth dependent on energy, rather than about energy itself, hence Bandwidth (signal processing) may be the referred target. I think this is probably a culture thing. Those who come from an electronics/filtering background naturally concentrate on signal envelope, so characterizing the bandwidth by the cutoff frequency makes the most sense. Others who look at signals as stochastic processes think a probabilistic confidence interval and essential bandwidth are the natural measures. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

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. Since this has now been relisted twice it really ought to be closed, but I'm closing it as "no consensus" rather than "keep". Multiple users have suggested that this article be kept, but few policy-based reasons or sources have been advanced. Without such reasons, there is no policy-based consensus to close this as "keep". Yunshui ^雲_水 10:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Priscilla Kelly

Priscilla Kelly (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. One time appearance on a reality TV show and nothing but WP:ROUTINE coverage of professional wrestling career. Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 11:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 11:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 11:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 11:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Kelly has been a popular up and coming women's star on the independent wrestling scene, she will be involved with the WWE's Mae Young Classic.--HC7 (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Anything that supports notability guidelines? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I would say instead of Keep or Delete, Wait. The MYC is near, so maybe in a few weeks, is hired or something, I don't know. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Keep the amount of sources here that are not cagematch are few. That being said, they do exist. - Scarpy (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Scarpy: But what about when the remaining ones are not WP:RS, as per WP:PW/RS. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. What about them? - Scarpy (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Scarpy: You are saying there are other sources, but if the other sources are not WP:RS why would that mean keep? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

That actually pushes me more towards a Keep. I didn't think cagematch would be considered a reliable source, but looks like it is. - Scarpy (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Scarpy: Cagematch is an online database with no criteria for inclusion. While it can be used to source info, it doesn't help establish notability. Nikki♥311 20:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - or draft-ify. WP:TOOSOON. Nikki♥311 20:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last time round.....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: Agree with reasons of User:HC7. ⭐ Ahmer Jamil Khan ^💬 13:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep: Needs a little bit of work like the majority of the articles on here, just give it a BLP sources tag and the chance for someone to add to it. Duffs101 (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
• Article does need some more work on it, I've planned too but I keep on forgetting too. --HC7 (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The Strongest K-Pop Survival

The Strongest K-Pop Survival (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:NSERIES and WP:GNG. There might be Korean sources available which can prove that it meets WP:NSERIES and WP:GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - does not appear to meet GNG. - Scarpy (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• delete - doesn't meet guidelines per above. Only 14 episodes isn't enough, plus no recognition in multiple national sources it appears. Redditaddict69 20:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per above. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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 by admin RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Reason: WP:A1, WP:A3, WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

QuickStudy

QuickStudy (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 page may not be notable. It looks like a thinly veiled link to BarCharts.com.

The second entry seem to be a dictionary definition. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment There is a discussion of this article here:

“ ENotes has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt the subject might not be notable enough for an article. Please review WP:WEB for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the prod notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. NickelShoe 18:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hello, Metrofeed. You left the following message on my talk page:

After reading the guidelines more carefully, I see the purpose in deletion, although it may be possible to improve the article, I do not have enough information to do so at this time. My purpose was to improve upon the article "Study Guides" which references various similar sites which do have Wikipedia citations. Should those also be deleted? I feel I am too new to delete them myself but perhaps you can take a look and see if deletion for QuickStudy and/or Bookrags is appropriate? I will remove the internal link on that article to ENotes now.

Thank you for your message. As per your request, let's take a look at the other articles linked to from Study Guides, i.e. Cliffs Notes, SparkNotes, BookRags and QuickStudy.

It is apparent from the articles themselves that Cliffs Notes (for the printed books) and SparkNotes (for the traffic) are notable, so we'll leave them alone for now. As for the others, a quick way to get a feel for the notability of a website is to look up their mentions on Google News (BookRags:1, QuickStudy:0, ENotes:8). Another is to check their Alexa traffic ranking (lower is better: BookRags:14'171, QuickStudy:327'042, ENotes:18,232; for comparison purposes: SparkNotes:2,665; Cliffs Notes:25,978, Wikipedia:22).

This indicates to me that BookRags and ENotes might well be notable, but need more sources to prove it (as required by WP:WEB), but that QuickStudy is very probably non-notable. Accordingly, I've proposed QuickStudy for deletion and put up a "notability wanted" notice on BookRags and ENotes, to give editors time to assemble those sources.

A final note: Please sign your messages on talk pages by appending four tildes (~~~~). Best regards, and have fun to continue editing Wikipedia. Sandstein 07:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

”

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The article does not have any references and the only external link is to barcharts.com. Vorbee (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

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 for The Right Way, Delete for the other two films nominated here. Vanamonde (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The Right Way (2004 film)

The Right Way (2004 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)

Film doesn't seem to meet WP:NFILM notability.

Also nominating:

• Le beau risque

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

• Calla Lily (film)

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

AFD for film maker:

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

AFD of his films:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan (film)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life (2007 film)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Right Way (2004 film)

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep The Right Way (2004 film) reviews ran in the National Post and the Globe and Mail, and was the first role of Keir Gilchrist's career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• DeleteLe beau risque and Calla Lily (film), both fail WP:NFILM.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep The Right Way as per the reliable sources reviews mentioned above. Have no view on the other films, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Note to closing editor, both Le beau risque and Calla Lily (film) could have been PROD or SPEEDY since neither has any sources beyond IMDB and auteur's website; does feature an appearance as "The Big Man" by pro wrestler Franky The Mobster, according to IMDB.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep The Right Way, per the 2 reviews (I fixed a link to one of them on the page). Delete the other two for lack of coverage. Much as E.M.Gregory wrote, actually. --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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. Sandstein 08:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Kutak Rock

Kutak Rock (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)

Large but non-notable law firm. It has some notable people who were once part of the firm, but that does not in itself make the firm notable. Founder Robert Kutak is on the edge of notability, and if this were an article on him, rather than the firm, I don't think I'd have AFDed it; but there's actually little of him in the article; it;s mostly a law firm advertisement. TJRC (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per my long-standing standards for notable law firms. It has over 500 attorneys and at least an equal number of staff. Kutak, the founding name partner, should have his own article as he was a national leader in the ABA, and one lawyer became a justice in her state supreme court. There are plenty of sources to show notability as a business. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep: there's some substantive coverage, such as about FDIC's action against the firm: Anatomy of a Banking Scandal. There are a couple of notable alumni, etc. I removed some of the promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. The ABA Journal, Spokane Journal, and Knight Ridder pieces together are substantial independent coverage. --GRuban (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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 08:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thirsty Swagman

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

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

Not a notable company. Promotional articles about "beers in space" from 2011 that never turned into anything don't make this notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Not a single reference I can find meets the criteria for WP:CORPDEPTH - most discuss the "product" and not the company. Notability is not inherited. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

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. Primefac (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Plasma fusion preface

Plasma fusion preface (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 does not appear to be a viable article. It is just a collection of notes on plasma physics and other topics related to plasma fusion. Wikipedia is not the right venue for this content, at least not in this form. Srleffler (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, not a single trace of term "Plasma fusion preface" in Google Scholar or Books. A private collection of notes with no evidence or indication of relevance and importance. And essentially unsourced. - DVdm (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• This doesn't look like an encyclopedia article, more an essay or lecture notes. Perhaps a transwiki to Wikibooks or Wikiversity could be considered as an alternative to deletion? — Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've read through it again yesterday and decided that as it stands, the article is likely only to be of private interest, and is simply using Wikipedia as storage. If the article creator wants to turn it into a encyclopedia article or textbook, they can always request a copy be emailed to them.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    • This is not true, my intension was never to use Wikipedia as storage, my intension was to share what I have learned and spread that knowledge to perhaps make people understand better. I have other forums for storage. Knoppson (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• What I do not understand is that if you are so disappointed in my article, why not change it yourselves? I like it as it is so I don't really want to change it but I do recognize now that I scroll trough it that it isn't that professionally written. But what did you expect from a passionate Swede :) Knoppson (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • If we thought this could fit within our scope as an article, we would work to improve it. The issue is not whether it is professionally written, it's that the type of material and its organization into an article is not suitable for Wikipedia. We publish encyclopedia articles, not collections of notes. Each article needs to have a defined topic, and it needs to present that topic in an organized way. "Plasma fusion preface" is not a topic.

We already have articles on plasma physics, fusion, etc. A lot of this material would probably be better if it were incorporated into those existing articles, rather than just collecting it all in one page with no real organization. I also agree with the suggestion above that one of the other Wikis might be a better site to host a collection of notes, although I'm not familiar enough with them to say which one would be appropriate.--Srleffler (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a host for miscellaneous notes, passionately written or otherwise. Save your notes, flesh them out and post them somewhere else as a "Background to plasma fusion" if you like. XOR'easter (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete for clear reasons above. Not up to standard expected for Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC).
• Delete for the same reason as XOR'easter. --Steve (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• I have now tranferred the article to Wikibooks where I hope it fits better with the rules. Actually you have helped me realize what to do with this article. The article will be developed into a book but I have lots of more studies to do. In time the developing will almost only consist of more notes and material. Before DVdm's little talk with me I did not fully understand what Wikipedia is about, now I know and I can tell you this that I will never try to write an article on Wikipedia again, the reason is that i really live for original research, that is what makes my writing exciting. Knoppson (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Knoppson: that is good to hear, but it you ever stumble upon research of the non-or-much-less-original kind, by all means feel free to contribute here! Good luck - DVdm (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Knoppson (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

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 snow keep. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Bruce Ohr

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Bruce Ohr
• Articles for deletion/Bruce Ohr (2nd nomination)

Bruce Ohr (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 appear to be a notable individual outside one in-the-news event; WP:BLP1E would seem to dictate that any mention belongs in the article about the event, because there isn't enough to write an actual biography here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

To expand upon this - all reliable sources cited in the article discuss Ohr in the context of his apparent involvement in the investigation of the Trump campaign's ties to Russian intelligence. The entire article, as constituted, discussed Ohr's involvement in this event. That is a textbook WP:COATRACK, and a textbook example of why we avoid writing biographies about marginally-notable people involved in larger events. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep This person and his wife have been attacked repeatedly by Donald Trump and today the White House announced that they are considering removing his security clearance which would end his career. Just today, he has been the subject of major articles in the New York Times and The Federalist. Ohr has also been criticized by prominent Republican congressmen including Devin Nunes, Darryl Issa and Trey Gowdy. I believe that the Russian attempts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the subsequent investigation are far more than a "single event", and that Wikipedia ought to have verifiable and neutral articles about people involved in this who have been the subject of ongoing coverage by reliable sources for an extended period of time. That includes Bruce Ohr. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The Federalist is not a reliable source; it's a partisan house organ. The New York Times article discusses Ohr exclusively in the context of the event. There are not the foundations of a "biography" here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with you that this lengthy saga is "one event" and I think the fact that coverage of Bruce Ohr has been ongoing for months demonstrates that this goes way beyond "one event". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

From the available reliable sources, what can be said about Ohr which isn't related to his involvement in this single event? If we can't find any, this shouldn't be a biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It would be easy to include biographical information about his marriage to Nellie Ohr, since there is plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep- More than six months have passed since this article was created and Ohr is still getting coverage. Here are some very recent examples: Little-Known Justice Dept. Official Makes Trump’s Security Clearance List (NY Times) (realize how they spin him as "little-known", don't think that's still the case when you have written several stories on him), Washington Times, Newsweek, Fox News (and all those in the past week or so). WP:BLP1E does not apply when the person is involved with a significant event and coverage is persistent. The biography can expanded, there's plenty of sources available. --Rusf10 (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

How can it be expanded? What material about Ohr which isn't related to his involvement in this event can be added? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It would be easier to expand if you didn't keep deleting sourced content.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Could the nominator (NorthBySouthBaranof) please explain why he thinks the keep arguments made in the previous AFD for this article just a few months ago are invalid? The consensus there was clearly that BLP1E does not apply to Ohr and that, therefore, he is notable, in line with Cullen's argument above. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 03:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

That AFD decision had very few !voters, several of whom have edited this biography in an apparent effort to grind a political ax; one of them believes that the right-wing scandal sheet Gateway Pundit is an acceptable source. I saw a note on this at the BLPN, and this needs broader attention. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF--Rusf10 (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry NBSB, I'm with Cullen328 here. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 04:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 04:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 04:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep This is not a case for WP:BLP1E. Notability is clear based on extensive and continuous coverage and reliable sources as illustrated by Cullen328 and as sourced in the Wiki article. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Meets notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW Keep This morning's Washington Post explains why: Who is Bruce Ohr and why does Trump keep tweeting about him?, and as per arguments cogently made at previous AfD. User:NorthBySouthBaranof, When bringing any article back to AfD after it has been kept, but especially one that was kept just a few weeks ago, it is a good idea to give a policy-based justification for bringing it back to AfD so quickly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. There's something particularly incongruous about invoking BLP1E (which doesn't "dictate" anything) after another event brings renewed attention to a person. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• I certainly don't have time to fix this, and it should not stay up with only a Fox News reference, so unless someone else gets it in shape pretty quick I would say "Delete."Rose bartram (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep As demonstrated above, the subject has received sustained significant coverage. The arguments from the previous AfD still hold, and there appears to be no new reason to warrant this sequel deletion nom. Davey2116 (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• In fact, not only is there no new reason for this sequel deletion nom, Ohr has received even more coverage very recently. The article should be expanded and improved, not deleted. Davey2116 (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. The President of the United States says he will revoke the security clearance of this person, a current Department of Justice career official, not because of any specific wrongdoing but because of his involvement in the early stages of a counterintelligence and criminal investigation of the President's campaign. Historians will be studying events like these for generations. Pigu (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Subject has received widespread media coverage. An important part of an important event. JS (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to be notable and has received widespread media coverage. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Procedural keep. Does meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO and does not meet WP:BLP1E. Has just been nominated and was kept in WP community consensus. Since then there was more coverage so even less reason to delete! Please nominate articles wisely. gidonb (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• NorthBySouthBaranof, I think you should withdraw this so we can get on with it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  SNOW keep it, I don't care anymore. I'm wasting my time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Agricultural organization

Agricultural organization (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)

Devoid of useful content or sources. Rathfelder (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• How about Category:Agricultural organizations? which exists. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I would say it is a legitimate article topic, but that currently it is useless, acting as a form of unwarranted WP:CONTENTFORK. As noted there are plenty of them, and a good article could be written on it, but it seems wrong atm. (Re)Write would be preferable. Soft delete would be preferred Nosebagbear (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• I cant see that an article about agricultural organisations as a whole, across the world, would be very useful. Rathfelder (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep there's certainly more to say about this topic than a dictdef; the volume of articles in the category should demonstrate notability of the concept. If there's a plausible redirect target, that would be a reasonable editorial replacement for this stub. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 10:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Its not a concept. Its just a label. There are myriads of different kinds of agricultural organisations.Rathfelder (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - this article is only three sentences along and has no references. I am inclined to agree with User: Fred Bauder that all information conveyed by this brief article could be conveyed by the category called "Agricultural organizations". Vorbee (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete based on current content, which tells the reader hardly anything that they couldn't have guessed from the title. If the article is significantly improved, I may reconsider my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• delete – WP is not a dictionary. would support redirect to the American Farm Bureau Federation. Redditaddict69 19:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

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. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Jared Cannon

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

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

Not independently notable, Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I looked for sources and all I could find were ones that discussed him in the context of the club he owned closing. No indication of anything even approaching notability guidelines for music and GNG. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 03:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. His band is not the same as the LP Bitter Tongues, but by a different artist. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. No indepth independent coverage; though there seems to be a possibly notable chef of the same name... --GRuban (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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 MindGeek. Strong consensus that there is a lack of reliable, significant coverage on Tube8 itself, thus notability not satisfied. There was also a strong consensus on the preferable redirect target (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Tube8

Tube8 (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)

Site is not notable on its own. Signficant coverage is either for its parent company MindGeek or its network Pornhub. A redirect to one of those two pages seems more appropriate than this as a standalone page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect - Not meets WP:WEBPAGE.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to MindGeek. Tube8 lacks significant RS coverage to satisfy WP:WEB. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to MindGeek. - Out of the first 10 cites I checked only one is actually about Tube8 (it bangs on about Tube8 mobile), The other 9 are either not cites, are 2 bit mentions or no mentions at all ..., There are Sources on Google News however my laptop is refusing to translate these however these don't look to be reliable sources anyway, Redirect. –Davey2010^Talk 15:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to MindGeek, Since it's notability is lacking while it's parent company: Mindgeek's notablity meets WP:Web, I feel that a redirect is also needed as well. JC7V-constructive zone 19:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Shuoji Zhou

Shuoji Zhou (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)

An ordinary person who made a lot of money in Bitcoin in 2017, and now says he runs a hedge fund. I can't access the Bloomberg ref, but I don't feel the other two don't demonstrate notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly one way or another if the article stays up, but after reading the Forbes article about him I wanted to know more, and did not find him on Wikipedia, so I gave him an article. I really would like to know more about him, and thought other people would also. Everyone on Wikipedia is an "ordinary person" that did something special. He seems to be an up and coming investor that is starting to make a name for himself. Perhaps he is not "notable" now, but will be one day? Do people like that get Wiki articles? Jambo321 (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jambo321. People who are not notable yet but might be in the future generally shouldn't have articles. When they get to the point that they have lots of news coverage and the like, then we can make an article. See the page WP:TOOSOON for more discussion about this. (Also, to be clear: it's not that everyone with Wikipedia articles has necessarily done 'something special', and being notable is not necessarily a good thing or an achievement. It's just a measure of how much outside coverage a topic has, in sources like books and newspapers.) Have a good day, Gilded Snail (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Fails notability, it is still too early. 89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as per 89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 - this guy could be notable in a few years, but bitcoin millionaires are still something of an ephemeral form of notability and I'm unconvinced there's anything encyclopaedic about him yet. Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as WP:TOOSOON. I was sure I was going to vote keep after reading the Forbes article, it really is a solid reference. But, searching for another reference proved fruitless. A speaker at several Chinese conventions, mentions in some blogs, but really nothing else. Surprising. Ifnord (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article passes GNG for reasons other than a political campaign. (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Lois Combs Weinberg

Lois Combs Weinberg (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 pass notability guidelines WP:N or WP:NPOL as she is just a failed candidate for U.S. Senate who never held public office Redditaddict69 01:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete candidates for office are generally not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment'. This article (which already appears as a reference in the article) is about her in the context of education issues, not as an unsuccessful political candidate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Yes, that is independent coverage about her, but I'm unsure if a passion for education passes as notability or verifiability. Redditaddict69 05:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment It doesn't matter what someone is notable for. As long as they have enough coverage to pass GNG, she could be an antique potato chip collector for all I care. Coverage in several RS over time is what shows notability for GNG, not the topic of why they are notable. Heck, many socialites are very notable just for existing. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Like Eastmain pointed out, she was also notable for her educational contributions. I found more sources and added them. It is because of her advocacy that a program for people with dyslexia was started in her area. There are profiles about her and her work. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you Megalibrarygirl. I'm certain the article topic meets GNG and your additions make it more clear. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep I'm the article creator. I'm a longtime editor who about 7 years ago began to mostly create articles about women who have made significant contributions to the world but have been overlooked on Wikipedia. Weinberg is a long time education activist/advocate in the rural part of the United States. Also, because she was born in the 1940s much of her work and therefore coverage in reliable sources happened before the dawn of the internet. They don't show in a google search. I appreciate that views can vary, and I'm not infallible, but I do understand policy pretty well and seems clear to me that the article meets GNG. There are multiple reliable sources, and I wouldn't have started the article if there wasn't. :-) Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This appears to be a Straw man argument. I recognize that it may pass WP:GNG which is why I didn't include that in the nomination. However, it doesn't pass notability for a biography (WP:N) nor does she pass as a politician (WP:NPOL). She has been an advocate for education for a long time, but that doesn't make her notable. Many candidates for office are activists, but their articles are deleted for a reason: No notability. Redditaddict69 04:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment An article only has to pass GNG full stop. NPOL doesn't need to apply here at all, especially since it's pretty clear that she's more notable as an education advocate as my sources show. Please take a look at the changes, thanks! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Dwight Grotberg

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Dwight Grotberg
• Articles for deletion/Dwight Grotberg (2nd nomination)

Dwight Grotberg (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)

Failed candidate for public office, never won : Doesn't pass any notability guidelines (WP:N, WP:NPOL) Redditaddict69 01:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Unsuccessful political candidate with no other notability. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete defeated candidates for office are almost never notable. During the previous deletion discussion some suggested the article should be kept until the election, and removed if he lost. Others asseted major party senate candidates were default notable, which we have rejected more recently.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Some unsuccessful candidates are notable under WP:GNG, but Dwight Grotberg doesn't seem to have attracted any significant media coverage after the election he lost. Notability has not been shown. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Beyond the political loss, probably not going to meet WP:GNG with a passing mention in AgWeek [86] and some coverage of his opposition to a wind farm [87]. Bakazaka (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete If a person got so far as to be nominated by a major party to major office, we should be generous with notability, but nothing in WP:NPOL or WP:POLOUTCOMES suggests we should keep this, and my quick search of local media archives did not surface anything that would change that. LinkTiger (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete or merge. There is this indepth coverage by The Bismarck Tribune [88] that is related to the election, but not much besides. Merging there would be reasonable. --GRuban (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Bruno Crastes

Bruno Crastes (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 CV-like page on an unremarkable hedge fund manager. Singificant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or not independent of his fund H2O Asset Management, i.e. WSJ. The article on the company has been deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H2O Asset Management. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep A piece focused on him in the Wall Street Journal is indepth coverage by the most influential paper in the industry. Sure it's not independent of his firm, but that's why he's notable, for what he does, the Wall Street Journal is hardly going to focus on his family life and his golf swing. In addition, he has articles focused on him in over multiple years in multiple continents Citywire Switzerland 2012 [89], Citywire USA 2015 [90], Citywire Italy 2018 [91], Decideurs France 2017 [92], L'AGEFI (we don't have an EN article on L'AGEFI, but do have one in French, German, Italian, and Russian) France 2014 [93], Business Times (Singapore) 2017 [94]. That's quite a notable businessman. --GRuban (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral/Slight Keep -- Was able to dig up a decent number of citations, some better than others. A lot are in French or industry specific; seems to have notability within the fairly specific niche. If someone who is more familiar with the niche (also who speaks Frech, ideally) is willing to dig through journals to determine what is and isn't authoritative from the list below, it seems plausible that the article could be expanded and touched up to make the relevant/notability unambiguous.
  • Bond Maven Bruno Crastes Bets Against the Crowd—and on Europe
  • Bruno Crastes : mises en garde pour 2016
  • H2O a franchi les 15 milliards d'euros d'encours
  • Prix des investisseurs
  • Pascal Chevolot : « Mes fonds préférés pour 2017 »
  • Llega a España la gestora H2O, especializada en alternativas de renta fija
  • Exclusive: H2O AM, Quadra Capital strike alts fund development deal - Investment Europe
  • Les 50 qui ont fait l'actualité en 2014 : Asset Management
  • H2O launches "Barry funds" range - Investment Europe
  • H2O Asset Management acquires strategic stake in Poincaré Capital Management
  • H2O acquires systematic commodity manager - Investment Europe
  • Industry Leaders To Gather At The 6th Annual Sohn London Investment Conference
  • H2O s’attend à un changement de régime de corrélation
  • Exclusive: H2O AM, Quadra Capital strike alts fund development deal - International Investment
  • I fondi da non perdere di vista
  • “Notre site pratique sur la gestion de patrimoine a permis de faire connaître notre cabinet”
  • Review of 2016: turn and face the strange - Risk.net
  • Portafogli, concentrarsi sull’income ma corretto per il rischio - News - FinanciaLounge
  • Vers un soft close de H2O Multistratégies
  • Fondi flessibili globali: chi ha fatto meglio nel 2015
• DirkDouse (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral/Slight Delete - The WSJ is the only "good" reference I'm seeing. Hard to assess the quality of the other reference as they aren't in English, and don't seem to be from major media outlets. NickCT (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  Did you look at the links that I gave? They're mostly in English, and from media outlets that we have Wikipedia articles on, especially international media outlets. My contention is that if newspapers on three continents write pieces specifically about you over the course of 7 years, they've clearly taken notice. --GRuban (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Aaron Yeary

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

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

Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Affiliated with one blue-linked entry, Pine River Capital Management, which appears to be part of a promo walled garden. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, not independent of the subject's company, and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/OnceaMetro currently indef blocked as a spam-only account. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete: A CV-like article on a man with a job. No independent evidence of biographical notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete: Some mentions in reliable sources ([95]), but they are just brief mentions about Aaron Yeary managing Pine River Capital Management. Naming him on the company article should be enough. --MarioGom (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete No indepth independent coverage. --GRuban (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks "significant" independent coverage. WP:SIGCOV. doesn't qualify the notability criteria. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

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. ℯxplicit 06:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Kissed by the Blues

Kissed by the Blues (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)

Initially prodded for deletion, but deproded by creator. No indication that this album meets WP:NALBUM to justify a stand-alone article. A search for sources gets hits from Amazon and other download sites, but nothing appearing to be any critical reviews, awards or chart listings. Article states album released independently, but no other infomration provided by the label. A release by a major independent label nmight be OK, but if not if this was a self-release by the artist herself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Note that the singer's article, Angelique Francis, has been PROD'ded but not AfD'ed, which could cause a procedural problem if that article is deleted before this album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This article was also prodded for deletion, but was deproded by its creator. If you feel the artist's article should be discussed at AfD, you can deprod that article. However, each article is being evaluated separately based upon different notability guidelines (at least that should be the case), so the notabiility (or lack thereof) of one should not have a significant on the notability of the other. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Every album that exists is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article. The notability test for albums is specialness, as demonstrated by charting sales, major music awards or at least a GNG-passing volume of critical attention — but none of those things are evident here at all. The musician's notability is a separate matter from the album's, because it's measured in different ways by different types of sourcing, but just for the record her notability as a musician isn't strongly demonstrated either. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to the singer if that article stays, else Delete. Not every album that exists is notable, but a plausible search term for the singer (if that article stays). Joseph2302 (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

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.