Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 September	4 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adamu Garba II[edit]

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

no evidence for notability. The sources are essentially interviews where he says whatever he wishes to. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Looks like a promotional / marketing article. --Jay (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources on articles as well as these:[1][2] Accesscrawl (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His father was Notable, but he is not Notable yet. The sources he cites are questionable. He says he is a candidate, but there is no record anywhere that he actually has filed his official papers. Too soon. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he's literally a Nigerian scion, but notability is not normally inherited. Bearian (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wright's Opera House[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMG and WP:ORG. The property is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places as the article claims. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to the NPS, the building is a contributing property to the red-linked Ouray Historic District. Independent notability needs significant coverage by independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. We certainly should not delete this just because Ouray Historic District is red linked. James500 (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a historic building. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC) Here's some coverage:[reply]

Great American Journeys - Page 80 | Reader's Digest - 2000 | Wright's Opera House in Ouray was built in 1888 by Edward Wright, who made his money at the Wheel of Fortune Mine. The opera house was patronized by the town's more refined families. Built in the Romanesque Revival style, the building ...

More is likely available. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Abbeel[edit]

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

Does not satisfy academic notability or general notability. As noted on talk page, is a professor at a major university, but that isn't one of the academic criteria unless he has a named chair or distinguished professorship, which are not evident from this article or Google. Google search is that he exists and has a company. Not every professor or company-founder is notable. References are not substantial secondary sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A7 was declined on the basis that there was a credible claim of significance, but that doesn't establish notability, a stricter test, so I am taking this to AFD as not satisfying notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - this guy is a bit of a rock star in the field, known for work on inverse reinforcement learning and giving a lot of talks at conferences. He has an impressive Google Scholar (h = 60). Definitely at least as notable as other Profs I've seen on Wikipedia, and likely to become more notable over time given his young age. Danski14^(talk) 03:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has won a bunch of awards, he and his work are written about extensively. Also mentioned in other articles such as Apprenticeship learning.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Sloan fellow, and many other honors, passes academic notability. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn as promised, I appreciate the comments. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Shropshire[edit]

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

I made an attempt to source and verify this article, but wasn't able to find very much of substance. I would normally PROD, but I think there's just enough sourcing that I would prefer a discussion of whether the available sourcing meets WP:NAUTHOR points 1 or 3.

I apologize in advance; they are on Highbeam and are only accessible in full with a subscription.

[3]: this article discusses the Texas Rangers, mentioning Shropshire and his book for a few short paragraphs about halfway through
[4]: The bottom of this article relays an anecdote from Shropshire, but isn't otherwise about him
[5]: probably the best source, a lengthy review of his book Seasons in Hell
[6]: an overview of football books that mentions Shropshire's book Ice Bowl

Sources on Google Books and News were mostly by him, with a few trivial name-drops thrown in. Newspapers.com had nothing substantial about him, only name-drops and things like "sportswriter Mike Shropshire had this to say".

I am not strongly arguing for deletion here, so if the discussion tends toward thinking those sources are enough for a pass of WP:NAUTHOR, I am happy to withdraw. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the nominator, who has demonstrated the notability of this topic. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR. Searches such as "Seasons in Hell"+shropshire+books do produce relevant results in GBooks such as this book review in Aethlon: [7]. Likewise a search for "thorny rose of texas"+books returns results such as book reviews in Current Publications in Legal and Related Fields: [8] and Library Journal [9]. Even a search for "Mike Shropshire" produces things like: [10] (Hint: You need to look through all of the search results). On the main web there are sources such as this book review: [11]. And I could go on, but I think I'll stop there. And there are nearly two thousand holdings of his books in WorldCat libraries: [12]. James500 (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep scads of reviews of his books come up in a news archive search. Rave reviews. A very popular sports writer. Article needs improvement. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BioDetection Systems[edit]

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

A non-notably company per WP:ORGCRITE. It has not received any significant independent coverage. It has received trivial mentions related to its main products, but there is no coverage of the company itself. DferDaisy (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing any significant coverage in RS. NickCT (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notable Ghits, fails WP:NCORP. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pardon the pun, but I detect nothing. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Worsley[edit]

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

Résumé-formatted WP:BLP of a musician and record producer, not properly referenced for the purposes of passing any notability criteria. While this (deliberately?) creates the deceptive appearance that he was a Juno Award nominee in the "Projects at the Junos" section, he actually was not: a band he had worked with won a Juno Award in a category that was not Producer of the Year, while he himself was nominated for nothing and thus can't claim any Juno-derived notability freebies -- and the awards where he actually can honestly claim to have been a nominee, the Western Canadian Music Awards, are not nationally or internationally prominent enough to constitute a free pass over NMUSIC #8 if they're the only notability claim being made at all. (That is, they can be mentioned in an article that's already cleared NMUSIC in other ways — but they don't make an NMUSIC pass in and of themselves.)
But the referencing here simply isn't cutting it in terms of making him notable: it's overwhelmingly too dependent on primary sources that cannot support notability at all, such as the self-published websites and Bandcamps of his own clients, while the few references that actually qualify as reliable sources are not substantively about him, but just glancingly namecheck his existence in coverage of other things. Not even one footnote here is properly supporting notability at all, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to hand him an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing any significant coverage in RS. Started by an WP:SPA IP. Possible WP:AUTOBIO issues. NickCT (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet notability guidelines. Fails WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and the WP:COMPOSER. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 07:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - his only major award is a Juno, and not as a musician, and for which I can't verify -- see Juno Award for Recording Engineer of the Year. His other kudos are locally nominated. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Management Professional Society[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG. Previously nominated about five years ago, no consensus and no improvement in available references. Very weak references -- almost all are dead links. Official website no longer exists. I couldn't find any information about this organization at all. -- Mikeblas (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There does appear to be something at the organisation's website address, though it is blocked with a malware flag when I attempt to access it. I agree with the nominator's rationale. Dead links are not in themselves evidence that an organisation was never notable, but in this case the claim to uniqueness seems dubious, as does the number of members, and the strong source necessary for verification is wanting. I've tried searching on a couple of occasions during this AfD without finding something substantial. It therefore seems to me to fail WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy Chairman of the NATO Military Committee[edit]

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

Was merged to the Chairman article a while back, and an editor continually insists on re-creating. No standalone notability. Fails wp:gng. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect the redirect to stop it from being recreated. Fails WP:GNG. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 21:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request clarification: can you please clarify what components of gng it fails? I want to make sure I can clearly understand it’s reasons for listing before taking a position. Garuda28 (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question to @SpaceMan0701: Why do you think this page is necessary?--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gaarmyvet, see my answer below. And the page elaborates on the important role the position plays. At NATO, it's not a traditional chain of command so Commanders and Deputies behave quite differently. SpaceMan0701 (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merge highly inappropriate here (and definitely not to the Chairman)- this is a highly significant position. What needs to be understood is NATO's political structure. The Chairman, by custom(?), is always one of the (mostly) European allies. However, most of NATO's muscle is American (and the allied component - is split between many contributors - the titular chairman has very little sway over any significant military force). The Deputy Chairman is always American, and while he may, in title, seem to rank below the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee and the Secretary General of NATO - his clout is much greater. Of course the real commander is Supreme Allied Commander Europe - a 4 star American, but the deputy Chairman essentially manages the politicking of all the various small allies. The deputy chairman is a significant billet (and a 3 star American billet is usually notable - in general) in the NATO structure - much more so than the title.Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I will note that the deputy chairman is discussed independently in sources - meeting GNG, and is responsible for the rather important aspect of "nuclear affairs" (nuclear weapons).[13] Icewhiz (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As an analogy, the Deputy Chairman's role here is analogous to Alton Brown's role in Iron Chef America vis-a-vis ICA's chairman.Icewhiz (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concur with Icewhiz as that was my basic logic creating the page. I was the original author of the page, but unfortunately Onel5969 decided to continue to redirect the page. While I understand the confusion with the position potentially being 'under' the Chairman, the assumption and conclusion that a position isn't notable doesn't hold water when deciding to delete a Wikipedia page. Onel5969 hasn't provided any justifiable reason to elaborate why a page should be deleted beyond the 'the position isn't notable.' That's conjecture and a subjective opinion. The page outlines the important role the Deputy Chairman plays as it shows in establishing the transatlantic 'bond' between the US and NATO. As the highest ranking, permanent US military position at NATO, it's a very important position to highlight, as the job works in both political and military arenas. It's especially interesting now given President Trump's initiatives at NATO. Icewhiz is also correct about the nuclear role as the Deputy advises NATO on nuclear roles within the alliance. SpaceMan0701 (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above. Clearly a senior enough official to have its own article. Should never have been merged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Senior and appears to satisfy notability guidelines. Garuda28 (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. Deserves its own article per IceWhiz. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Majyd Aziz Balagamwala[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, profile is more suitable for a CV. Störm (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; promotional 'cruft on a nn individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, subject only has a mention in some of the news related articles. lacks a significant coverage that is essential to keep the article. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G12, already deleted by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus(non-admin closure). Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Shah (Rubber Boy)[edit]

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

Non notable BLP of WP:Entertainer also WP:Crystal he is going to star.., previously denied AfC XyzSpaniel Talk Page 19:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Learn More Link[edit]

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

Barely coherent essay on a non-notable topic. Fails WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:NOT. Brad v 19:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has been recreated at least 3 times under different names. The first couple versions were a copy vio. This weird essay is the only thing this guy is interested in creating, and somehow it seems to be related to the facebook page used as a source, but I'm not sure how. Natureium (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons given above, and consider carrying over the salting that was applied to the last title where the author repeatedly recreated this essay. MarginalCost (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Nielsen Norman Group piece cited in the article could contribute to establishing notability, but the other sources are variously not reliable, not independent, or insubstantial; in the absence of any other sources, and especially any scholarly or journalistic sources, WP:GNG is not met. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as per above. Agricolae (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete salt and block the editor. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kimmy Shields[edit]

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

An actress that has only one noble role, see Insatiable (TV series), does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:NACTRESS. In addition, see WP:ONEEVENT. She has no significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. This also falls in the WP:TOOSOON category. — Lbtocth^talk 17:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Lbtocth^talk 17:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. --Gprscrippers (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 07:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) DBig Xrayᗙ 15:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Bodomo[edit]

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

Work not widely known. Media coverage is only internet and the page subject is rarely the article subject. Still early in career. Seemingly no contributions to permanent collections. Style of article suggests potentially promotional intent. Cleoera (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable with The Observer article saying "Frances Bodomo, the award-winning filmmaker behind Afronauts and Boneshaker" and The Guardian saying "The Ghanaian film-maker Frances Bodomo directed four episodes; the “tonality”, Nance says, of her short sci-fi film Afronauts (about the Zambian space program in the 1960s) is reflected in his own taste for the surreal". I'd say she is on the rise and deleting the article doesn't make much sense. One just needs to search Google News. --Gprscrippers (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people) demonstrates the two cited sources are not adequate. Both mention the subject in passing. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The typical amalgamation of minor sources in the establishment of notability does not seem to be present. Cleoera (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Article needs work but subject present in multiple independent and notable sources for a variety of contributions. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator's account is four days old.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gprscrippers. James500 (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:CREATIVE with substantive reviews of her works, as noted above. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Native Youth Program[edit]

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

Full of native advertising, highly promotional article and on top of that fails WP:SIGCOV. For instances:

For more information, check https://www2.moa.ubc.ca/nativeyouthprogram/how-to-apply/ or contact Megan Jensen, Native Youth Program Manager at nyp@moa.ubc.ca scope_creep (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Could have been G11. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Oh[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Wrote a non-notable book and once went to an event that had 300 people at it? Bueller 007 (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. --Gprscrippers (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient evidence of notability at this stage. If buddy ever gets his book turned into a Broadway musical, we can reconsider.TheBlueCanoe 19:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and the WP:AUTHOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 07:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many writers hope to open a play on Broadway. A guy can dream, huh? Bearian (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ja'Tovia Gary[edit]

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

Not widely cited, inventor of technique, creator of well-known work, primary subject of notable work. Still early in career. Work in galleries and museums is minor. Coverage seems mostly confined to internet and interviews. Not sole subject typically. Cleoera (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep the first thing I found WP:BEFORE !voting were event announcements for MOMA and another major museum. Those are not good sources, but are indicators that one should search more. Then A Gnews search shows this short piece in Artforum, another mention in Hyperallergenic and this video on the Whitney Museuem of American Art's site where a critic talks at length about Gary's work. GNG is very clearly met. (also, being included in a recent important exhibition at the Whitney is hardly minor.)ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Theredproject: for his input as this is a NY art subject.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator's account is a few days old, and they have only used it to place notability templates and to nominate this article and another for AfD.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per ThatMontrealIP's arguments. This one seems pretty straightforward. The MoMA solo screening, and the Whitney show are substantive. There are sufficient reviews. GNG and WP:ARTIST are met. --Theredproject (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she is also in the Whitney permanent collection! This should be closed as speedy keep.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger Dogs to Fenway Franks[edit]

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

fails WP:NBOOK nowt found in a before search no references for the book apart from the author's own blog. Created by a sock Dom from Paris (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The book had 2 editions, in 1988 and 1989, it also has around 4-5 good mentions at Google Books. --Gprscrippers (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gprscrippers: I'm not sure that having 2 editions is one of the criteria of WP:NBOOK but I may be wrong. Do you have any links to the mentions at google books? --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: what stops you from doing a Google Book search on your own? Imho, Google Books and Google News search should be the first step for any editor who nominates the article for deletion.-- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gprscrippers: In my nomination I said I could not find anything in a WP:BEFORE search which is why I am asking you for your 4-5 good links to see if they can be added to save this article. As per WP:HASREFS the argument to use is "Keep: References are available. I cannot add them myself, but here they are" and as per WP:MUSTBESOURCES the argument to avoid is "Keep. You should find sources, instead of deleting it". Dom from Paris (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. The link has been at the top of this nomination all the time. I am not an expert in this subject but this is one link that could be used to improve the article. Here is another one. Weak keep, like I said.--Gprscrippers (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that but I'm afraid were not getting close to the criteria I believe. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The number of editions is relevant because that is an indicator of popularity. You will get more sources by doing things like this: [14] [15]. (GBooks' search engine will not return all instances of X on a search for "X", so you have to be more specific and look for "X"+Y and "X"+Y+Z and so on). There is a Kirkus Review and other commentary amongst that. James500 (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because the author, Bob Wood, has an article. James500 (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@James500: From what I can see the author is not notable. There is something I don't understand it has been argued that a bio of an author is not deletable if he has a notable work and you are arguing that a book cannot be deleted because the author has an article. I didn't think that notability was inherited. For a book to be notable it has to meet certain criteria and not just be popular. From what I can gather the kirkus review that you mention is not for this book but another one called "BIG TEN COUNTRY: A JOURNEY THROUGH ONE FOOTBALL SEASON". --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Upon closer inspection the review is for "Big Ten" by the same author, though it discusses this book. I must be going blind. James500 (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've found some coverage for this book and added it to the article. This is definitely one of those cases where the sourcing is buried insanely deep, as it took quite a bit of mining to find what I've added to the article. The impression I've gotten as a whole is that there's definitely more out there, it's just that the sourcing isn't really as easily found for reasons such as newspapers not being as good about putting pre-90s articles on the Internet. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be cited in academic sources - I also found this, this, and this. For what it's worth, I vaguely remember this coming out in the 80s and it getting its fair share of coverage. Now memories don't count as reliable sources on here, but all of the other stuff does infer that there is more coverage out there. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the sources in the article, especially the Publishers Weekly, Chicago Tribune and 501 Baseball Books Fans Must Read Before They Die sources, are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and point #1 of WP:BKCRIT. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:G5 doesn't apply since the article has numerous other contributors, and there are ample sources to get it past GNG. In any case, the creator of the article, User:Oddibe is not blocked. I'm guessing nom confused him with the similarly named User:OddibeKerfeld, who appears at the bottom of the last 50 edits, and is blocked as a sock (though not of Oddibe apparently.) Smartyllama (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with WP:GNG. This book has been reviewed by numerous sources. Auldhouse (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ludmyrna Lopez[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a city councillor, in a city not large enough to confer automatic notability freebies on its city councillors. Of the eight footnotes here, four are primary sources (i.e. her own "staff" profiles on the websites of the city and organizations she's directly affiliated with) that cannot demonstrate or support notability, and one of the "media" hits comes from the local university's journalism school rather than a real media outlet — while the three that actually represent real reliable source coverage all just nominally verify her initial election rather than offering any substantive ongoing coverage of anything she did in the role. And the only other potential "notable for other reasons" claims here are not referenced to coverage of her work in those roles, but to background mentions of it in the elected-to-city-council coverage -- which is not how you demonstrate that a city councillor has a valid claim of preexisting notability for other reasons besides being a city councillor either. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet notability guidelines. I found only one other mention of her and it is a passing one. --Gprscrippers (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SportingFlyer talk 01:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given by Bearcat, and because my searches aren't showing much.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G11). MER-C 18:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YWCA Metropolitan Chicago[edit]

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

High promotional with a bunch of call outs, native advertising content. scope_creep (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-vote: this is unusual and I'm not sure yet. The article is definitely promotional in its current state, a violation of WP:NOT. However it is likely notable and could probably be fixed. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is bad enough for a speedy delete. I have no objections to someone writing an encyclopedia article about this subject, but this is just the charity promoting themselves. MER-C 18:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aidan Knight. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Versicolour[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM due to the fact there are no sources proving notability. Not enough content to justify a merger. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aidan Knight. No claim of notability, no sources, and I don't see much by way of sources upon search. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Griffin (councilmember)[edit]

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

Biography of a person notable only as a city councillor. Richmond CA is not a large enough city to grant default notability to all of its city councillors just because they existed, but with just two local newspaper obituaries this is not sourced or substanced anywhere near well enough to deem him more notable than the norm among a not inherently notable class of topic. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obits can help over overcome WP:GNG, but only the [SF Gate] is non-trivial. The other obits are only a few paragraphs and appear to be the same story in multiple Bay Area News Group papers. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The non-routine San Francisco obituary isn't a terrible source, but I can't find much coverage of him otherwise. Furthermore, he's a councilmember for a smaller city, and we don't typically keep those articles anyways unless there's a lot of other coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 01:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tellows[edit]

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

Fails on WP:CORPDEPTH. Too promotional to be an encyclopedic entry. Trivial mention at BBC, everything else is unreliable or self published. fails WP:GNG Hitro talk 16:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nom, the sources are way too weak to pass WP:ORGDEPTH and also as this is very probably SEO undeclared paid creation. Creator made just 10 edits before creating this perfectly syntaxed article in one sitting, no sandbox and without using wizard! Highly impressive skills from an editor with that few edits. What is even more impressive is the 10 previous edits were from the very start perfectly done and they were even kind enough to do some clean up of maintenance templates that had been hanging around for 8 years! [16]. They deftly avoided explicitly saying if they had a COI or not here but have yet to reply on whether they had a previous account or not. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in your talk page before, I've been using wiki for a while but just recently made an account. I'm just generally interested in telemarketing and phone frauds topics so that's why I ran into those old articles where I made some changes. I did not exactly make the article "in one sitting" because I spent lots of time to find enough information on many sources I found. I tried to read the guidelines first and make many researches before posting the article. I'm writing the article as a user without promotional purposes, but only to contribute helpful information on topics that don't exist yet. But if there is any content in the article that might seem like advertising, we can just make some changes to improve the article. --JamesBaldwinWiki (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBaldwinWiki: I understand that you wish to write the article so that it doesn't seem promotional and to contribute helpful information but if you have you been asked to create the article by anyone else you must make this disclosure. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: I don't understand what disclosure I have to make. I am writing the article as a user who uses the tellows platform and app on daily basis and I just thought an article about it could be relevant for a lot of people. So in this case, I believe that I'm not involved in COI nor I was paid to create the article, which is why some sources might seem too small and unreliable, because they're just some sites that I found when I was looking for the information. I personally just wanted to try to create a good Wiki article and I don't understand why my work can't be appreciated or accepted by the Wiki community. --JamesBaldwinWiki (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you do not work for Tellows or any affiliated or connected company and have no connection whatsoever with Tellows and noone has asked you to create this article? Dom from Paris (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. The only connection I have to tellows is that I'm a telows user who has been using their web and app for a long time. But that wouldn't be a direct connection I suppose. --JamesBaldwinWiki (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope not at all but what is curious is that just before your account was created another WP:SPA user account was created and spam linked [17] the same tellows corporate blog that you used as a source to several connected pages. But coincidences do happen. Thanks for clearing that up. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay now I understand why you were very suspicious of me and the article. I was not aware of that issue. But is there any way to keep this tellows article by improving it somehow? --JamesBaldwinWiki (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only way is to find sources that show it meets WP:NORG and notably WP:ORGDEPTH. Either identify them here in a comment or add them to the article and comment here that more sources have been added. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - seems to be a case of WP:G11. Tagging as such in case an admin agrees. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said when I declined the speedy I don't believe that the language is overpromotional and a G11 candidate has to be "exclusively promotional". It seems to have been created by an experienced black hat editor that has avoided overly promotional language. A deletion discussion will enable us to nominate as a g4 if recreated whereas a g11 deleted article can be recreated at any time with the same content. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has notable and significant sources. I've erased some sources that are too unreliable such as blogs, press releases, or untrustworthy sites and added more reliable sources such as BBC spain, Bild, Genbeta. The sources are now trusted websites which meet the criteria of WP:ORGDEPTH. As mentioned in the product review section in WP:ORGIND some sources are mainly product reviews which are allowed, as the reviews are objective with comparison of the product/application with other brands. --JamesBaldwinWiki (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— JamesBaldwinWiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. I would have WP:G11'd this, but agree with Dom from Paris that an AfD result will provide a stronger precedent. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to International Obfuscated C Code Contest. So, it's clear that as a community we're pretty reluctant to delete this article. It's an interesting subject for a number of our technical contributors (who have described their interest in creative ways ), and it has a small amount of coverage for claiming to be the world's smallest chess program written in the C programming language. However, even those who think the article should be kept concede that the topic admittedly doesn't have the level of mainstream coverage we typically expect for encyclopedic notability (at least one participant argues that we should ideally set aside our usual rules in order to keep the article).

The attention then turns to other alternatives for deletion besides keeping, such as merging or redirecting to a broad concept article. Multiple participants have suggested the article International Obfuscated C Code Contest as a potential redirect target. Accordingly, I see this as the best possible outcome of this discussion. Additionally, nothing in this discussion should prohibit any editor from merging the article's content into another article at editorial discretion. I believe this is the compromise solution that has consensus. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toledo Nanochess[edit]

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

Tagged this for PROD a few years ago and came across it again today. Fails WP:PRODUCT/WP:GNG. It won an award, but closer inspection shows that ward to be one category of the "International Obfuscated C Code Contest," which has nothing to do with chess and is not the kind of award that provides any indication of notability as far as I can tell (an award is an indicator of notability when it means the subject would have received significant coverage in reliable sources). I'm seeing only primary sources, self-published sources, brief mentions, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – FWIW, the program was discussed in the ICGA Journal, vol. 32, no. 1 (March 2009, doi:10.3233/ICG-2009-32120 & doi:10.3233/ICG-2009-32121). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Can't see the ICGA corrispondence, and sources seem weak. But A) this is very very cool and B) I can see no harm (not a likely spam magnet, no BLP problems, etc.) and seems like something we should have. This is probably an IAR !vote... Hobit (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

while (!consensus) { afd.KickIntoLongGrass( 7 ); }

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 class NotVote {
   NotVote() {
     this.vote = WP:IAR ? WEAK_KEEP : redirect(International Obfuscated C Code Contest);
     this.per = Hobit;
   }
 
   char* sign() {
     return("-- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)");
   }
 }[reply]

If I weren't busily getting ready for class, fighting with OpenCV, Raspberry Pis, Xbees, and Python libraries I'd write something cute in response. As it is I'll just say "that was fun, thanks!" Hobit (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

01001001 00100000 01100100 01101111 01101110 00100111 01110100 00100000 01100111 01100101 01110100 00100000 01101001 01110100

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

54 68 61 74 27 73 20 74 68 65 20 70 72 6f 62 6c 65 6d 20 77 69 74 68 20 6a 6f 6b 65 73 2c 20 69 66 20 79 6f 75 20 68 61 76 65 20 74 6f 20 65 78 70 6c 61 69 6e 20 74 68 65 6d 2c 20 74 68 65 79 20 61 72 65 6e 27 74 20 66 75 6e 6e 79 21

Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

0000000 8b1f 0808 7d20 5b8d 0302 6574 7473 742e
0000010 7478 2500 418f 0212 0c21 ef04 62bc a01e
0000020 c1fe a58b 88cf 564b 6ca2 4142 cb70 0bdf
0000030 4e7a cf4f 8ce4 bda7 d218 8840 4ad2 0fa6
0000040 456c 9bea 0af5 ec51 9649 dd84 1c6a 6548
0000050 c6f4 bb11 1a78 4237 bc2b 2ac8 480b d863
0000060 e739 e463 7455 4a20 92b5 9bcb bcd1 c5f6
0000070 c8fb 61ba d1a3 d856 664a ea64 348f b393
0000080 cd5e 31b1 4fa9 ceea 07c1 68a8 c55c cb7a
0000090 539f 9708 3de1 05fc b4db 415a d134 1cc7
00000a0 faf7 fe69 15eb 189e 7537 caae 7e3e ce68
00000b0 4f14 e108 776a 10f1 36be fb34 f4ba 0000
00000c0 0000
00000c1

Comment - What the heck happened here? This devovled into....I don't know what after the relist. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. You're right. I didn't put {{clear}} after my message above, so Hobit's message was difficult to read. Fixed now. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, I've fixed my syntax error. It should make a lot more sense now. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, mine is almost impossible to reverse I think. Hobit (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather cryptic remark. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I'm not sure what to do with it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Cute. You can go back to playing on the Internet now. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's impressive. I don't know that I could recover that without a lot of work, and I know what was done. (should have used xxd rather than hexdump...) Hobit (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was obvious from the format this this was "od" output. A few lines of python to regenerate the original byte sequence (and some experimentation to get the end-ness right). Once it became apparent it wasn't plain text, the unix "file" utility correctly guessed what it was. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 6665331f0da545459c47ee04a93321290b44ee09 Platonides (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

import wp.project.afd.*;
import wp.project.policies.Iar;
import wp.project.processes.Before;

public class NanochessAfd extends Afd {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        List<Source> sources = Before.perform("Toledo Nanochess");
        Vote vote = new Vote();
        for(Source source : sources)
            if(source.isReliable() && source.isIndependent())
                vote.consider(source.getCoverage(this));
        vote.consider(Iar.getText()); // FIXME
        System.out.println(vote.toDecision());
    }
}

Sorry, couldn't resist :) Enterprisey (talk!) 05:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide the output the above program produces when executed in your private context? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind. I see it below. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~Redirect to the IOCCC article, due to ~~the chessbase and ICGA articles~~ insufficient independent sources to write that much verifiable content. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC); amended Enterprisey (talk!) 19:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no idea what's happening anymore. @Enterprisey: what chessbase article? Do you mean this? A single sentence in a chessbase blog post listing some small chess engines, which is in turn sourced to (or at least links to) this Wikipedia article? I'd like to reiterate just how thoroughly this subject fails WP:GNG. The only sources even mentioned so far are a single sentence (doesn't get much more "brief mention" than that) and an article written by the software developer... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Though that article by the developer was published in an academic journal. So that's something (but yeah, IAR is really the only way to be keeping this...) Hobit (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit. If this ever was the world's smallest chess engine in a language like C, it is certainly notable. And it has coverage in Chessbase and IGCA Journal. An alternative (ATD) might be this: move to Smallest chess engine (Q: should this be "shortest" or "program"?) and rework. The article already includes other small chess engines, and this topic certainly has coverage: eg [18]. James500 (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I could certainly get behind a merge to a broader article covering small chess engines, which doesn't seem to exist yet. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep inline Vote vote(bool notable_coverage){ return(notable_coverage ? keep : delete); } --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 15:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of DRV, I agree with the fact that IGCA journal and Chessbase articles render the topic notable enough. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 17:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That all of the keeps are based on non-policy reasons, a single sentence in the chessbase blog, and material from the developer in the "correspondence" section of a non-notable journal, combined with consensus being based on the strength of arguments rather than a vote count, is why this will almost certainly be going to DRV on principle if nothing else :P — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is going to be make for a confusing, and seemingly inevitable, DRV... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep. Consensus seems to lean towards keep.~~ consensus con=consensus("no consensus"); for(int i=0;i<sizeof(votes)/sizeof(vote);i++) con += ( { consensusCanChange judge (vote *item) { return (*( consensusCanChange *) item.value()); } &judge; } )(&votes[i]); wumbolo ^^^ 15:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify pending a valid merge target per an inability to find reasonable secondary sources that demosntrate notability. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect to International Obfuscated C Code Contest is also acceptable for me. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International Obfuscated C Code Contest or merge to a broader article. Beep boop beep. Sorry, I don't know computeriness. Natureium (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I support a Redirect as above, as an alternative to deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested above. I'm not at all convinced the subject is notable. wumbolo ^^^ 19:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman cognomina[edit]

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

This isn't exact a list of all Roman last names, but still, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE surely has to apply to such a list. The linked names land on a huge range of articles, from surnames to various people who aren't even Roman; it wouldn't surprise me that some aren't people at all. And citations? Who needs those? Mangoe (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by WP:LISTCRUFT definition 6 list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable not to mention half of the list if not more do not have Wikipedia articles Freetheangels (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN as there are extensive scholarly studies and analyses such as A Study of the Cognomina of Soldiers in the Roman Legions or A classification of the cognomina appearing in the Corpus inscriptionum latinarum. Some of these are still well-known such as Caesar or Cicero and, while there's a long tail of lesser-known names, our policies WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE indicate that we should keep this. Andrew D. (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way in hell WP:PRESERVE applies here. Every single item on the list needs to be sourced and corrected, or removed. Andrew, it's comments like the above that lead me to believe you auto-!vote in these AFDs without even looking at the articles under discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRESERVE states that "as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained...". It seems quite clear that we would want to retain entries such as Caesar and so the policy applies. Per the edit notice, "arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements". My !vote therefore outweighs those which are not based on policies and evidence. Andrew D. (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The wording you quote clearly refers to removal of content within a page, not to page deletion. When citing PRESERVE in order to oppose deletion of articles, you imply that some information will be lost from the encyclopedia as a whole if this page is deleted. Your !vote, which is based on your own misinterpretation (although at this point it's seeming more and more like deliberate misrepresentation) of the policies and guidelines is worth a lot less than it would be if you were more careful.

Anyway, at present the vast, vast majority of the content of this page is not useful to readers. I might think differently if either (a) it had some prose discussion of the entries that don't have articles (... all of them? or just 99%?) or (b) it contained blue links to other articles that did. But at present, all the blue links seem to link to unrelated articles. This is a fact that even the page's creator has acknowledged in his "delete" !vote below.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew initially cited PRESERVE in conjunction with WP:ATD, which is explicitly part of deletion policy, and which your comments are not only contrary to but do not even demonstrate awareness of it. The principle, and his interpretation of what it means in practice, is the same in both policy sections: per ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." postdlf (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew has a nasty habit of citing ATD as though "redirect, don't merge" was an alternative to deletion that was unacceptable as a reason to open an AFD, even though this runs counter to the longstanding community consensus on the matter. (Also, when people open RMs to move mainspace articles and Wikipedia essays into the userspace, those RMs seem to get opposed on the grounds that userfication is more typically associated with XFD than with RM.) In this case, redirecting to Cognomen#Roman names or Roman naming conventions would be acceptable, but there's no way in hell that the content of this page should be merged into either of those without careful editing. If you or Andrew think that editing could improve the page so it need not be deleted or redirected, then the onus is on you, not Mangoe or even me, to do so; I don't know enough about Roman cognomina to put in the massive effort it would take to fix this page, if that is even possible. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure listcruft. » Shadowowl | talk 17:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have 53 examples at Category:Ancient Roman cognomina, more than enough to merit a complementary, standalone index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN. So unless that category is somehow invalid (if it is, please demonstrate why), I'm not seeing any complaints here that can't be resolved by cleanup or development, such as by removing entries that don't merit articles. Also, LISTN is plainly satisfied by the existence of cognomen, which shows these are notable as a group. postdlf (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy/Draftify until someone goes through the list and adds sources verifying all the content, and removes bad bluelinks that direct to unrelated articles. Virtually every one I clicked on was on (1) a completely unrelated topic, (2) a specific mononymous individual, or (3) an "anglicized" form of a "Greek" name (also unsourced, and I honestly don't know which to trust). The only reason I'm not saying delete is my belief that, in theory, this subject might merit a page, but the article as we have it now is pure crap; again I must draw attention to the painstaking work some of us put into making lists of this kind. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess - it dates from the era of generating massive lists just to see what were red and blue links. I was going to mock it as being just a list of Roman nicknames - but I see we now have hordes of lists at lists of nicknames! So perhaps the right approach for this is cut it down to cognomina of consuls, or senators, or emperors, or some other famous-Roman category (List of monarchs by nickname seems like a useful model, for instance. Stan (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The rationale given by the nominator, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, clearly does not apply here. This is not A, a summary-only description of works; B, a lyrics database; C, an excessive listing of unexplained statistics; or D, an exhaustive log of software updates. Nor should it be necessary to reply to the bare assertion that the topic constitutes "listcruft". There's a reason that WP:ITSCRUFT is a heading under "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". Roman cognomina are discussed in a main article, and are the subject of scholarly treatises, some of which date back over a hundred and twenty years. A list of them is easily longer than such an article ought to contain, and so a stand-alone list is justified under the criteria for lists. Does everything in the list merit inclusion? Probably not, as some of the entries give the appearance of not being cognomina. In that case, the issue here is sorting out those entries that don't belong; but that's not a basis for deletion of the list. Should the list consist largely of redlinks? It's not that seemly, but you could get at least a paragraph out of quite a lot of entries that don't currently have them. Chase divides his list of cognomina from the earliest volumes of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum into several main and a few minor categories by type, and within each type provides some indication of etymology for individual names; in addition to which there are encyclopedic mentions of some in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology or in the Roman grammarians and antiquarians; and information on the historical usage could potentially be gleaned from a simple list of individuals bearing certain cognomina from historical sources or inscriptions. Should the redlinks be turned into plain text until entries are written? Not necessarily, since the existence of redlinks encourages the development of articles where they can be justified, and no policy discourages them. But again, that's not related to whether the article should be deleted. The topic is plainly notable; the list is too long to go in a main article on the topic; and the contents can plainly be improved. There's simply no justification for deleting this list. P Aculeius (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius: Did you click on any of the links before writing the above? It seems like hardly any of them lead anywhere. As is -- without sources, links to other articles giving details (virtually all of the links appear to be broken), or inline prose descriptions -- the list is completely useless. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem confused by the purpose of a redlink. Redlinks are not (usually) "broken links" to articles that no longer exist, but links used to indicate that the creation of an article that doesn't yet exist is desired. There's no time limit to how long a redlink should exist before it's removed or changed into normal text. The bluelinks do lead somewhere; usually to persons bearing the cognomen in question, or to a place or object that explains what the surname refers to. The page does link to "cognomen" at the top, and to "Roman naming conventions" at the bottom, and as those are the main articles for the subject, readers should refer there for explanation of what a cognomen is. Individual cognomina can certainly be cited to specific sources, but doing so will require some time. This is not a reason to delete the list. Nor is the fact that some of the names do not appear to be genuine cognomina; these are reasons to edit and improve the list, not to delete it. Articles on Wikipedia are not "useless" because they are in need of improvement—even substantial improvement. Accordingly, while the list needs a lot of work, it's clearly not a candidate for deletion under any policy correctly cited in this discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius: You misread my comment. The "broken links" I referred to were (clearly, if you look at my initial !vote, especially the diff I provided of my efforts on a similar list) blue links that direct to completely wrong articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't misread it. Links that redirect to articles about people bearing these cognomina aren't "broken". A "broken" link isn't one that leads somewhere you didn't expect it to when you clicked on it. It's one that doesn't work at all. Clicking on a random sampling of bluelinks from the first few letters demonstrated that some of the names were redirected to the most prominent Romans bearing those cognomina, while others were to the objects described by the cognomina. This isn't the only possible way that these links could go, but it's not inherently wrong, and it doesn't make them "broken". Besides which, even if some of them lead to completely unrelated articles (for example, a former redlink shares a name with a more-recently created article under the same title), it's still not grounds for deletion. It's grounds for disambiguation on an individual basis. P Aculeius (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're going to nitpick my supposed use of the phrase "broken link", I should point out that I didn't actually use that phrase; I said virtually all of the links appear to be broken. Referring to accidental Easter-egg links (and the page's creator, who is in favour of deletion, has essentially agreed they are accidental) as "broken" is not wrong, and saying that a page consisting of nothing but said accidental Easter-egg links should be deleted, redirected, userfied or draftified is in line with our policies and guidelines. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, the only limit to the size of the list is that there is a limited supply of documents from which to draw these. I honestly cannot see what use the list is: it comes across as something like "list of American middle names" or something. If there were some information tabulated for each name, which could be included in the list, I could see this, but at the moment the only thing I can see is delinking everything, and then, well, it's just a list of words, and we should not be a dictionary of Roman name-parts. Mangoe (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a very good comparison. For one thing, "middle names" are by definition arbitrary, and often arbitrarily coined; neither is the case for Roman cognomina, which were surnames by definition ("surname" is the translation of "cognomen"). They were often, though not always hereditary, and frequently used to distinguish between families. They were usually derived from regular Latin nouns or adjectives; sometimes ethnonyms or demonyms; never collections of random syllables and not generally bestowed with the sole purpose of giving someone a certain number of names. Many of the more common ones not only have historical significance, but are the sources for modern personal names. However, all of that could have been determined simply by reading the main articles on the topic. More importantly, the fact that information that *could* go in an article isn't there isn't a valid reason to delete the article. It's a reason to improve the article. Simply put, this nomination is not justified by any criterion cited in this discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it is definitely worth keeping, as mentioned by others, although it does need some work. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"some" work? Every single item on the list needs to be (a) sourced and rewritten or (b) removed. There's literally nothing on the page worth preserving. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working on fix at User:Iazyges/List of Roman cognomina1. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're doing it in your userspace, essentially from scratch (seriously -- hardly any of the mainspace page is intact in your version) then what's the point in !voting "keep" for the mainspace page. You've essentially unilaterally fulfilled my preferred outcome by userfying the page yourself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to expand on what I said earlier. Article fails to meet WP:LISTCRUFT by definition 6 which is "The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable" I feel like it fails definition 10 because the creator of the list provided no clear criteria for membership of the list and the Wikipedia article that he linked (Roman Cognomen does not provide a clear definition. Freetheangels (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The original name dump is certainly of unclear origin, added by an anon in 2002; I just split up and made links. I have a vague memory that there was a source page that would frequently show up in searches for a particular name, dunno if it still exists. It might even have been somebody that crunched down the contents of the soldiers' cognomina book. The book does suggest that we're pushing the envelope of noteworthiness by including some of the cognomina - "known from two inscriptions found near Trier" and the like. Stan (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Satisfies LISTN because Roman cognomina satisfy GNG as a group. It is also necessary to have a list of cognomina for navigational purposes (we generally have pages for surnames [19], ancient Romans whose names we know are generally notable, and we will need an index). Not indiscriminate at all. The list is limited and maintainable. Any referencing problem is being fixed by User:Lazyges. In view of the two separate versions of this page, I think a history merge will be needed. James500 (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is notable and defined. The number of names that could be on the list is not infinite. It can be debated if the article should include all cognomina or only the noteworthy ones, but the list is fine. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wagile software development[edit]

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

Violates WP:NEO. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Not to be confused with Agile software development. — Newslinger talk 13:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 13:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 13:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 13:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 13:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed with the proposer, Newslinger. This is a neologism that combines the Waterfall model of software development with Agile software development but it is not in widespread use and never really caught on, failing WP:NEO. It only seems to be mentioned on a very small number of websites, mostly just blogs, none of which would be considered reliable, independent sources, failing WP:GNG. And the capitalization isn't even standardized, some sources capitalize it as "WAgile" instead of "Wagile". As a programmer myself, I had never heard of "Wagile" software development before seeing this AfD nomination, and while combining aspects of the Waterfall model with Agile software development is a useful idea for software development, this neologism never really caught on for describing that idea so I can't see any justification to keep the article. If there WERE anything useful in this article I would propose merging it into Agile software development but this article is just a stub with nothing useful in it, just throw it away, don't bother merging. Yetisyny (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As both nom and Yetisyny state, there's really nothing here beyond a neologism. The term might have caught on, but it didn't. The article hasn't gone anywhere since 2009, and given the defunct status of the term, it isn't going to either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I could not find sources that indicate notability. Absolutely a neologism. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants the article userfied for further work, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DEMPA ch.♥ TOKYO DEMPA INTERNATIONAL[edit]

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

Radio programme with no evidence of notability. Refs are social media or very light-weight. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only does it not meet WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources, but it also violates naming conventions by having the ♥ character in the article title. Even if the article were kept it would have to be renamed to not have the heart character in the title. It also reads like an advertisement. That being said, it sounds like a very fun radio show that I would like listening to, as I am into Japanese culture, but I won't let my personal bias in favor of this sort of thing cloud my judgment. Yetisyny (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I see no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on my comments below. Someone else will need to add the source articles as references in the article. I don't have time to do so right now. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Brad v 03:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Save I requested to remove heart character in the title of this article and added reliable independent source. Obvious lack of information will improve by degrees. Bessiah 07:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search finds no indication that subject meets WP:GNG. Recently added sources include a press release and Twitter posts, and do not amount to significant coverage in WP:RS. The show verifiably exists but does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Bakazaka (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Save This article was written by me based on Japanese article about this. Is it enough to encourage this article? Bessiah 16:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— Duplicate vote: Bessiah (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

comment User:Nihonjoe do you want to take a look at the Japanese wiki link Bessiah has given ? if there is indeed a strong japanese source that can confer notability here. --DBig Xrayᗙ 20:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Of the sources in the Japanese article, this one and this one could be considered "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", therefore meeting WP:GNG. However, I don't have time to translate them and add them to the references. None of the other articles or works cited can be used to establish notability. You only need two, though. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: Sure looks like the tfm-plus source is Tokyo FM+, which would not be independent since it's the parent broadcaster, but maybe I'm missing something. Bakazaka (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability, violates title conventions and it is a generally shoddy article. BRFC4104 (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: @BRFC4104: Violating title conventions and shoddy writing are not valid reasons to delete an article. Notability is now addressed above. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian Presnyakov[edit]

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

I have just deleted it from ru.wiki and believe it to be cross-wiki spam. In contradiction to WP:ARTIST, the level of Mr. Presnyakov's recognition in the professional art community is insignificant although his works have some small coverage in general media. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 12:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 12:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks very sketchy in terms of the way the article is edited. I deleted sources on Docviewer and IMGUR, which points towards fabricated material. Many sources are hosted by a user on archive.org. Manyother sources are web sites of unknown quality converted to "Webcitation". Very sketchy, obviously professionally edited promotional article. Based on that, will take the nom's word that artist is not notable. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and the WP:ARTIST. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 07:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ahmedabad#Transport. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad Monorail[edit]

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

The article was created in 2011 when a company proposed a monorail system for Ahmedabad city and did MoU with the government. There is no update on the project after that either from the company or from the government. No news about it can be found. Only references in the article are related to that proposal. The proposal might be scrapped. May fail WP:NTRAN because of lack of sources on the project. The notability guideline does not suggest how a proposed project which is not progressing should be handled. But I believe a proposed project which is not going anywhere even after seven years should not be here. Nizil (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 07:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 07:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - A quick search on Google found plenty of articles [20]. - Morphenniel (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Morphenniel:, I think you are confusing Ahmedabad Monorail with Ahmedabad Metro. Both are different things. A link you posted above is abut metro, not monorail.-Nizil (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norminator and as per WP:CRYSTALBALL and lack of sources about the subject. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nizil Shah (including Nizil Shah's reply to Morphenniel's comment, distinguishing the Monorail from the Metro), along with Tyw7. I agree with Nizil's logic about why this would not meet WP:NTRAN, being a proposed project that never happened. Yetisyny (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to a short paragraph about the proposal at Ahmedabad#Transport. The proposal is notable enough for a mention in the article, but it seems there is insufficient information to sustain a whole article currently and it doesn't seem likely this will change any time soon. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf:, I am OK with merge but I think the topic is not worthwhile to add in the city article because there is no information or progess on the project beyond a proposal even after 7 years. Metro is under construction now and this project might have been shelved long ago.-Nizil (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not every proposal is notable, but I think this one is, given the sources that exist for it. That it didn't go anywhere is just as encyclopaedic as it getting built - it just means there is significantly less than can be said about it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Blue (tourism magazine). After the merge, keep the history intact and redirect to Blue (tourism magazine) -- RoySmith (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Schrier[edit]

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

Started a travel magazine in 1997 that lasted for less than three years. Apart from a short piece about the magazine (itself of marginal notability) in the NYT, I can find nothing else that would contribute to WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 09:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 09:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 09:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 09:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. Further, deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because there is a lot of stuff (including a lot of sources) about the magazine in here that is not in the magazine's article. That material would need to be copied over to the magazine. James500 (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge. The subject Amy Schrier is not notable outside the notability for Blue (tourism magazine), which has its own separate AfD going on, where I have voted to keep that magazine's Wikipedia article. This article should be deleted and merged into Blue (tourism magazine) which I have in that AfD voted to keep. There are articles about the magazine Blue that give it significant coverage, but they only mention or talk to Amy Schrier in order to give coverage to the magazine Blue, not to give coverage to Amy Schrier. No significant coverage exists for her, so WP:GNG is not met, but the relevant parts of this article alluded to by James500 can certainly all be preserved in the Blue article if that is kept, and I think there is a strong argument to keep that article. If that Blue article is also deleted, though, then I suppose since Amy Schrier fails the GNG we would have to just delete this which would be unfortunate, I prefer merging into the Blue article. Yetisyny (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Yetisyny. You make the case very well. I nominated Amy Schrier, and then Blue, but with less certainty. Thanks to the work of Quiddity, Blue now appears notable. Edwardx (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot "delete and merge". If we merge content, we have to keep the page history to comply with WP:CWW. The options for that are either redirection (WP:BLAR) or a history merge without redirect. James500 (talk) 08:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and the WP:JOURNALIST. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 07:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Blue (tourism magazine). There's enough detail to make one better article out of two minimal ones. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion. —Cryptic 17:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noor Bibi[edit]

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

Since this is an upcoming show so fails WP:TVSERIES.. This also does not meet the notability guidelines WP:GNG . Saqib (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. The creator of the article Knightrises10 has requested speedy deletion under WP:G7, also WP:GNG is not met yet at this time, see WP:TVSERIES. We ought to comply with the request for speedy deletion by the author under Wikipedia:Deletion process#Early closure, G7 speedy deletion qualifies for that. Yetisyny (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Knightrises10: added speedy tag after I nom this for deletion so ideally xe should post the speedy request here instead of speedy tagging the page. --Saqib (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP: TOOSOON - this television series is still up-and-coming. It might be worth creating an article on this television series once the series has actually been broadcast, depending on what type of reception it receives. Vorbee (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Master T.C. and The Visitors[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSICBIO. the sources are too weak to show any real notability blogs an interview PR release and passing mentions. Probably WP:TOOSOON Dom from Paris (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dom from Paris. Fails WP:MUSICBIO criteria for notability for musical bands. Yetisyny (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage is WP:ROUTINE and no indication of any WP:NMUSIC criteria met (even if they are the band of the year in Toledo, that wouldn't be enough to satisfy 11) Teemu08 (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV no independent coverage in mainstream media. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blue (tourism magazine)[edit]

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

Magazine started in 1997 and lasted for less than three years. Apart from a short piece about the magazine in the NYT, I can find nothing else that would contribute to WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added various references and details. It had full pieces written about it in a number of newspapers/magazines (beyond what I've added) as listed at http://www.bluemagazine.com/press.html Quiddity (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Christian Science Monitor article about it has significant coverage from a reliable independent source. The New York Times article is about it too although you can only see part of the article on it since it is in the NYT archive, only NYT subscribers can see the full-length piece on it. I say this meets WP:GNG criteria for inclusion since it had 2 full-length articles on it in major publications, both reliable independent sources. Yetisyny (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Thank you, Quiddity and Yetisyny. I nominated Amy Schrier, and then Blue, but with less certainty. Thanks to Quiddity's kind expansion, Blue now looks to be notable. Edwardx (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quiddity. James500 (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Vincent College of Commerce[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 10:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Savitribai Phule Pune University. Subject does not merit its own article, not notable by itself, all cited sources are from the subject of the article itself. Any relevant encyclopedic information which can be supported by inline citations should be merged into the article at Savitribai Phule Pune University about this university as a whole. Yetisyny (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a affiliated degree college of Savitribai Phule Pune University as per Pune Univeristy website.The university has over 100 affiliated colleges as per this .Now all of this caanot be merged into the University article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Degree-awarding institution. Affiliated colleges in India are tertiary institutions in their own right. They do not belong within the article of the university to which they are affiliated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regular coverage from DNA India like this article. Night colleges a boon for working students and students success stories [21] [22] Times of India had news of arrest of several employees there, which could be routine, but not really? [23] ICBSE listing [24] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not only degree-awarding but contains a postgraduate school so clearly notable. Sourcing is inadequate but as shown in this discussion sufficient sources available to meet WP:GNG which is what is required. Just Chilling (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to St. Xavier's College, Mumbai. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 07:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Institute of Management & Research[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Part of St. Xavier's College, Mumbai. Has not enough notability on its own to warrant a separate article. The Banner talk 10:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into St. Xavier's College, Mumbai. The college itself (St. Xavier's) is notable even if this article (its business school) is not, and this way, the information in this article that can be supported by inline references can still be on Wikipedia, in an article that IS notable. Yetisyny (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to St. Xavier's College, Mumbai § Institutes as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Side note: If you look through Jzsj's article contributions, of which this is one, you'll find probably dozens of these promotional articles on Jesuit subjects that have been merged to their larger parent schools. I find it very unfortunate that we have to spend so much time correcting this promotional editing on Jesuit subjects. It should not have happened in the first place. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Just a school of another college, not a college in its own right. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above for now. Can be re-created when it gains enough notability in the future. Lorstaking (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the institute list as above. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jay Samit. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 09:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Long Beach Studios[edit]

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

Company appears to have existed only briefly on paper; the studio never got off the ground. The primary focus of the article and secondary source coverage of the subject was in the context of its attempted purchase of a former Boeing facility, which fell through. Appears to fail WP:ORGCRITE; the only significant coverage the subject received was this article from the Press Telegram. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge if there is any useful information that could be added to a relevant article about the people, facilities, or land involved. This article about a planned business that never launched may or may not meet the threshold GNG based on contemporaneous coverage, but even if so: (1) it would have to be rewritten to be an article about a failed business launch, not one about an upcoming business, and (2) as a matter of organization, if not notability, any information to preserve would better be a sentence or so within a more complete article about a more notable subject. If there is truly nothing interesting here or fitting for the encyclopedia then it could be deleted as a second best option. Please note that I'm the one who originally created this stub, and you will get no objection from me by being bold and just doing so speedily — I may do the same if I can find some time. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only one comment so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict6 9 11:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect any useful information as described above, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No redirection/merge target has been suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Jay Samit article. Jay Samit was the CEO of Long Beach Studios and it was his failed business venture. He is notable and has his own Wikipedia article and is a businessman with a long history of business ventures, some successful, some not. This information should go on his page. The other partner in this business was just an actor, Jack O'Halloran, who is most notable for his acting in Superman movies and is not primarily a businessman, and was not the main person behind this, Jay Samit was the main person behind this, so it belongs merged as part of the Jay Samit article. Jack O'Halloran was mostly just part of this failed business venture because as an actor from Superman movies he brought in publicity but he wasn't the CEO or the brains behind the operation, Jay Samit was the CEO and the guy behind Long Beach Studios. Yetisyny (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jay Samit as give above. Explanations already given - no notability and no chance of that changing. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jay Samit per User:Yetisyny; thank you suggesting this option. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swordfish (password)[edit]

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

Fun trivia. But... trivia. Not an encyclopedic subject. Fails WP:N, a lot of WP:OR/WP:V] issues too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the lack of sourcing, I tend to agree with the OP. Kleuske (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not encyclopedic content, not notable, many issues with it, still it is some fun trivia, but not something that deserves its own Wikipedia article. There are other websites better suited to documenting memes like this such as TV Tropes. If anyone has a TV Tropes account I suggest merging whatever you can from here into the page about this at tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThePasswordIsAlwaysSwordfish before this page is deleted. It does not belong on Wikipedia, however, due to notability and other issues (this article is what Wikipedia is not). Hopefully someone will "merge" this information into the TV Tropes article I linked to, if you have an account with that site and find this interesting enough to want to keep it online on a prominent website. I don't have a TV Tropes account so I am not doing it. Yetisyny (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the others here. Zortwort (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Belongs on TV Tropes. No attempt to establish notability. Sources are all primary and no secondary coverage of this password as a notable cultural phenomenon. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Ashraf[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. has had played minor roles in TV serie. received only one award which is not in itself grounds for WP:N. Actor lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources so fails GNG.. Saqib (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - famous Pakistani actor, star of hit TV show Alif Allah Aur Insaan (TV series) among other things. See the sources tribune.com.pk/story/1564312/4-10-years-plan-auqaat-alif-allah-aur-insaan-star-imran-ashraf/, www.mangobaaz.com/dil-mom-ka-diya-episode-1-2-review/, dailytimes.com.pk/159555/im-lucky-worked-khalilur-rehman-dialogues-best-imran-ashraf/, www.magtheweekly.com/detail/3048-60-seconds-with-imran-ashraf, and honestly, countless others, I just found those doing a search of Google News for "Imran Ashraf" in quotes, those all turned up on the first page, I am sure there are others on later pages. Pakistan has about 200 million people in it and he is one of the biggest television stars there according to many English-language Pakistani news sites. I would say he meets WP:NACTOR criteria, at least if being a famous actor in Pakistan qualifies. He has even won awards in what is the Pakistani equivalent of the Emmys. Excluding him would just be a case of systemic bias of English-language Wikipedia, mainly most editors being from wealthy English-speaking countries like the U.S.A., United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, prevailing. Someone with equivalent success as a star of American TV shows (with our U.S. population of over 300 million) would very noncontroversially have a Wikipedia article that nobody would ever suggest deleting. The article does need better sourcing to document its notability, of course, I think the sources I listed above would probably be enough for the WP:GNG. As far as meeting WP:NACTOR, that is documented in the sources, where they note what a big star he is in Pakistan, and given that country's huge population, that just means he is a big star, period. Yetisyny (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - probably easier to demonstrate for written work, but created multiple major pieces of work with reviews Oyeyeah 1, Oyeyeah 2, the magweekly ref above (the other three probably don't suffice). There's also various more, you do have to filter out quite a few for various reasons (including the Oyeyeah non-editorial ones), but hunt around brings up plenty. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Yetisyny. Knightrises10 (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lilia Moritz Schwarcz[edit]

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

WP:NN academic, failing all 9 criteria of WP:NACADEMIC. That she was a co-founder of a publisher does not contribute to WP:NOTABILITY Toddst1 (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As noted, her work on publishing house had substantial impact outside academia. And she is a receipt of Prêmio Jabuti, the most prestigious brazilian prize on literature. Ixocactus (talk) 05:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any claim of failing WP:NPROF can and should be checked through subject's cite in Google Scholar. A few seconds of cursory glance suggest she has many citations; Cited by 3471, Cited by 1190, Cited by 489... this is my rule of thumb here, but anything in high triple digits makes one pass criteria #1 (" The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is not just an academic but an author and publisher so WP:NPROF is not the only means for establishing notability, WP:AUTHOR can establish it too. As a recipient of Prêmio Jabuti, the most prestigious Brazilian prize in literature, as noted by Ixocactus, she meets the criteria for WP:AUTHOR and is thus notable. Yetisyny (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO as having won a Prêmio Jabuti, and for her contribution to the field of Brazilian and anthropology history. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve charger[edit]

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

Non-notable collector, most of what I can find are passing mentions or unrelated (ie. Steve McQueen + charger) or interviews. This seems like a vanity piece but also definitely fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has some local press like Ramona Journal, The San Diego Union-Tribune, so might be notable. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He has minor coverage in hyper-local papers which don't really lend themselves to notability in the slightest. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also not really coverage, it's a passing mention. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am the author of the page. I have added more citations since this discussion started. Subject passes WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. I do think there is more here for the community to develop. Roxiehart1903 (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep Passes GNG in my opinion. Even though notability is local, there are car shows named after him and he seems to be a celebrity in the automobile world. I must say, the article is NOT well written. I have added some references that I found but there should be a separate section on his car shows. That is the crux of his notability. I have added some info but will edit more. Globe2trotter (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You wanna provide sources for that? As in significant, non hyper local sources? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passing mention and niche/regional coverage. (Best in-depth sources look pretty bad: [25], [26]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments of Chrissymad, Jmertel23, and Piotrus. No notability outside of very local sources. To pass WP:GNG, significant coverage is needed, not just a brief mention, and it has to be from reliable independent sources. I don't see that outside of very local sources. Even the "Soft Keep" argument of Globe2trotter reads a little bit more like an argument AGAINST keeping the article than in favor of it, to me, given all the problems it points out with this article. Being "a celebrity in the automotive world" is different from being "a celebrity" in the world as a whole, the first is not usually notable, the second pretty much always is. Yetisyny (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Work 4.0[edit]

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

A non-notable neologism from a government report; I don't think the government report is notable either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As described in the article, "Work 4.0" is THE concept under which any discussion about the future of work and how to adapt to it takes place in Germany and, to a lesser degree, within the European Union. There are literally hundreds of conferences and scholarly articles referencing that concept as part of their headlines, especially its German version "Arbeit 4.0". Moreover, the concept has also been picked up by large parts of the German press (Handelsblatt, ZEIT, FAZ, etc.) and parts of the European press (e.g. EURACTIV). The report itself is the key strategic document of the Ministry of Labour of the largest European economy and is likely to frame its policy way beyond 2020. Though I agree that it could and should be substantiated further, I hope that you will reconsider your opinion about the notability of this article. --Arbraxan (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Hmmm. Neologism, but has few sources. It's a bit hard to look four sources since the name is generic, but I found 5 pages of academic discussion in English here: Peter Oeij; Diana Rus; Frank D. Pot (1 July 2017). Workplace Innovation: Theory, Research and Practice. Springer. pp. 56–. ISBN 978-3-319-56333-6.. Search for the German phrase "Arbeiten 4.0" produces many more results, but I don't read German. That includes a number of academic papers like [27] that on surface at least appear to give this topic sufficient coverage to make it notable. Since I don't read German, I am only saying week keep, but AGF this seems like a notable concept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arbraxan and Piotrus. I know a little German but nowhere near fluency, I do at least know "Arbeit" means "work", I spend about a month in Austria every year and they speak German. Anyway, Arbraxan has some pretty convincing arguments but like Piotrus I do think this needs to be documented a bit better with more references but ultimately if we are talking "literally hundreds of conferences and scholarly articles referencing that concept as part of their headlines" as Arbraxan said (assuming it is true since I assume good faith), that is by definition notable, even if it is in German as Arbeit 4.0, and I can assure fellow English-speakers that Work 4.0 is the correct article name. Yetisyny (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Together[edit]

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

Not a notable political group. The NYTimes and USAToday mentions are both trivial, and none of the independent references appear to be substantial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a thorough article about a statewide group, and I'm a bit surprised to see it nominated for deletion. It does have some NPOV issues but that does not a deletion make. Two of the articles cited (which OP dismisses as insubstantial) are explicitly dedicated to the group (in the Auburn Villager and Auburn Plainsman) and another article (from the Anniston Star) might as well be, because it centers around the group's activity. The shortest of them is just under 400 words - the longest, over 1000. To me, these clearly meet the standards for significance, independence and reliability. They are also clearly secondary. I think audience breadth is a fair question, but I think the coverage is demonstrably regional, not local (as is the group's membership) and the NYT and USA Today mentions put it over the top as a statewide manifestation of a national phenomenon. --Vivisel (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vivisel. Both the Auburn Villager and Auburn Plainsman articles meet WP:GNG: they are reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of this group. Notability is thus established per Vivisel's arguments, according to the General Notability Guideline. I agree with the AfD nominator that the NY Times and USA Today do not provide significant coverage, but this is irrelevant to the notability question, because newspapers from Alabama qualify as reliable, independent sources just as much as newspapers from other states. Yetisyny (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated by Vivisel, the sources provide sufficient coverage and would seem reliable enough to qualify as suitable sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Stoneleigh P[edit]

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

Notability concerns about this Dallas restaurant. The only non-trivial ref is [28]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added another source with substantive/dedicated coverage of The Stoneleigh P. Generally trying to add more local coverage about notable places in Dallas (as a region, DFW is lacking despite being the fourth-largest metropolitan area in the US). Could you let me know if this dedicated coverage helps? Stephenbharrison (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is at least one more reference which is more than a passing mention. I've also added two more references from the Texas Monthly from 1973 and 1981 which support WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH due to their recognition of the organization over a significant period of time and though brief, are more than simply reviews. Texas Monthly is a regional publication. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Power~enwiki noted one source that provided significant coverage (D Magazine) and Glane23 noted another (CultureMap Dallas). The 2 Texas Monthly sources do NOT provide significant coverage but they do show breadth of coverage and sustained coverage. And, all aforementioned sources are independent and reliable. Thus, WP:GNG is satisfied. Yetisyny (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Durdy Bayramov. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Durdy Bayramov Art Foundation[edit]

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

Artist is clearly notable, but I'm not sure the art foundation is. Can't find references apart from a couple of passing mentions and the Turkish Society of Canada newsletter referenced in the article. Tacyarg (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Durdy Bayramov. This looks like a memorial page. ~~On the other hand, there are some decent sources available, in the article and in search. But~~ my cutoff goes much higher when the article is promotional like this one is. I just created an art foundation page where the notability was unquestionable: many sources in good pubs, and the foundation lends to museums and had 75 million in the bank. This foundation seems like a memorial effort that could be covered in the article on Durdy Bayramov.

Comment - I did see that Star article, but I don't think it actually mentions the Foundation. Tacyarg (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I jumped to a conclusion there. That means there are close to no RS out there.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Durdy Bayramov per ThatMontrealIP. Both Tacyarg and ThatMontrealIP are in agreement, I am too. It was probably unnecessary to relist this debate, I think it reached a fine consensus already in keeping with the facts and Wikipedia policies, let's just follow ThatMontrealIP's merge suggestion and avoid having this get relisted again. Yetisyny (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Sperm Bank of California[edit]

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

~~The references do not offer substantial coverage of the subject--they are about the general problems involved, and only mention this particular organization.~~ DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn--see below DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE:

"[D]onor identification release... when the man donates sperm, he agrees that when his offspring turn 18, they can ... get contact information. The Sperm Bank of California in Berkeley was the first to offer this option, in 1983... [It] was considered at the forefront of its field when it offered identity release 20 years ago." The New York Times, May 21, 2002
"Until now, DI adult experiences with open-identity donation remain relatively unexplored, because few programs worldwide have offspring old enough to obtain their donor's identifying information (14). In addition to the US program (The Sperm Bank of California, first offspring born 1983), the oldest programs are in Sweden (1985), Austria (1992), Victoria state, Australia (1998), and New Zealand (1990s)." Fertility and Sterility February 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.10.023

There are many more. I have added 2 additional RS to the article. If need be, I can add additional. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article and two more related was deleted in Spanish Wikipedia and one argument by the -now blocked- creator against the deletion was precisely the existence of this article. Best, ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia because I strongly protested the decision to speedily delete all articles about sperm banks for being "promotional" and "of no encyclopedic relevance" although in the Spanish project the only declared criteria for relevance are that there are multiple reliable sources with in-depth coverage and that are independent of the subject, which is clearly the case for this one and the two biggest others. I hate it if people take decisions purely based on their own preferences, do not listen at all to reasoning of others, stick to refuted claims (like there is no in depth coverage when they have been shown multiple sources and just a quick search should have quickly solved the issue) and then act in a condescending way. If you have any criteria by which this is not a relevant topic, please let me know. I could for example imagine that for a firm the number of employees, turnover or founding date could usually be necessary. In my opinion, if there is such media coverage over an extended time spam that already shows relevance. Crotopaxi (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the contributor makes a good case for the inclusion of a combination article about the companies taking this approach to the field. But it's not enough to justify a separate article for any of them. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think is missing for individual articles about companies? There is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject for each of them. Crotopaxi (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. on the basis of the sources found by Coffeeandcrumbs, . This does seem to have been the first sperm bank to allow donor identification, not just in the US, but in the world, This was not mentioned in the version I saw when I nominated it, I think that's sufficient importance, and sufficient substantial coverage to show it from reliable peer-reviewed sources. . I admit I did not look properly because I assumed from the scanty rather routine article that nothing would be there to be found. I can't withdraw the afd because there was another delete !vote, but that was before the sources were added. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Reed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I last nominated this article for deletion in 2011, resulting in no consensus. Revisiting this article now, I still believe this article fails to meet WP:NCOLLATH. Reed doesn't meet the four core criteria of NCOLLATH, and the provided articles about Reed in the "further reading" section are little more than WP:ROUTINE coverage from local newspapers. Arbor to SJ (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NCOLLATH is an inclusive standard, not an exclusive one. Starting quarterbacks at Division I FBS programs commonly have articles if they pass WP:GNG. At the prior AfD, some 20 articles were presented where Reed was the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable media outlets. These are articles written about Reed that far surpass passing mentions in game coverage or mere "Transactions" announcements of the sort considered to be WP:ROUTINE. SonofCbl (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So the general notability guideline overrides the sports notability guideline, due to the extensive coverage about Reed from local news sources? I can accept that argument, if there's a consensus in this discussion. The quarterback is usually the "face of the program" for D1 FBS teams, so he usually becomes the subject of most news coverage unless a position player is particularly exceptional. Arbor to SJ (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local coverage should be underweighed. There is not enough coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete The coverage looks like routine sports reporting to me. I see nothing that every Division 1 QB wouldn't have and don't believe WP:NFOOTBALL makes all such players notable. Don't see any other notability standard is met.Sandals1 (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is local and consists of routine sports reporting. There's no indication that WP:GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON is met. Papaursa (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler Jones (wide receiver)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCOLLATH due to no national college football awards and news coverage being WP:ROUTINE from local, not national, sources. Also fails WP:NGRIDIRON: although he has been a member of multiple NFL and CFL teams, he never appeared in a regular season or postseason game for any. Arbor to SJ (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Coverage is routine sports reporting. NFL.com and cfl.ca both show that he didn't play any regular season games so he fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Sandals1 (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NGRIDIRON. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 07:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

De'Leon Eskridge[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH due to no national awards and little to no non-WP:ROUTINE national media coverage. He also was only an offeseason/practice squad player in the NFL, so he doesn't meet WP:NGRIDIRON either. He also was an assistant coach at the City College of San Francisco, but even that does not establish notability. Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable college football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I have now done more research and found multiple articles about Eskridge from the Star Tribune (the Minneapolis based newspaper) during his time playing for the Minnesota Golden Gophers football team that go beyond "routine" coverage:

"Eskridge makes most of his shot" (September 14, 2008)
"U's Eskridge on the go from the get-go" (October 4, 2008)
"In-house backfield battle is nonstop" (October 15, 2009)
"Two talented backs battle for No. 1 spot" (April 21, 2010)
"Returnees shine on winning drive" (November 28, 2010)

And from the Pioneer Press, a St. Paul, Minnesota newspaper:

"Gophers freshman DeLeon Eskridge rushes for 114 yards, 3 TDs" (September 12, 2008)
"Minnesota Gophers RB DeLeon Eskridge has shown he has matured" (September 16, 2008)
"Bob Sansevere’s Body Shots: Minnesota Gophers running back DeLeon Eskridge" (September 19, 2008)
"Bob Sansevere’s Two Things with Gophers running back DeLeon Eskridge" (October 30, 2008)

Based on this set of articles in which Eskridge has a major, non trivial part, I think there's a case Eskridge meets WP:GNG. If that's the case I propose to Withdraw this nomination. Arbor to SJ (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Coverage is just routine local sports reporting. Fails to meet the GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON. Sandals1 (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: While local news outlets do feature articles about certain individual college football players, only a select group of such players earn that coverage editorially. That factor combined with him signing an NFL contract made me reconsider this deletion request. Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NGRIDIRON. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 07:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I think arguments for keeping and deleting are about evenly matched and cancel each other out. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Workers Development Union[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo based on the own website The Banner talk 21:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A charitable educational organisation with 42 staff is likely to be notable. If this were a one-man band or a local church, I would certain concur in deletion, but it is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- SOURCESMUSTEXIST, ILIKEITVERYMUCH......∯WBG^converse 17:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And add such newspapaer articles as this and this as well as this very substantive article from Shramik Abhivrudhi Sanghin. Jzsj (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Jzsj (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
- Two time the same link, just telling that they sold wool and have a project about wool. The last "source" just gives one (1) link to Shramik Abhivrudhi Sangh and nothing more. The Banner talk 01:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 22:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable Ghits that prove it passes WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Also written like an advertisement, tagged it as such if consensus is keep. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it does have some substantial coverage in reliable sources such as The Hindu, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence? The Banner talk 18:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Banner, A306 has a reputation of being atypically nonsensical as to the issue of gauging significance of coverage and stand-alone-ness of an article from the available source(s). ∯WBG^converse 17:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:ADHOM commenting on other editors is your hallmark and the easy option instead of ever finding any reliable sources at all, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Certainly.They can't be found where they don't exist.∯WBG^converse 08:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I had already noticed that he has a special relationship with the policies and guidelies regarding sources. And I have also noticed that, although he wants reliable sources, he nearly never presented that type of sources himself. The Banner talk 20:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, a Google search for "Workers Development Union" yields 58 results and none of them provide anything more than a passing mention including the soruces provided above by the creator and most of them are not even reliable so fails WP:ORGSIG and WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--A single HT piece do not make-th notability.Per GSS.∯WBG^converse 17:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vorsight[edit]

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing fails to provide notability per WP:NCORP, they're along the lines of "including pieces like "case studies" or "success stories" by Chambers of Commerce, business incubators, consulting firms, etc.", are purely what the company's people say about themselves, and fail WP:AUD Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Statue of Muhammad Fuzuli[edit]

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

~~Does not meet WP:GNG~~ Rosguill^talk 02:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Mohammed Fuzuli. Vorbee (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vorbee, you mean Fuzûlî? Edit: Redirect created. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have left a pointer to this discussion at Talk:Fuzûlî, as I believe should be a required part of the AfD procedure whenever a merge is proposed in an AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After peeking at the Azeri and Russian wikis, BEFORING (including the multiple images in google images, as well as web and book hits) - I am convinced this monumental 40 foot statue in the middle of a named square in a central location in Baku [29] most definitely passes GNG. I don't think merging to the namesake (who died 400 years prior to the statue) is appropriate. Peeking at List of the tallest statues in the United States and List of Confederate monuments and memorials and then back at this AfD makes me think of Wikipedia:Systemic bias.Icewhiz (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Icewhiz's comment above seems compelling to me. At the very least, a merge is surely appropriate. --Bsherr (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing delete Icewhiz's argument is convincing. Rosguill^talk 18:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, as the !votes aren't unanimous to keep, I think the discussion should nonetheless run its course. --Bsherr (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But instead of your additional bold text above, I've just struck out your original rationale for clarity. Of course, feel free to make it your own. --Bsherr (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Icewhiz. But rename to Statue of Fuzûlî, Baku. That's the title of his article and it's probably not the only statue of him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Icewhiz. James500 (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a major monument; the sculptors were awarded a prize, etc. Suggest moving to Statue of Fuzûlî; not sure if disambig is needed, since Wikipedia does not have any other articles on statues to Fuzûlî. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Wilbur[edit]

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

Per this discussion, this appears to be a clear case of WP:BLP1E. While this guy may someday pass WP:GNG, being only an engineer on one album that won a Grammy not for engineering says WP:NotJustYet. Toddst1 (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a severe misinterpretation of BIO1E. Plenty of people are notable for doing just one thing, if that thing is noteworthy enough to meet any of the specific notability guides. Wilbur, in this case, has done so - he has won a Grammy award for mastering engineering (and is credited with the win by the Grammy foundation, not just been an engineer on an album that won an award for other reasons), which means he meets WP:MUSIC. He does not need to win two Grammys. Also, I encourage editors to view the page history - it was once not nearly so stubby, and has been stripped of a lot of information that is probably verifiable. Chubbles (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Does_an_engineer_on_a_Grammy-winning_record_reach_the_notability_requirements_if_that's_his_only_award?. Toddst1 (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't weigh in there because I was on vacation, but the reasoning employed there does not check out. Winning a Grammy is nowhere near the kind of "one event" that 1E covers; I encourage editors there and here to revisit the guideline. Chubbles (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't win a Grammy. A record that he worked on as a recording engineer won a Grammy. If there was a Grammy for "Best Recording Engineering" and that record won that, I might be persuaded that Josh Wilbur won a Grammy himself. Saying he's reached notability requirements for his list of credits is like saying a waiter should have an article because he's worked at 30 different restaurants and one of them won Restaurant of the Year. Sorry. Amsgearing (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should take the Grammy Foundation's word as to what they meant to honor with the awards they bestow, and Wilbur is credited with a win alongside Earle. [30] Not sure what the apology is in reference to. Chubbles (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is too poor. Despite two years and a hundred edits, the article hasn't grown beyond three sentences. There doesn't seem to be anything more to say about this guy.Tuzapicabit (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article had a credit list of dozens of albums, which was removed because an editor found that Wilbur was not credited in the liner notes of one of the albums on which he was credited by the cited source (Allmusic); that editor removed the entire list of credits and engaged in an edit war to keep the material from being restored. There is a lot of spurious reasoning and WP:AADD going on here... Chubbles (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at WP:AADD, and I find only one argument here that meets a description in that essay: "Plenty of people are notable for doing just one thing" is the same argument as the third example in WP:OTHERSTUFF, so maybe you should reconsider your keep vote. Amsgearing (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My allusion was too opaque, so let me be crystal clear. It is an argument to avoid to claim, as the first statement in this subthread does, that there is nothing more to say about the article subject when the article has almost no content after X years. First, the poor current status of an article is not (ever) an indicator of lack of notability, and second, the article grew well beyond three sentences, but much of that content is now hidden; there is more to say, but we have not yet figured out how to say it well. I'm not really interested in boring other readers here by responding to the pot/kettle allegation you make, so if you want to continue a discussion about that, please do so at my talk page. Chubbles (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even beyond BIO1E, I'd argue he's not even notable for the one event, as the record won a Grammy, not the actual recording engineer. Yes, besides the artist, they give a trophy to the producer, the mixer, the recording engineer, and for all we know, the guy who cleans up the studio after the artists leave for the day. So what? As for the credit list of "dozens of albums", besides being unreliable to begin with, he was the mixer or recording engineer on most of those; even if the list was accurate, it wasn't nearly enough to meet WP:GNG, and merely functioned as padding to make the article look more impressive by sheer length. Amsgearing (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He won a Grammy, that makes him notable in the field of music, there is even a news article cited that states that he won the Grammy. Anyone who wins a Grammy is notable, period. I agree with Chubbles's line of reasoning here. If he were just the recording engineer on a hit album that DIDN'T win a Grammy I would not call him notable, no matter how many people bought the album, but this is the top award in music we are talking about here. Getting that award means something, it means notability among other things. Yetisyny (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, he didn't win a Grammy, the album did: and the news article you touted is from his small hometown newspaper, hardly a quality source for a claim that big. --Calton | Talk 03:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand where the people who want this page deleted may be coming from, about him only being recognized for the one Grammy. But the fact of the matter is Josh has worked on many other projects and has been credit in each one of them whether as a producer, engineer, or mixer. I saw in past history, from Josh Wilbur's Wikipedia page, he had more than the three sentences you saw before. So I do not agree that the WP:NotJustYet should be recognized because the information of his past works has either not been put in or someone deleted it from his page. Meaning we should give it time so users can input the information. Jhernandez43! (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC) — Jhernandez43! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This editor began editing today; the editor's only edits are to Wilbur's page. Chubbles (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's been A LOT of edit-warring about the content of this page, including some contributions WP:REVDEL-ed as obvious copyright violations. Does being a person with a named technical credit on a Grammy automatically meet notability guidelines? No. Is it likely to do so? Yes. How do we tell the difference? What other coverage is there. Links (please no more than 2-3 per person) would be the easiest way to tell; I assume all coverage is online (or in newspapers which can be accessed online). If [31] is the best/only coverage, he probably is not notable. No redirect is possible here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO because he won a Grammy award for mastering engineering (and is credited with the win by the Grammy foundation). By long standing consensus, articles which satisfy that criteria are never deleted for lack of notability. James500 (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. He did not win "for mastering engineering" or any kind of engineering category. There was no recognition or consensus from grammy voters base on his engineering work. Quite simply, the album for which he served as one of three engineers won best Contemporary Folk/Americana. Voters most judged it for many criteria, principally performance, quality of songs, etc. Yes, engineering is included in this--and indeed his name appears on the award--but it's disingenuous to state that he was singularly recognized for his engineering work. ShelbyMarion (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"By long standing consensus, articles which satisfy that criteria are never deleted for lack of notability." You just made that up out of thin air. Check this discussion. Consensus there is that engineering a recording that won a single award is NOT enough to render a subject notable. Walter Görlitz and Donald Albury make particularly cogent arguments there as to why this is the case; you should read those points. Amsgearing (talk)

I did not make it up, see WP:BIO#Special cases, which makes it very clear that deletion is not an option. James500 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and there is no music bio to support the subject's claim to notability, but again, no sources recognize the subject and so we do not need to either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, and no, he didn't win a Grammy, an album he worked on did, so James500's Wikilawyering -- even if you accepted his claim about precedent -- is without foundation. --Calton | Talk 03:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EverCharge[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Beyond the sources in the article, some blogs have rewritten press releases (Churnalism) or brief mentions of pay-to-play trade show awards. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is basically just an advertisement. I looked for sources on EverCharge, trying to find one that would justify keeping this article. On the Huffington Post I found this: www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-we-power-450000-tesla-model-3s_us_59d288c0e4b092b22a8e38a1 which is written by Joseph Nagle who turns out to be Head of Corporate Strategy at EverCharge, Inc. Highly suspicious. Then I find out there are EverCharge branded vacuum cleaners: www.popularmechanics.com/home/g22626053/best-cordless-stick-vacuums/ Even more suspicious since they are supposed to charge batteries for CARS, not VACUUM CLEANERS. Along with the way this article is written like an ad, and the way all the articles I find about EverCharge seem like EverCharge paid them to write them or it is just people posting whatever info they get from EverCharge, well, I have not found any good sources to establish notability. I found plenty of bad sources, though. OK I did find a few reliable independent sources like Fortune magazine with fortune.com/2016/11/11/automobility-la-best-auto-startups/ but all it gets is one measly paragraph, that is not significant coverage. That fails to meet notability. I do find a TON of stories from the news site CleanTechnica but that site is pretty suspect, I don't find it reliable or independent. Sorry, I don't see any decent sources that would make this notable. Yetisyny (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Im the OP. Trying to stay up on this because the vacuum cleaner has nothing to do with this product nor is it mentioned anywhere in the article confused as to why it is being mentioned by Yetisyny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagleess (talk • contribs)
~~Keep~~ EverCharge has quite a lot of earned media its mentioned here but quick list for you. Fortune fortune.com/2016/09/22/top-10-automotive-startups/, TechCrunch techcrunch.com/2016/09/22/automobility-la-announces-its-top-10-startups/, Los Angeles Times www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-live-updates-2016-la-auto-show-compete-for-an-ev-charging-station-no-1479325686-htmlstory.html, Autoblog www.autoblog.com/2016/07/14/carve-a-wooden-bike-infineon-gets-into-evs/, MIT technology Review www.technologyreview.com/s/601489/why-tech-companies-should-work-with-government-rather-than-against-it/, National Multifmaily Housing Council www.nmhc.org/news/articles/meet-the-ten-launch-pad-semifinalists/— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagleess (talk • contribs) — Duplicate vote: Nagleess (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
~~Keep~~As far as pay-to-play awards as mentioned by BillHPike this is not true in any way shape or form. AutomobilityLA is the kick off event at the LA Auto Show en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LA_Auto_Show#cite_note-1 and participants are vetted and selected through a vigorous committee selection process. The Innovation World Cup again is an industry award competition that is not paid for by the contestants and are selected through a panel, in fact finalist are given awards upwards of $500,000. NMHC again is an independent organization that does not force entrants to pay and winners are selected through a committee process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagleess (talk • contribs) — Duplicate vote: Nagleess (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
~~Keep~~ BillHPike has failed to do sufficient research nor has the user provided any such proof of the claims. Especially this "No significant coverage in reliable sources. Beyond the sources in the article, some blogs have rewritten press releases (Churnalism) or brief mentions of pay-to-play trade show awards." There is no information from the user to back up this claim merely the users own opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagleess (talk • contribs) — Duplicate vote: Nagleess (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
~~Keep~~ Yetisyny mentions no legitimate articles I feel I have cleared this point above but want to point out one claim in particular that is again not supported by fact. Cleantechnica not being a reliable source. Cleantechnica is a cleantech blog with over 58k twitter followers and averages over 1M site views a month. Its by no means a media giant but should be sufficient in establishing itself as a reliable media source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagleess (talk • contribs) — Duplicate vote: Nagleess (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
~~Keep~~If Yetisyny and BillHPike have issue with the page as written they should point out where and how it should be re-written in order to satisfy their expectations. Neither has offered any legitimate feedback on what needs to be changed, they have both offered only opinions, provided no facts nor helpful feedback.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagleess (talk • contribs) — Duplicate vote: Nagleess (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotionalism only. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not shown notable for stand alone article; fails WP:Corp. Kierzek (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yetisyny doesn't meet WP:NCORP, and also fails WP:NOTPROMO Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail the criteria for notability, topic fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LoveCrafts[edit]

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/Olurteilanru with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Marquardtika (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think there is enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. I've been through the linked references. Several are trade magazines I think, which I don't believe are considered necessarily reliable sources (1 - TechCrunch; 8 - Craft Business Magazine; 10 - Business Insider). Not sure about the reliability of Pymnts (2) and Crunchbase (15). A couple of the references only mention LC in passing (4 - open letter signed by 200+ people; 5 - City.am; 14 - Guardian). Some of the references don't say what the article says they do (4 and 5 again; 11 (re disrupting the market); 14 again (about a gap in the online craft market); and 15 (says LC was founded in 2010, not 2012)). 9 is a primary source (one of the investors) and 16 and 17 are LC's own website. 6 is apparently a Sunday Times article in PDF on LC's website, but doesn't work for me. 12 is an article by one of the founders on a trade site. 13 is a deadlink. 7 is an FT article listing LC as number 20 in a list of fastest growing companies, which is one of the examples given in WP:NCORP of trivial coverage. That leaves ref 3, a reasonable BBC link. I don't think that's enough to take it out of WP:ROUTINE. I have searched but just finding more articles on trade sites about the investment money, and again I think this would count as trivial coverage under NCORP. Tacyarg (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Pagaruyung Palace. (non-admin closure) » Shadowowl | talk 09:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Istano Basa[edit]

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

This article appears to be a duplicate page, the title "Istano Basa" is an alternate colloquial name to Pagaruyung Palace. The existing article already contains a section that mentions the fire. Coryphantha Talk 00:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 01:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 01:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate article, redirect to Pagaruyung Palace as an {{R from alternative name}} per policy. Sam Sailor 01:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect, I did not check alternative names, I apologise. Shadowowl on mobile (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Guerra[edit]

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

No indication this is anything else but WP:BLP1E. Perhaps some content can be merged to an article on HIV, but this is not a standalone article. John from Idegon (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article should be kept as Thomas Guerra’s trial was the first ever successful prosecution for willful intent of infecting another indicidual with HIV - therefore it sets precedence for future cases. His trial based on the hundreds of thousands news articles has been extensively covered. There are additional cases pending too. Also of note, he is the nephew of renowed civil rights leader Cesar Chavez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:8:11:0:0:0:71 (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Guerra’s case set precidence in the state of California as he was the first ever person convicted of intentionally spreading HIV in the state. His case led to San Diego Assemblyman Todd Gloria authoring a bill to change the state law. Additional cases are also pending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.179.242.90 (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:PERP's second criterion has the potential to apply - depending on how the crime is read, it might be odd enough to be justified. If he is just knowingly reckless then it's odd, but probably not sufficient. If he is intentionally infecting them because he has the belief they are careless so he can act as he desires, then a Keep might be warranted. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:PERP, per the arguments of the IP users 2600:387:8:11:0:0:0:71 and 152.179.242.90, who explained the historical significance of this particular criminal and crime and why this should not be rejected under WP:BLP1E. They may just be IP users but they helped give this more context for me and explain the historical importance of this case as well as the perpetrator. I did not at first notice the detail regarding the 20-year gap between the law being passed in 1995 and its first successful prosecution in 2015, and simply thought it was a standard case of a new law being passed and this man being the first person arrested for breaking the new law, which is something that generally happens whenever a new law makes something illegal. But no, this case is actually more complicated than that, and set a legal precedent and resulted in laws being changed, which I did not really grasp until those 2 IP users explained it here. Originally I voted to delete and had an argument about this failing WP:PERP due to lack of historical significance, but I have decided to change my vote in keeping with these arguments I have been presented with. Yetisyny (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For the very reasons stated above this article should be kept. Guerra’s hiv conviction obviously sets precidence for future trials in the state of CA, hence the reason for all of the news coverage. MikeSima89 (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2018

Weak Keep – Yes, he did set a precedent, but does that make the subject or the case itself notable? A page rename to that case and then replacing info on Guerra with the case would be better. However, that is outside the scope of AfD and an opinion. Essentially what I'm saying is that the info is notable, not the subject. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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