Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 16

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 15 January 17 January >

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twighburg (web series)

Twighburg (web series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this web series meets the general notability guideline. The references are either irrelevant or ot sufficiently independent from the subject. A Google search finds nothing that meets the requirements for reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://cinando.com/en/Film/twighburg_stories_278502/Detail https://www.facebook.com/groups/337810656654501/permalink/395178067584426/ http://forum.lifepointacademy.com/video/ys4fiA9kxeI0 https://ok.ru/video/296565212658 http://rentaldj.ru/watch/JU884ZqOuOM/twighburg-series-film-directors-pitch-videoObzor.html https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/twighburg-series#/ http://tutubes.info/onlain/newsvideoYklWdVhPRG8tSlU http://www.mega-stars.ru/video-yt/R4gvE1P6szg.php DENAMAX (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per the general notability guideline, the article needs references that indicate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I am still waiting to see a reliable source. See also the discussion of reliable sources on the verifiability page. Providing a large quantity of unqualified sources, especially those that are not independent or that only mention the subject peripherally, does not overcome the lack of reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are reliable sources. DENAMAX (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please help save the article. Who knows Russian to find sources. DENAMAX (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source Track

Open Source Track (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No working references, not much content, doesn't appear to exist any more, if it ever did. Rathfelder (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: totally fails WP:GNG. No longer exists, and even by 2013, its only contribution appears to have been a five-year-old track by one of the site's founders [1]. Absolutely no mention of the organization found anywhere on the internet apart from Wikipedia mirrors. Richard3120 (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No notability other than this article. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV, no sources provided that are independent of subject. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ☆ Bri (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Ellis Bowlt

John Ellis Bowlt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not holding a named professorship etc. as detailed at WP:NPROF. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you use the search tools above you get mixed results. A search in google scholar for "Bowlt John", "JE Bowlt" and "J Bowlt" yields thousands of items; he has published extensively in his field and has been cited widely. A google book search using the same parameters gives us many dozens of books and chapters (and his online CV at University of Southern California lists 51 books as of 2014), as well as showing he is widely cited as an expert in his field. One book (Čiurlionis: Painter and Composer: Collected Essays and Notes, 1906-1989, Stasys Goštautas, Vilnius: Vaga, 1994) describes him as such: "John Ellis Bowlt is one of the foremost scholars on Russian art and literature." (link). In addition to being a full professor at University of Southern California, he is also the director of the Institute of Modern Russian Culture (USC). From 2015-16 he was Slade Professor at University of Cambridge (link). His cv lists dozens of awards. He's also on the editorial board of Art and Literature Scientific and Analytical Journal TEXTS (link). He was a keynote speaker at The Congress 100th Anniversary of Russian Formalism (1913-2013) (link). Given his decades of publishing in books, chapters and peer-reviewed journals (numbering in the hundreds), being widely cited (thousands of instances), being regarded as a foremost expert in the field of Russian avant-garde art, and his Slade Professorship at Cambridge, Bowlt easily passes WP:NPROF. freshacconci (✉) 15:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn due to Slade professorship at Cambridge, the nomination was incorrect on this point. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted for copyright infringement. MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesselton College

Jesselton College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about a phony Malayan university, which looks pretty much like an advertising. No authority sources could be found online, just some partnerships with other phony universities. Doubts in accreditation. --Lingveno (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination at this time. @Lingveno: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall talk 22:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 22:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 22:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have speedy deleted the article for copyright infringement. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD A7, promotional content, thinly veiled advert - TNT❤ 22:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Kitten Surprise

AfDs for this article:
Rainbow Kitten Surprise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sigh. This has been deleted twice in the past year, but apparently is not a candidate for speedy. I hate to open another procedural AfD, but it seems that it's the only option available. GMGtalk 22:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Bodine

Larry Bodine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The article does not provide a single reliable source and I couldn't find much better in a WP:BEFORE. WP:PROMO. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

White City, Colchester

White City, Colchester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very minor area of a medium sized town: no local government specific to the area, it is not even a ward on the local council in its own right. Any number of ill-defined parts of any given town could have a couple of sentences written about them, without there being any real natability. White City is not marked on local maps. Kevin McE (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, there is very little that even comes up for this on Google, as it isn't an administrative unit and not on maps it clearly isn't officially recognized. Based on the Geograph link it appears to be in St Anne's & St John's ward[2], however it would need to have more sources showing that it exists, as it appears to be just as a local area and the ward article doesn't exist anyway so merging isn't really possible anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is a recently created nickname for an area which is otherwise designated, that never became official or widely used. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Haksan Publishing. J04n(talk page) 15:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rure

Rure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dead links/redlinks, stub, questionable notability on English Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BK. Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 21:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it received some reviews from reliable sources within a month of volume one's release, but I can't find any evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Haksan Publishing. I find one article in Korean news about Manhwa Rure. But it is short information only, and I cannot find more information in Korean newspapers. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Haksan Publishing, per Garam. Notability is questionable on its own but referenced enough to warrant keeping the information in a parent article. Ifnord (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Driven to Tears (disambiguation)

Driven to Tears (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's only two topics on the page, and the SpongeBob episode does not even have an article, and has a hatnote on The Police's song. JE98 (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mhairi Threlfall

Mhairi Threlfall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a local councillor. Coverage is essentially limited to mentions/quotations in local press. Hut 8.5 21:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one of 70 members of a council for a city of just under 500,000. To put this in perspective, my county, Macomb County, has less than 30 county comissioners, over 800,000 people, and I support deleting articles on any member of the comission unless we had coverage in indepth articles published in sources from outside the Detroit Metro Area, or substantial mention in clearly reliable books.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Tacyarg (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skylords Reborn

Skylords Reborn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Currently in closed beta and thus non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge - Article says it's a continuation of BattleForge. Maybe merge the information with that page. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skylords Reborn became a complete own project. It may started as a reboot of Battleforge, but in the state, that it is now in, it could be better described as a fan based Battleforge 2, as it will be not exactly like Battleforge. It will have a completely own story, maps and I bet, even own gameplay. Besides, Skylords Reborn isn't the first Wikipedia page of a game or thing, that isn't published yet. Deletion of this article would suppose, that you are also forced to delete the Wikipedia Page Kingdom Hearts III for example, which is also not published yet, not even closed Beta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leomide (talk • contribs) 10:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. If someone wants to merge this material into another article, I will userfy upon request. MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paritosh Uttam

Paritosh Uttam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR.One of his book(s) was adapted into a film which garnered covg. in reliable sources but had only trivial mentions about the author/book.Seems to have featured in 1/2 promo-interviews, though.All in all, too soon. Winged BladesGodric 10:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, we should focus on strengthening this article and on how to keep it here. I am on it though. Dial911 (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BEFORE reveals quite a few articles on the author, just because the article is not notable doesn't mean the subject isn't, as per WP:JNN. Egaoblai (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Egaoblai:--I would highly appreciate your's reading the nomination statement prior to casting your !vote.Please provide the articles in reliable sources that are not interviews (In Indian media circles, sans a few almost all are paid-self-promo-tools and are hardly independent) and that manages to provide significant non-trivial coverage about the subject.Winged BladesGodric 03:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does this help the article in surviving this AfD?This and this Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1st reference is OK.
As to the 2nd, I have strong doubts about the editorial independence of these magazines, which spans up every other day, esp. when coupled with their regular exploitation as promotional tools.So, that doesn't lend much to his notability. Winged BladesGodric 04:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern. Meanwhile, I will cite this OK reference to the article. Dial911 (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but interviews are indicators of notability, according to WP:Interview :"An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." Now you say that "in Indian media circles" these are paid for. This is approaching systemic bias as we cannot simply discount and entire country based on this line. Reliable sources does not blanket ban certain sources from entire countries, which is what you seem to be implying here. If you believe that interviews in this article are paid for, then it is up for you to show that. otherwise, they remain indicators of notability.Egaoblai (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't many good sources in the article.Among those that are present, Between the lines is not a RS.I would be amused if you thought it to be! Also, you cannot rely on the biographical profile of authors at the website of their own publishing houses.And, neither do I know, that having one's book published by a reputed publishing house lends automatic notability.
Doing a typical GSearch leads me to this, this and this.The first two is acutely non-reliable.The latter (third) is interesting--the source is generally highly reliable but the sub-genre of interviews aren't.See the ending:--Read more of his stories on paritoshuttam.com--linked to his own webiste.Or simply become a fan of Pariotsh Uttam and interact with the young author here!--which's linked to his Rediff profile}} Also, they even carried an excerpt of Uttam's story.
Overall, there is sparse media covg. located about here (the source provided just before which is good and present at the article), here (which's again the review of the film based on his book) and this fits a typical WP:BLP1E.
I, for one searched the TOI and The Telegraph archives but failed to retrieve anything significant.Winged BladesGodric 11:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 12:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge: Fails NAUTHOR as there is just not enough reliable sources to justify a stand-alone BLP article. Likely TOOSOON because Artist (film) appears notable. I would agree to a merge to that article or to Dreams in Prussian Blue if relavent sources were also incorporated into it which is currently pooly sourced. The success of one book turned movie does not give automatic notability as it is not inherited. Otr500 (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maya (cigarette)

Maya (cigarette) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG.No notable covg. across reliable sources.Promo-stuff. Winged BladesGodric 09:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 09:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 09:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, the creator of the wiki here.

I think the Wiki should not be deleted, and here is why I believe that. - The Wikipedia article does not purely exist out of advertising sources. It is a mix of the recognition that the brand is, in fact, owned by Landewyck Tobacco, the places where the brand is sold, and the advertisement posters and other accesories. - The Wikipedia article is not written out in a biased way, like what I have witnessed in several other pages. The page is written in a neutral point of view, with the advertisement part only partaking a small part of the rest of the Wikipedia. - The Wikipedia article has mainly the advert sources, because that is all I could find on this particular brand. In most cases, information is limited and in this case I chose to use these sources because otherwise the article would be a near-complete stub with very little information. I do invite you to find more sources though, as I have not been able to find any more than the current ones.

I do hope these arguments will be taken into consideration before deletion, thank you.

MatteoNL97 (talk)

In that case, it simple means your brand isn't yet notable enough to pass our notability-guidelines.Winged BladesGodric 04:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to GNG?Winged BladesGodric 09:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to add another comment, to follow up on what Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) said. I think his comment is quite reflective, considering the amount of Wikipedia's who got and often still get accepted without meeting the guidelines of notability here. I've recently started to update already existing cigarette Wiki's which, very often, barely had any sourcing, if any at all until I added it, and they all got accepted and stayed up for years. Meanwhile, I upload a small Wikipedia article with a few sources, and suddently it doesn't quality? That sounds a bit hypocritical in my book.

I strive to deliver knowledge of what I see as a subject that has had a big impact on a lot of societies for years, but is now seen as one of the biggest taboos (at least here in the West), hence why I've decided to create a lot of articles regarding cigarette brands, and why I've decided to update the existing ones. My goal is to show the good and the bad, and all my Wiki's have always been accepted, even if there were like, 2 sources up until when you started reviewing them.

Do take that into consideration before the final judgement, thank you.

MatteoNL97 (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists.You're not here to right great wrongs and absence of reliable significant sourcing will mean mandatory deletion of the articles.Winged BladesGodric 09:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 12:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable per available sourcing and fails CORPDEPTH. The first article reference is a dead link and advertisement. The second is not a reliable source. The third (Liswood & Tache) is promotional, the fourth a dead link, and the fifth an advertising agency. A BEFORE only produced self-advertisement or promotional sources. The want or need to create articles must be in accordance to policies and guidelines and inclusion can be simply by silence that ceases when contested. Otr500 (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari

Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think that the subject of the article does not have any notibility by its own. If we look at the article's soureces we can see it quite clearly that either the sources are primary or related to her undirectly and also the article violate wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV. Thats why I think the article should be deleted Ominictionary (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 15:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 15:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 15:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 15:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  I did a ce that included improving neutral tone and reducing puffery.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  If the media think it worthy of publication that a member of a famous family is giving out cheques, it is our standard that we don't need to ask why they thought their readers wanted to read that.  It is sufficient to observe the media's interest in the topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article reads more like a WP:PROPAGANDA violation, as it stands right now, and there is scant reference that attests to this person's notability. Also, notability is not inherited. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 02:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  It is strange that the creator of the page Aseefa Bhutto Zardari found it proper to nominate this instant article for deletion. You seek to delete the page of the elder sister whilst creating the page for the younger sibling having similar claim to fame. DebashisMTalk 17:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DebashisM, there is a announcement from Asif Zardari that Aseefa Bhutto Zardari will stand 2018 election. She has been a Rotary Ambassador and former UN Ambassador for Polio Eradication and both are international organization. But Bakhtawar has only work for that which completely belong to her family. Also there is no news of her holding any public office. Also important to mention my created article is completely based on secondary sources unlike this one. So, I think both are not similar claim of fame. Ominictionary (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is that an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : The article is a violation of wikipedia's WP:Copy-paste, WP:PROPAGANDA and WP:POV policy. The article have majorly copy pasted from the official biography of Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari. Check this link: [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCDE22 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline Keep I see enough reliable references for a full article. --RAN (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 10:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment:- The article violate WP:PRIMARY SOURCE so its WP:NEUTRALITY and WP:COPYPASTE policy extencively. The article has been copy pasted from her own biography. If one look properly, they can see it clearly that the article's most of the reference are primary.

  • ref 1: article written by her mother about her (Benazir) own story. (primary source)
  • ref 2: News of the birth of Prime Minster's elder daughter not for her own. (indirect mention)
  • ref 3: Birth of her sister which hardly mentioned her. (indirect mention)
  • ref 4: For her own work
  • ref 5: Website of PPP, which is going to glorify anything done by Bhutto. (primary source)
  • ref 6: News analysis (primary source)
  • ref 7: Website of Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology founded by her mother. (primary source)
  • ref 8: Her own twitter account (primary source)
  • ref 9: Because of her own
  • ref 10: A website had ran during PPP goverment, when her father was president. (primary source)

After seeing all this we can say that the article violate wikipedia's many policy and this is nothing except a propaganda, so I think there is no reason to keep it at all. Ominictionary (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the subject is often in the news but there is no in-depth coverage on her. She is not a elected politician so she also fails WP:POLITICIAN. She doesn't have a notable career either. --Saqib (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an unremarkable philanthropist; notability is not inherited from notable parents. Sourcing is in passing, routine, and / or WP:SPIP as discussed above. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability is not inherited. Nothing suggests individual notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. And per User:Rpclod, a little joke from my side as a Pakistani, "we have had enough of Morosi siasat(Inherited politics)" :). Lets keep it away from Wiki.  M A A Z   T A L K  12:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, but under the principles of WP:PRESERVE given this person could become notable, or at least a plausible search term, make sure to merge any content that's worth merging to Bhutto's article, and possibly keep a redirect to a "Personal life" section. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Störm (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Seems like this discussion hinges on whether the proffered sources are indeed sufficient to establish GNG based notability, and opinions appear to vary (especially on the "in-depth" coverage question) without a killer argument being presented in either direction. So no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Buell

Ryan Buell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet notability requirements and article has had outstanding issues since at least 2010. MisterTimelord (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fring individuals, like paranormal investigators, require very good sourcing, which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the topic meets WP:GNG. Thinker78 (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per GNG, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject[1][2][3], therefore it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Thinker78 (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page has never had its issues addressed, and Ryan Buell is not notable except for having a short-lived show on A&E in which he pretended to investigate ghosts. 8.41.72.250 (talk)— 8.41.72.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment:Instead of being deleted, given that the topic is notable, has potential, and workable reliable sources, but has quality issues, maybe, per WP:ATD-I it should be moved to draft namespace, to be improved, and eventually moved back to mainspace when it meets quality standards. Thinker78 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Just because someone did something on TV once or for busted for a couple crimes does not automatically make them notable. By that logic, everyone who has ever been either arrested or on TV for any purpose is qualified for a Wikipedia entry. 67.247.151.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC) — 67.247.151.236 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Subject meets GNG. He was a main character in a popular TV show that was presented in the whole country, and probably internationally through cable, and he was in it for a few years. That's why many reliable sources address the subject directly and in detail, because he is notable. Thinker78 (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - coverage in People[4], ABC (above), the Chicago Tribune[5] and Enews[6], along with general coverage in the context of the show (I know notability is not inherited which is why I'm showing the other coverage) suggests he passes WP:GNG. Another way of looking at it - his legal skirmishes are all getting media coverage only because he's notable. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 10:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FRINGEBLP and WP:CELEBRITY. Those are two excellent guidelines that let us evaluate whether a person (note this is a living, breathing person we're talking about having an article focused solely on) should be subject to biographical scrutiny. In this case, neither of these criteria are fulfilled. Arguments that the person fulfills WP:GNG hinge mostly on the television show in which he was featured meeting the requirements for inclusion. A redirect to the television show may be appropriate, but keeping a separate biography with the notability lacking as it is in this case is something that we should not be doing and I would hate for precedent to be kept in keeping a biography solely on the basis of entanglements with the law and incidents indicating a failure to launch. jps (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear what criteria you are referring to regarding WP:FRINGEBLP. Could you please quote the relevant text in said guideline? What I found in WP:FRINGEBLP actually supports keeping the article. Namely the guideline states, "Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner". As shown previously, there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner. For me "enough" would be at least three different reliable and independent sources. Consequently, the topic meets WP:FRINGEBLP criteria. Regarding WP:CELEBRITY, its second criteria says, "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following"; according to ABC, "Buell has a pretty big fan base across the country". And, as mentioned previously, the topic meets GNG, therefore it is notable. Per WP:BASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", and such sources has already been shown in a previous comment. If you don't like what the sources talk about the subject, please quote a specific policy or guideline that backs up what you say. Thinker78 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves." We don't have such sources. We have sensationalized news stories of the "dog bites man" sort. There is no source that has been identified which offers a serious, extensive biographical look at this subject. Rather we have sources which salaciously tell the story of a cancer diagnosis that may have been fake, a promotional tour that never was, and arrest and convictions that may be related to a drug addiction. That's not good enough. jps (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree with you. The sources I posted discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner. And they also have significant coverage about the subject, therefore meeting GNG also. Notice how GNG establishes the criteria only as "significant coverage", which is defined as "directly and in detail". All that coverage by different, independent, reliable sources makes the topic notable. Thinker78 (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources that are listed here investigate the subject in an extensive manner. It's sensationalism, pure and simple. jps (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. As proven with example sources above, topic meets GNG, which states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article"". And WP:SENSATION is a guideline for events not people. Besides, the article is not about a scandal or some gossip, but about a notable former TV show presenter. Thinker78 (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added a clarifying sentence since it seems that noob Wikipedians can't help but be pedantic. SMH. jps (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of sources about the person (not his show: the person) along time build a solid WP:GNG case. "Sensationalism" is far from being an objective criteria, and it seems akin to a proxy for WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. - cyclopiaspeak! 13:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now, now. You're supposed to assume good faith. The problem with using sensationalized news stories as a basis for notability is that you can do very real harm to living people. I could equally argue that I take the editorial responsibility of content curation at a top ten website more seriously than you and maybe you're just out for this poor man's blood. jps (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now, now. I haven't the slightest idea of what do you mean about being 'out of this poor man's blood' -why should I want this? Why should I have anything against the subject of this article? Now, I could say that, if anything, I am taking seriously our responsibility, by ensuring that we cover sourced information regardless of how much we like it or not, or any handwaving about 'harm' (which there isn't, as long as we stick to the sources and strive for NPOV). You can insinuate and poison the well as much as you want. Fact is, this guy is well sourced, and as such there is no reason to delete the article.- cyclopiaspeak! 20:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Well sourced" in this case is to tabloid journalism-style pieces. jps (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://wbtw.com/2016/09/21/ae-ghost-hunter-ryan-buell-arrested-in-florence-county/
  2. ^ http://abc11.com/entertainment/celebrity-ghost-hunter-jailed/1520780/
  3. ^ http://www.tvguide.com/news/ryan-buell-cancer-1051833/
  4. ^ http://people.com/tv/paranormal-states-ryan-buell-on-cancer-battle-i-had-to-go-to-deaths-door/
  5. ^ http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-10-18/entertainment/chi-books-ryan-buell-booksigning_1_paranormal-state-star-ryan-buell-interview
  6. ^ http://www.eonline.com/news/336791/paranormal-state-star-ryan-buell-diagnosed-with-pancreatic-cancer
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 18:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Is Mind

Justice Is Mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN indie film, fails WP:NFILM and the GNG. While the article appears to have sources, anything beyond a superficial examination reveals a raft of press releases, namedrops, screening announcements, statements unsupported by the sources and other trivial mentions that fail to meet the GNG. The creation of a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity seems to be to promote the producer and his three indie films (the other two which are at AfD), who furthermore admits his involvement with the film in edit summaries, is repeatedly reverting copyvios and removing the AfD template from the article, and has received a block for doing so; WP:COI's plainly in play. Ravenswing 12:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 12:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 12:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 12:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 10:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources are primary or just WP:PROMO. No evidence of notability from reliable sources.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The film has been reviewed and quoted in numerous media outlets and was theatrically released. It also meets the general notability guidelines "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." .Omicron4 (TALK) —Preceding undated comment added 11:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: As Omicron4 (the SPA creating the article) knows, the notability standards for films are quite a bit more stringent than "was theatrically released" or "been reviewed" (although he's yet to cite the reviews from the "numerous media outlets" alleged to exist). In fact, the criterion dealing with both holds that in order to be considered notable: "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." The latter doesn't exist, and no evidence of the former has hit reliable sources save for a smattering of one-off screenings at SF conventions and college lectures. Ravenswing 22:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Ravenswing's obsession and bias in getting this page deleted is obvious. If this editor bothered to look at the sources cited in the article or even bothered to do a simple Google search Ravenswing would see the numerous articles and reviews about this film. And for Ravenswing's edification the film was theatrically released. Again Ravenswing's use of the word "smattering" shows clear bias against this film. This is an editor who couldn't even interpret how Box Office Mojo reports box office receipts. Ravenswing insisted there was only one screening when in fact there was fourteen. But as Ravenswing was proven wrong now thinks the word smattering is appropriate. What is Ravenswing's obsession with this film? Just because an editor doesn't like a film doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Omicron4 (TALK) —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and ZXCVBNM. Just because a film has been released doesn't make it notable. Especially with only $14K in ticket sales. Ifnord (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet Series

Alphabet Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No cause to merge 25 existing articles into one super-long article that would only scream to be split again. (Three or four novels might be one thing, but 25!) Also, this merger was carried out barely a day after this article's creator had proposed it at Talk:Sue Grafton#Merge the novels together?, after only one response (an Oppose response) had been received. There are now three Oppose responses, there, including mine. Largoplazo (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now, does this mean I think they aren't notable and should be deleted? Absolutely not. The series as a whole is certainly notable, with plenty of discussion of awards, themes, reception, etc. As for the individual books, well, WP:PROVEIT by adding something that isn't a plot summary. If someone wants to make such a book article stand on its own, I have absolutely no objection, and the merged article can simply use a {{main}} to point readers at it. If you look at the old AFDs, the consensus was strongly that these were notable topics, but nowhere did it say that these notable topics couldn't be covered in a series article.

As for the opposes on the talk page, most of the opposes seem to be under the apprehension that I was proposing deleting the content. Which isn't the case. I realize that some people back in 2007-2010 poisoned the well by performing "merges" that were really just deletions, but I am eliminating zero content; readers will see exactly the same article they would have before, just via redirect to a section of a longer article, rather than to a tiny plot-only stub.

As for the accusation of undue haste, as I already explained to the nominator on the talk page, I did not actually redirect the existing articles yet, awaiting more discussion on the Sue Grafton talk page. We are all volunteers here, I was doing something I thought would help the case for a merger by showing what the final article would look like. When I created this article, it was a 1:1 discussion with only one person opposing, and silly me thought that maybe an example might convince them. So please don't accuse me of bad faith here. If you truly want to stand on procedure here, we can move this article back to the Draft namespace, but I don't think that would help much, since we clearly disagree on whether the actual redirects should be carried out.

If the complaint is that the resulting article will be too long, I disagree; the actual problem is that the current articles are too short, and are really better off as sections in a longer article. That said, if length is truly the concern, then I would have no objection to something like Alphabet Series, 1982–1996 and Alphabet Series, 1998–2017 which would render the merged articles shorter. (And, as a reminder, if you're imagining A Big Huge Section that isn't just a plot summary gumming up the series page, well, those books can stay as separate articles. This doesn't apply to any of the book articles we have so far, however.) It shouldn't be an issue. SnowFire (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose merging the articles on each novel into long boring article, but support an article about the series, an overview, as is done with other series of novels on Wikipedia. Putting the plot summaries of all 25 novels in one article is not a good article. Each novel has been reviewed separately, so those reviews can be hunted up and added to the article on each novel. Looking at the articles on the novels, many cite review or interview articles but never use those articles as the base for a Reviews section. An article on the series is also useful, but it would talk about the main character's age changing little over the 25 novels meaning the whole series is set in the 1980s without cell phones, changes in the nature of the cases, her character as a detective, and include reviews of the whole series. Two series come to mind, The Cadfael Chronicles and The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency, which have one article about the series and then an article for each novel in it (save the last two in the newer series). Bernard Cornwell has written several historical novel series, and the articles follow the same approach, for example The Saxon Stories which includes Death of Kings, a novel with its own article and its own reviews. In the opening paragraph for the article on each novel in the series, the series name is given and wiki-linked, and the series article is linked in the infobox -- see the opening of The Holy Thief as an example. There was a good review of The Alphabet Series by Sue Grafton on NPR this week, indicating its impact on detective novels as a genre, as a starter for the series article: https://www.npr.org/2018/01/02/575068781/a-is-for-appreciation-how-sue-grafton-helped-transform-the-mystery-genre . So that monstrosity of an article in the building can be cleared out, but a real article about the series could be inserted in its place. Some of the material in the article about the author could also appear in a good article on the series, or be moved from one article to the other. I hope there are editors who can add a Review or Review and Awards section to the article on each novel. This was a big seller of a series, so I assume, but I have not looked, that Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews had reviews of most if not all of the novels, in addition to reviews in newspapers and magazines. I have read only a few in this series, and cannot describe the plots the way Maureen Corrigan did in her NPR piece. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kinsey Millhone itself already includes an overview of the series. Not that that overview couldn't be broken out and expanded, if there's anything to add to an expansion that isn't already covered there and under Sue Grafton, but there may or may not be compelling reasons to bother. Largoplazo (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also oppose: complete agree with Prairieplant and Largoplazo – no need to remove the book articles, which could be expanded. An overview article for the series would be good, but kept with minimal plot summary/overview for each book rather than a gigantic article. ‑‑YodinT 22:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yodin: The frustrating thing for me is that these book article could still be expanded even if they are merged to a series article for now. I'm repeating myself, but my argument is a manner of how to present the content Wikipedia currently has, not to permanently salt the articles as forever unworthy. If someone wants to expand such an article, great, they can do so. Until they do - and they've had 10+ years already - the content can be kept in the series article. Just to make it very explicit what I'm saying, book 16 gets merged to the series article next week. In three months, someone starts expanding the content in the book 16 section of the series article. Someone realizes that they have more content than just one section, they take the content, and put it in the Book 16 redirect. They change the series article to have a {{main|Book 16}} template instead of the section, and everyone is happy. I don't see why the ability to expand such individual book articles would somehow be stopped by the creation of a series article. I believe you that they might have potential! But that's not a problem... SnowFire (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SnowFire: thanks for the reply, and I see where you're coming from: the current articles aren't great, so rather than making readers go between all these different articles it could be better to put them all in one article (or two). I also appreciate that you're not trying to remove content. In my opinion though, the Alphabet Series article (which again I think should be kept) should not go into anywhere near this much detail for the plots of each book (I doubt anyone will read the whole article in one go), but should have a 3 to 4 line synopsis, giving an overview of the book but not the full story and shouldn't have full infoboxes for each one. For me that's the usefulness of having a series overview article, and sub-articles that allow people to read more if they want, making it easy for people to browse and get the gist of each book, but also have the option to read a bit more. ‑‑YodinT 13:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each entry should be judged on its own merits. If a single volume lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?), then merge it to a series article, which can/should exist if the series itself is similarly the subject of multiple reliable pieces of sourcing. But this AfD has no deletion rationale and should be speedily kept (Speedy keep). If you want wider participation in a merge discussion, there are plenty of forums to request additional input including WP:3O, WP:BOOKS, and the nuclear WP:RFC. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 23:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the reason for deletion is WP:DEL5, content fork (of the independent articles). There's a clear consensus on the relevant talk page (Talk:Sue Grafton) against the merge; as far as I can tell nobody except the original proposer SnowFire supports this. If this is a common name, it can redirect to Kinsey Millhone#Kinsey_Millhone_novels. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, this was never going to be a content fork - either A) the other book articles would be merged and redirected to the series article; or B) it will become a series overview article that doesn't replicate the content per Yodin; or C) it'll just redirect to Kinsey Milhone. I was going to do C anyway if the merge proposal failed per the talk page, which seems likely, but Largo filed the AFD anyway. SnowFire (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 09:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading all the comments here and at the Talk: Sue Grafton page, I stand with improving the articles on each novel, having an article on the series as a whole without summaries of any of the novels, and keeping the article on Sue Grafton in good form. She is a mystery writer of note, publishing her first mystery when Sara Paretsky introduced the fictional female detective V I Warshawsky in Chicago, marking a change in the gender of the detectives and and the style of murder mysteries from 1982 onward. The series article can discuss the setting of most of the novels, how the series is kept in the 1980s and does not move along with chronological time and how that affects the storytelling, and the strong or weak points of Grafton's style per reviewers. It is a good article to include the sales of her novels, and which novel was the first to enter the best sellers list at No. 1 (New York Times wrote a current article on that, which link I noted on the Talk pages of F Is for Fugitve and L Is for Lawless). I have added text or section titles to some of the articles on individual novels, notable A is for Alibi. The reference system in the articles now, it is not useful, as it excludes inline citations by and large. Those belong in the missing Reviews section for each novel. So I oppose that conglomeration article. I have not read all the Sue Grafton novels, so am not the person to write every article. Articles on the Aubrey-Maturin series (historical fiction) and The Cadfael Chronicles (historical mystery), suggest a structure for an article titled the Alphabet Mystery series (with a disambiguation note to see The A.B.C. Murders for the Agatha Christie novel). It would be wise to remove the messages in the Talk page of each novel that the merger means to stop improving the article on each novel. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify which talk page messages you are talking about? SnowFire (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Even if the extended content about individual books is moved out, wouldn't there still be cause to keep this article about the series and/or links to the various books? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep, the nominator, and other editors here, appears to be opposed to the merger of the individual novel articles into this one (as do i), they do not state that the series is not notable, btw it does appear to meet WP:LISTN with the large number of news articles discussing the author and her series, and wikireader interest. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to those remarking that there should be at least a list article, in case you missed my mention above: The list already exists, at Kinsey Millhone#Kinsey_Millhone_novels. It would make sense to redirect this title there or to remove the list from there and have it in this article or under a more conventional "List of" title. Largoplazo (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the following reasons (not necessarily in order of importance): 1., the term Alphabet series does not appear to be the common name (the New York Times in their obituary referred to it as "alphabet series" - adjective not common noun, but other NYT articles use different describers; on the author's own website it's "The Kinsey Millhone Alphabet Series"; there are other series of books referred to as "alphabet series" so I think if this survives it would need to be disambiguated). 2. there are 25 books, all are notable and received attention from the LA Times, the Washington Post, The New York Times as well as a number or scholarly books and works by literary critics; after the 5th book, each book in the series appeared on the New York Times Bestseller List - a great number of them at #1; we have articles for each book, and those shouldn't be merged into a single page, (currently editors are researching, reading, and beginning to expand the articles, but there is no deadline for this work). 3., I've split out and started to expand the Sue Grafton#Alphabet series section in the biography, and that's where we should be starting. As it stands, the biography lacks a well written "Style" and "Themes" section, and which needs to be researched and added. Given these books are the author's sole body of work (with a few exceptions), those sections will focus on the style & themes in the series. Suggest redirecting to the biography or to Kinsey Millhone (which needs work). Victoriaearle (tk) 23:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't a list of the series, which I wouldn't oppose. A list would be an easy navigation through the series but this appears to be the start of a tedious journey where every book is listed in detail - the details already available in the respective articles for the book. Which already exists. Why duplicate that? Ifnord (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. SoWhy 12:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Miller

Daniel J. Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Commendable, but the sources are just too weak to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this would qualify pretty much every British regular soldier of the 19th and early 20th centuries for an article. I'd better get writing... -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I could see how he could be notable (3 wars, early service in helicopter squadrons, some awards - Cheney Award seems significant) - but what is lacking is sources. I found an obit (which doesn't match everything in the article (e.g. has him transition to jets after Korea)) - but I would like to see more solid sourcing here than what's currently in here.Icewhiz (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - per improvements by Smmurphy - coverage is there. SOLDIER is not an end all and be all (though the classification of rarely awarded Cheney Award - " act of valor, extreme fortitude or self-sacrifice in a humanitarian interest, performed in connection with aircraft, but not necessarily of a military nature" (so self-sacrifice - but not in the face of the enemy which combat awards related to) - could be pigeonholed in that direction).Icewhiz (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Found a readable ref for the Cheney Award and one of our standards for the Silver Star.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It looks to me like he had a rather illustrious career. I'm putting together sources from newspapers.com and will update the page shortly. In the meantime, I want to note that there is another Daniel J. Miller from New York (I think) who was an officer in the Navy on the USS Nimitz. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my updates, there really is a lot of information about him. Regarding his suitability for the encyclopedia, I'd say that the Cheney Award is a very significant award, and while not a part of SOLDIER, could be a part of ANYBIO #1 (except it very much is not well-known). He flew a number of rescue missions in Korea which got national media coverage, although in the article I mostly used local coverage because those articles are the most complete. Also, he commanded an air support squadron in Vietnam (there is a typo in his obituary, it says the 13th, but it was actually the 19th Tactical Air Support Squadron [4]). I know that isn't a flag officer role. Anyway, there it is - please feel free to look things over; and while I have your attention, his obituary says while in Vietnam he was "at Nka Liang", does anyone know what that is? As for the 3 wars -> presumed suitability, I do not think that argument is necessary in this case. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up on the point about national coverage of Miller; I find such coverage for three events in particular: his March 1951 rescue of Frank Presley (here is a sample), his role in the July 1951 armistice talks at Kaesong (here is a sample), and his receiving the Cheney Award in September 1952 (here is a sample). Note that the search terms for each are different, slight variations give different results. National papers giving in depth coverage of these events include the LA Times, Orlando Sentinel, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Cincinnati Enquirer, and the Chicago Tribune. Many smaller papers covered the events as well as papers in NYC and Arizona, which may be considered local as he/his family lived in those places at those times. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Miller in this clipping may be a different guy. He's an Army first lieutenant and by this time our Miller was higher in rank. On top of that, the unit cited is an Army aviation unit, not Air Force. That still doesn't ID Nka Liang, but it may not be necessary.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right. That is certainly his son, though - same name, but with a Jr, same hometown newspaper, grandmother's last name is Brophy. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, just passes muster as to notability for stand alone article based on service in "3 wars". Kierzek (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while he did good stuff in service for his country nothing stands out as being different or more noteworthy than hundreds of others who served. MilborneOne (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- does not meet WP:SOLDIER and sourcing does not establish notability otherwise. Very few incoming links, indicating that the subject's career has not been significant. This results in a tribute page. Even with three wars, this does not rise to the level of encyclopedic relevance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Value of Earth

Value of Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is entirely WP:OR and cites no references. There are some pages that discuss this topic, but they don't seem particularly credible. [5] power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just an essay/WP:OR, taking serious topics such as ecosystem valuation and natural capital accounting to an interesting theoretical extreme, but not worthy of this encyclopaedia. I did find this reliable source in the WP:DAILYMAIL. Oh, no, wait... Nick Moyes (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - mainly original research. However, Gregory P. Laughlin did create a formula to measure the value of Earth for comparison of 'nearby' inhabitable planets. Any salvageable parts may be appropriate for ecosystem valuation where the article should probably redirect to. Although that only considers the ecosystem of course. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, as nom noted, this is a major and glaring case of OR. There are no sources and this is essentially an essay, or experiment in expository writing. It is rather incredible, though, that it's been here for 14 years. Chetsford (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the above points. Also yes, amazing how this has slumbered in an unventilated corner since 2003! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on - doesn't that mean that with inflation, the value of earth must have now increased significantly! Time to remortgage.Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in this case there as been no inflation - the price today is the same as in 2003 - invaluable.
: -) Jonpatterns (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 18:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yaourt

Yaourt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References non-notable publications, and passing mentions. A WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Yeah, I guess, if you want to say It's FOSS and Digital Ocean are non-notable and delete every article in Wikiproject Linux that can't be cited to OMG! Ubuntu! - the Arch Linux article is long enough, but I would probably support merging and redirecting to Arch Linux package managers if we had such an article.SeraphWiki (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Most of the sources are trivial. Digital Ocean is not a reliable source: it describes itself on its own website as a cloud infrastructure provider company (ie not a tech/software journalism site with any kind of fact checking). The linked "article" fails WP:RS because it is a user-submitted tutorial with no editorial oversight (see their tutorials page with the big green button soliciting contributions from users). It's FOSS is a self-identified blog, which are rarely if ever considered reliable sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that Digital Ocean is only cited for "Yaourt is the French word for Yoghurt" that is quite a claim. If you were to try to submit a tutorial you would find out that it is not "a user submitted tutorial with no editorial oversight" - contributors are paid, work with editors and they have to apply to become contributors.
  • Additionally, as a Wiki, we want others to think we are reliable but we can't accept any other Wikis as reliable - sure, few come close, and most are pale imitations, but ArchWiki is extremely reliable and up to date. It's disappointing that we can't find reliable sources for articles about a community-driven project, being ourselves a community-driven project, especially when the issue is reliable sources for Linux-related content. The entire FOSS community trusts these people with their system upgrades, but we can't use them as reliable expert or specialist sources? Just who do we think we are anyway? If we can't establish notability for one of the most widely used package managers of a major Linux distribution we must be doing something wrong - but c'est la vie.SeraphWiki (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • SeraphWiki, user-generated content is basically never acceptable as an RS, per WP:UGC. As an experienced editor you should be aware of that. If you want to start an RFC to change our policy on that, by all means go ahead, but this is not the place. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and maybe an RfC would be a good idea at some point. I also don't especially think every AUR helper needs a standalone article, especially when we don't have the general article yet. They should probably all be in one article with pacman, and that is easier to find sources for anyway.SeraphWiki (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quality of references can be improved and as a matter of fact, I inserted a few more references from more reliable resources (i.e. the website of Arch Linux). I also support merging and redirecting this page into a more general article but deletion is, in my opinion, an overkill as Yaourt is considered a useful tool in communities of Arch-based distributions. مظهر (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • مظهر, these new sources fail to demonstrate notability. Your citations to Wiktionary and cnrtl.fr merely demonstrate the fact that "yaourt" is the French word for yogurt, which is not in dispute, and they do nothing to show that the Yaourt software is notable. The ArchWiki ref is a wiki and per WP:UGC can't be accepted as a reliable source that demonstrates notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The criteria is not if the software is useful but notable. Wikipedia isn't an advertising platform to drum up support or users. Ifnord (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Taiwanese animation. MBisanz talk 18:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Taiwanese animations

List of Taiwanese animations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be an indiscriminate list, there are a few listings that have articles (and may be notable) however it appears there is no clear inclusion policy and much of it appears to be original research. The large swafts of text in Chinese also don't do the article any favours Ajf773 (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is apparently an incomplete translation job from the Chinese WP; I had removed the "translation pending" notice because I thought it was done, but there are still sections that are entirely in Chinese. My mistake; restored tags. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in the Chinese article [6] a fair number of these are bluelinked, although it is questionable we'll get to that state in the English version. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Taiwanese animation (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. Preserving the history is useful so that editors can do a selective merge to Taiwanese animation of any material that can be sourced.

    A concern about this list is that it is unclear which of the animations are notable and which are not. And most of the entries are unsourced. If each entry could be sourced with reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the animation, that would establish the animation is notable, and in my view would be sufficient to undo the redirect and restore the list.

    Cunard (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without redirecting. The task of going through each one, translating the Chinese as well, and culling the non-notable films is enormous. And unlikely to happen. Ifnord (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As this will be the first time this page is being deleted will not salt J04n(talk page) 15:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Kuwar

Marina Kuwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no indication that Kuwar is notable. The given sources are celebrity gossip and don't cover her in appreciable detail. They don't even suffice to verify key statements in the paragraphs they're cited for. Google News doesn't show anything helpful. Huon (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IP address blocked for evading a block on Ruchidamania (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The strike-out was struck out. After consulting with another admin, we no longer believe that IP address is related to Ruchidamania so I reinstate the vote. --Yamla (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Likes animals, was a runner-up in a contest five years ago, had some bit parts. – Athaenara ✉ 10:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All references are primary sourced and promotion. Fails Wp:GNG Hagennos (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt MER-C hit the nail on the head. Enough. Note same sockfarm has repeatedly recreated Elena Fernandes and Dinesh Sudarshan Soi, so this would be a preventive action against future disruption and time-wasting. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as per WP:A7. North America1000 13:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kasey Millstead

Kasey Millstead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see fan reviews only, nothing that would satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject appears to be a romance novelist self-publishing on Amazon's CreateSpace. A search for book reviews and reliable sources came up empty. As per nom, no mainstream media reviews can be found. Does not satisfy WP:AUTHOR. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Other people have found additional sources that show the full names of these people and demonstrate that WP:SOLDIER is met. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R. Bowles

R. Bowles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable person. Article is sourced to an entry in a list of "Commanders-in-Chief in Bombay". Several similarly-sourced articles also nominated. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R. Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
S. Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
C. Boye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per [7] seems these are all Major Generals and would be presumed notable per WP:SOLDIER. Heck - we probably might have wiki article on some of them. However if all we've got is a rolls entry without a first name - and we're unable to place to a first name....Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment - these ranks seems to be Bombay Army, East India Company, "Bombay establishment" ranks - in parallel some of these seem to have also held a lower regular British army commission, though it seems most of them made a career of it in and around Bombay Presidency.Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Looking on Google I found that this man is Major General Robert Bowles. The only traces of him online are a routine death report that states he died in 1812 at age 68 At the time he was referred to as 'of the Bombay establishment', indicating that he did not advance higher. A short obituary is here. He was previously a Lieutenant Colonel of the 1st Battalion, European Regiment. Kges1901 (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nothing is available online for Major General S. Wilson except for this brief report which states he returned to Europe after 46 years of service in India. Contemporary sources available online don't mention his full name.Kges1901 (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's Samuel Wilson - [8] [9]. Seems like he made a career in Bombay.Icewhiz (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well done. I didn't account for abbreviations of Major general. Kges1901 (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Charles Boye overall has the most info on the internet. He rose to Lieutenant General before retiring, according to this contemporary list of all British Indian Army officers Boye served in the Maratha Wars, and is the only one of three to have combat service according to Google Books. Presumed notability would apply here, but Bowles and Wilson don't pass GNG based on these sources. However, I'm sure an editor more familiar with British military history than I am would be able to find better sources offline. Kges1901 (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • R. Jones is Sir Richard Jones - [10], ([11]). Was in command of Bombay army during Siege of Bharatpur (1805). Service record here - [12]- verified K.C.B - held a few other commands. Seems he made Lieutenant General [13][14] Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major General Robert Bowles, in command at Malabar, then, commander of the Bombay Army. Certainly notable; article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all of them. Presumed notability from available sources and potential online sources given that this was a relatively major post. Of course, these articles will need to be expanded and moved to full names. Kges1901 (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Kges1901. Successive senior officers of a quasi-sovereign (EIC) force. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Strongly so for C. Boye and R. Jones both of which made Lieut. General, were involved in combat, and for which we have fair sourcing regarding the rest of their career, Jones was also made a K.C.B. The other two meet WP:SOLDIER (rank, as well as leading a semi-sovereign or protectorate's army, which was not insignificant size) and it seems there are quite a bit of period sourcing for the two of them, but more digging is required. We should however move all articles to their full names and improve content - which I intend to do.Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Clearly meet WP:SOLDIER. Need expansion and renaming, but not deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Shortest stub I recall seeing, but should meet "soldier" requirement. Kierzek (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a number of medieval bishops and princes regnant that are just as short.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Already Deleted. Article has already been deleted. SQLQuery me! 00:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Young (Entrepreneur)

Christian Young (Entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable "entrepreneur" with no coverage in RS. In fact, most of the sources don't mention him and if they do, it's in passing. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete created by a declared paid editor. Content is as you would expect: spam. It is an advertisement for the person and a directory listing, nothing more. It fails WP:NOTSPAM and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. That it is also not notable is a secondary concern, but is also a reason to delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Sandstein 07:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Achievement Test Series

Stanford Achievement Test Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A test used in American schools. The article does not indicate the topic's notability (WP:GNG). Google shows that this is a thing that exists and is used and mentioned in news media, but I don't find in-depth coverage. Even Google Books only seems to find one-paragraph descriptions. Now there might well be more coverage to find, but as it is we can't keep this article. Sandstein 20:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. The article is sourced now thanks to XOR'easter. Sandstein 07:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Taken by millions of students, plenty of news coverage. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’ve never heard of this, only SAT, ACT, AP, GRE, GMAT, and two exams administered by the state. No opinion on whether this is notable, though. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2018 hutch
All the tests you mention, LaundryPizza, are connected to college admissions. This SAT is very different; it's used to measure student progress over the course of her pre-college years. Unschool 04:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Frankly, I'm baffled by this nomination. I've been a professional educator in several districts, in the Midwest, the Deep South, and the Southwest, and while the Stanford was not used in all of them, everyone making decisions about testing was always familiar with it. The article appears to be adequately sourced. What's the issue? I don't see one. Unschool 04:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bhawana Aneja

Bhawana Aneja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor, has only done supporting roles. Cant seem to find sources on the subject in question. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Article created by an editor with Autopatrolled rights and am wondering an editor with so many articles under his belt would source the page with (kapilganeshphotography.blogspot.co.uk, YouTube, filmibeat.com and bollywoodbx.com.) FITINDIA 20:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a bunch of supporting roles do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure Aneja is a fine actor, however, for now fails N:ACTOR. Has not won awards or had a leading role. No apparently reliable sources and does not meet GNG either. Chetsford (talk) 06:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Liw

Daniel Liw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Jacona (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in many reliable sources. Nominator needs to desist disruptive nominations for deletion without a significant effort at WP:BEFORE. This is a Swedish sport, and even the most cursory query of Dagens Nyheter for his name plus Bandy brings up many articles. I haven't tried Moscow papers or other Russian newspapers, which would be logical since he plays in that country, which should bring up more. Sources need not be in English to be WP:RS The nominator seems to believe that because he's not familiar with Bandy it should be purged from the encyclopedia.Jacona (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Jacona (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be enough sources to sustain WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep weak nom statement that indicates failure to do WP:BEFORE and lack of familiarity with the subject. These reckless nominations really need to stop soon, or a topic ban will be pursued. Lepricavark (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After starting a bevy of spurious AfD's among Philippines Basketball Association related articles, the nominator proceeded to start a group of AfDs on the sport of Bandy, also apparently giving no heed to WP:BEFORE. The articles include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Liw,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulf Einarsson,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Brown (bandy) and a prod, Rules and Referee Committee, (possibly the only reasonable of these). I'm adding these links so these can be considered together.Jacona (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a few mentions in club websites is not enough to show notability. Articles rise or fall on the merits of the coverage of the individual. Not all people who play bandy are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Several non-trivial mentions in WP:RS (newspapers, tv, radio). Calling that "a few club websites" show a lack of search skills, or indifference to the subject. Has played in the pro league Russian Bandy Super League and in the Swedish national bandy team. Sjö (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Substandard nomination. If you cannot even be bothered to make an argument for why something or somebody is non-notable, you have no right to expect other people to take your nomination seriously. --Hegvald (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and take nom to ANI. He's been doing this for several months, at least. He never does WP:BEFORE. Enough is enough and it's time to escalate this. Smartyllama (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Sjö Smartskaft (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I would be happy to userfy the page to anyone with a reasonable request to merge anything into one of the bands he has been in. J04n(talk page) 15:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Doran

Rob Doran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor former member of band – fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSICBIO PriceDL (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pit er Pat, which he made a much more significant contribution to than Alkaline Trio (and which already includes most of the content of this article, but would be improved by also having one of the sources from it). --Michig (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This person has been in two notable bands. Per WP:XY, we should either keep or delete this. Due to lack of notability cited above, I’d prefer to delete. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ulf Einarsson

Ulf Einarsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Jacona (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This person is eminently notable as a member of the Swedish National Bandy team, which may meet WP:NATHLETE. Regardless, he meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in many reliable sources. Nominator needs to desist disruptive nominations for deletion without a significant effort at WP:BEFORE. This is a Swedish sport, and even the most cursory query of Dagens Nyheter for his name plus Bandy brings up hundreds of articles. Here are a few [15] [16] [17]. There are hundreds.Jacona (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After starting a bevy of spurious AfD's among Philippines Basketball Association related articles, the nominator proceeded to start a group of AfDs on the sport of Bandy, also apparently giving no heed to WP:BEFORE. The articles include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Liw,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulf Einarsson,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Brown (bandy) and a prod, Rules and Referee Committee, (possibly the only reasonable of these). I'm adding these links so these can be considered together.Jacona (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Player in the Swedish national team, including in a World championship [18]. Has played as a professional in the Russian Bandy Super League. Several non-trivial mentions in WP:RS during his time as a player. Sjö (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Substandard nomination. If you can't even be bothered to make an argument for why something or somebody is non-notable, you have no right to expect other people to take your nomination seriously. --Hegvald (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and take nom to ANI. Enough is enough. Smartyllama (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have attempted to engage the nominator on his talk page (twice). Since then, he has not nominated any more. While I am disappointed he didn't own up to the problem and withdraw his nominations, let's at least wait and see how he behaves going forward. If he continues to nominate articles without valid reasons, ANI would be logical, but I don't think it will be necessary. I think the nom is going to be a fine editor, just needs a little guidance. Jacona (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he were a new editor, I might agree with you, but he's been editing since 2013 and has been doing this for at least the last several months. And it's gotten consistently worse - it used to be at least some of his AfD's were logical, now they're almost all of clearly notable subjects. Smartyllama (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has participated in sport at the highest level. Sufficient independent sources tp pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Sjö Smartskaft (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  samee  talk 08:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with a redirect per DreamLinker. Störm (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cowasjee Group

Cowasjee Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

When I tried to improve I found nothing in sources. Actually we have an article which discusses in detail about shipping industry East & West Steamship Company. No coverage so fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 07:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 07:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 07:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Cowasjee family is a well known Parsi family in Karachi. Their main business was previously shipping (which was later nationalised), but from what I managed to find, they did continue some form of their business. It is a bit hard to find detailed information. They seem to have a Cowasjee foundation as well. Would it be better to redirect this to Cowasjee family?--DreamLinker (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 09:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 09:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yashodhara Lal

Yashodhara Lal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR.Typical promotional-interviews. Winged BladesGodric 08:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • All her books are published by the best publishers in the world. Besides, there must be some more reliable independent sources available. I will find them as soon as possible and I think you should try to find some more sources too. Moreover, let the community decide on this one as of now. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I failed to find any significant non-trivial coverage and hence we are here.Also see why many interviews are unreliable.Your efforts as the orig. article creator is appreciated:)Winged BladesGodric 19:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 09:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America1000 09:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ble Patumrach R-Siam

Ble Patumrach R-Siam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The content in the article mostly depends upon the self published promotional websites. Abishe (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Gopan

Vivek Gopan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Indian actor and low-league cricketer Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 10:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 10:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 10:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 10:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 10:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 12:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actor has only a minor role in a regional film and fails [WP:NACTOR] Hagennos (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 15:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkUKnow

ThinkUKnow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be notable, no sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 18:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issues in American commodity farming

Issues in American commodity farming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unfocused essay. Topic is too specific, sources are too vague to verify, and the article doesn't seem to be something on which a coherent article can be formed. If this is a notable topic after all, then WP:TNT and start over. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep. I would not say it is is unfocused. Google search for "commodity farming" quickly shows quite a few text which discus precisely the article subject: problems associated with commodity farming. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 18:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Staszek Lem: If there is content worth keeping, why not just merge it to commodity farming? "Issues" is too vague a term, and leads to slapdash examplefarming (pardon the pun). And oh wait, commodity farming doesn't have an article either! Is this even a thing? Why not make a parent article first, instead of a random collection of "issues"? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever you say, colleague, but this is not the topic of AfD. The collection is not "random" and issues discussed are real and severe, i.e., of encyclopedic value. I agree the text is essayish and probably may be split into subtopics. For example "Environmental effects" section is hardly limited to "American" and will nicely go into Environmental impact of agriculture. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from the essay/OR-like content, commodity is redundant in the title (farmed crops are commodities), which is partly why TenPoundHammer didn't find an article for commodity farming. It's not a useful redirect/merge in addition to not being a likely search term. Environmental impact of agriculture already covers most of these ideas attempted here, and the author likely didn't know about Intensive crop farming. Any topics remaining are too broad of hand waving to justify keeping for content elsewhere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; I am often persuaded by the usefulness of invoking WP:TNT in articles where just so much is wrong. Ifnord (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. SoWhy 12:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Mitsuhara

Yuki Mitsuhara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the requirements of WP:NBASKETBALL. Pichpich (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 03:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 03:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 03:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 03:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 03:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't pass NBASKETBALL, but I think we might be able to get him up to GNG status between his domestic and international appearances. I added some quick refs after a few minutes of searching. South Nashua (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with those references is that they only mention Mitsuhara in passing. There's absolutely zero in-depth content that can be used to build a proper article. Pichpich (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG, and played for Japan internationally, which is a plus. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 16:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D-Block Boys

D-Block Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable street gang lacking in-depth, non-trivial sources. References are all brief statements that someone belonged to the gang. Fails WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very torn on this. We have two New Orleans T-P articles, a federal court record, and others, however, coverage is not all that detailed. Do we allow greater leeway for underground organizations, which a criminal street gang is by nature? DocumentError (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am leaning towards Keep or possibly Weak Keep. I think the references available points towards notability. But I think the article needs to be improved and more references needs to be added to bring even more clarity to the subject.BabbaQ (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - or possibly merge to an article on gang activity in New Orleans. I searched: "D block" + gnag + Algiers (the New Orleans neighborhood where this gang is active:
  • Panel notes spike in Algiers violent crime ; Police optimistic cases to be solved, Friedman, Brian. Times - Picayune; New Orleans, La. [New Orleans, La]15 Apr 2007: 01...been particularly effective in prosecuting members of Algiers' violent "D-Block"...4th District hit a "proverbial blip on the radar," said Algiers Police Advisory...abatement team on Algiers' streets in response to the recent crime spike..."
  • Girl's killing triggers sweeping indictment: Street gangs targeted in charges that include racketeering, Simerman, John. Times - Picayune; New Orleans, La. [New Orleans, La]10 May 2013: A.1...as alleged members of the "D-Block Gang, " which police claimed sold prodigious...The D-hitBlock case was the first use of the state racketeering statute in...to be the broadest street gang indictment in New Orleans history, also names..."
  • Editorial: Going after violent gangs, Times - Picayune; New Orleans, La. [New Orleans, La]08 Sep 2012: B.4...."D-Block Gang" in the 6th Ward. Prosecutors said gang members sold large..., Six of the defendants charged in the "D-Block Gang" had other pending charges in..."
  • THE DANGER BLOCK: Authorities are using racketeering charges on 11 men connected to a 6th Ward block that turned violent after Hurricane Katrina; Reckdahl, Katy. Times - Picayune; New Orleans, La. [New Orleans, La]01 Jan 2011: A.1....gangs have never made inroads in New Orleans, the city has long had identifiable......ago to indict 11 young men in the so-called D-Block Gang who, police say, sold...
  • And more similar, including the spate of stories in November 2017 that seem to have inspired the creation of this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DONTBITE - we have here a very new editor who brought WP:RS to create an article on an urban gang that has gotten WP:SIGCOV dating back to at least 2006. It would be nice to encourage newbies, rather than plastering the newbie's page with a "Welcome" template followed by no fewer than 3 deletion templates for this article (two SPEEDY plus this one).E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Rosen

Keith Rosen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find much in the way of independent sources covering him. It appears to be mostly fluffy PR type pieces, passing mentions and primary sources to be found. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt, repeatedly created non notable, fails WP:GNG can only find blog mentions and primary sources, no in-depth coverage as required. Theroadislong (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Brown (bandy)

Kevin Brown (bandy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Jacona (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Not one? Because I found this on the top of the first page on my "Kevin Brown Bandy" Google search. Followed by this. Seem to be more articles about him out there, strange that none of them turned up in your search. Must have been using bing Dammit_steve (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even using Bing, I found this [24]. Brown has represented the USA national team. Can the nominator have possibly done WP:BEFORE and failed to find any sources?Jacona (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After starting a bevy of spurious AfD's among Philippines Basketball Association related articles, the nominator proceeded to start a group of AfDs on the sport of Bandy, also apparently giving no heed to WP:BEFORE. The articles include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Liw,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulf Einarsson,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Brown (bandy) and a prod, Rules and Referee Committee, (possibly the only reasonable of these). I'm adding these links so these can be considered together.Jacona (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is not enough substantial coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    note for closing admin: This is one of 6 delete votes cast by the above editor in a five-minute span.Jacona (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and take nom to ANI. Enough is enough. This pattern has existed for several months, with nominator nominating clearly notable articles for deletion en masse without doing any WP:BEFORE. Many of these have been unanimously closed as keep, often with the exception of the notorious Johnpacklambert who I am also concerned about, and is already under sanctions for his reckless deletionism. Smartyllama (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has participated in sport at the highest level. Sufficient independent sources tp pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 18:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katharina Rembi

Katharina Rembi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a definite case of WP:TOOSOON. Yes she's modeled/been in a campaign for notable names but there is virtually no coverage of her in independent RS and fortunately for WP, Instagram follower counts don't really matter. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Truckstop.com

Truckstop.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable company, a BEFORE search reveals slim press releases but nothing substantial to meet CORPDEPTH jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I removed the list of products and competitors from the article per WP:NOTCATALOGUE, but it's still largely a PR release. Marianna251TALK 20:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 18:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Ravi

Rahul Ravi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor/model that has been repeatedly recreated. Despite the newer sources that were included and claims to be in notable films and shows, there are no such sources I can find after scouring several places that support this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Ravi (Malayalam Actor). The only mention I can find of him in any news source is a questionable source at best but also an interview, so fails just about everything. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and salt fails WP:GNG. I cant be sure if it was really a "cameo" or "extra". —usernamekiran(talk) 15:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and salt per Usernamekiran. Ifnord (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 18:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Bet Type All Up

Cross Bet Type All Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A jargon-specific betting type from Hong Kong Jockey Club. All Up is basically the same as accumulator or Parlay (gambling). I would have turned this into a redirect, but the term itself is not used anywhere else besides the club. [25] We don't need a list of redirects or articles for every little variant. Other groups use All Up. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 18:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Composite Win (Horse Racing Terminology)

Composite Win (Horse Racing Terminology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These are jargon-specific terms the Hong Kong Jockey Club uses for some of its bets. This doesn't really need an individual article as it is not notable outside of the club, yet it doesn't need a redirect either because there aren't other articles on composite wins. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO and this type of bet is only relevant to one particularly jockey club. Ajf773 (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I wish this series could have been bundled but I have recently discovered the criteria is now very narrow and some editors will procedurally vote keep - even if it appears they would otherwise agree with the deletion. Ifnord (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Đerek

Viktor Đerek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Wooley

Ryan Wooley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this page is about me and has a lot of inaccurate information. It also appears that it hasn't been updated in close to five years. I don't feel I need a wikipedia account, nor know why one was created and never maintained. SportsFan730 (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Ryan Wooley

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strictly speaking, Wikipedia does not require an article subject's permission before we can start or maintain an article about them, but neither the sourcing nor the substance on offer here suggest a reason why an article was actually warranted — this is referenced entirely to primary sources and YouTube videos, with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him shown at all, and being a local radio personality in a single media market is not an automatic notability pass in the absence of quality sourcing. And while I don't know enough about Ryan's career to assess what's accurate and what isn't, that's precisely why we insist on reliable source coverage as the notability test. So WP:BIODEL applies here: he's not nationally prominent enough or reliably sourceable enough for us to overrule his request for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't have to delete the article on request if consensus is the subject is notable, and in fact we shouldn't. But I've seen nothing to indicate this subject is, in fact, notable. And that's really what matters here. 19:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 18:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Power Horse

Power Horse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I nominated this for speedy which was declined. The refs here are almost entirely press releases or raw churnalism based on them. This is a fake "article" that is just industrial pollution ---the product of PR with not a thing anyone can learn from. Great for making people aware of the product which was the obvious goal. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. I too found that the available mentions of this product seems to be based on press releases, with a lack of truly independent and significant coverage. I found this mention in a Nigerian business website, but it seems to be more of a product category survey in terms of health concerns in general, rather than an article focusing on this product. Only the one and no more, so I think there is just not enough out there to support notability for our purposes. Geoff | Who, me? 18:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Ifnord (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yūko Sasaki (voice actress)

Yūko Sasaki (voice actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another barely notable voice actress. Only significant role was as Kotake Sakura in Chibi Maruko-chan, not enough to meet WP:ENT. She tends to play a lot of mother or grandmother roles. But other than that, her article is just an unsourced credits dump as is her Japanese Wikipedia entry. Very little chance of getting any significant coverage of her in sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unfortunately, despite my best efforts, I was unable to find any significant coverage about her, only profiles or at best passing mentions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG, and I can't see how she meets WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 15:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indian states ranked by ease of doing business

Indian states ranked by ease of doing business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not only am I usure about the notability of this topic. I am also concerned that it is very possibly a copyvio of its source. TheLongTone (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it’s original research since it ranks the countries instead of reporting a percentage score as in the source. If the data table is a copyright violation, then it is a derivative work. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Transient and subjective, plainly not encyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research due to quality of soures and lacks notability for an article. Ajf773 (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raich Ende Malter & Co. LLP

Raich Ende Malter & Co. LLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article on a non-notable accountancy firm, one of the top twenty such firms in New York, with 240 employees. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by a paid member of staff, who has at least declared the conflict of interest. A draft at AfC was abandoned in favour of moving the article into mainspace without approval. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate your letting me know the page is marked for deletion. I'm a pretty new user, and any advice you can give would be greatly appreciated. One question: can you please explain what you mean by "non-notable"? Our firm is very well-known in the real estate and high net worth industries, as evidenced by the various rankings in the audited benchmark surveys I cited in the footnotes. I'm also confused by the "promotional" aspect. In what ways is this information promotional? I want to correct it, if possible. The page was created using the Grassi & Co. page as a template (a much smaller competitor). Thank you for your help. Amyfrushour1971 (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Amyfrushour1971: Wikipedia's concept of notability is a bit unique. Generally, a topic is only considered notable (worthy of inclusion) if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. For more information, see WP:GNG. A subject may also be notable if it meets certain topic-specific guidelines; in this case those would be WP:COMPANY. To demonstrate notability, you need to show examples of significant coverage, or explain how the subject meets the topic-specific guideline. For example, a profile of the company in the New York Times or Forbes would be persuasive, since it would be significant, and the sources are independent of the company, and reliable; a short entry on a list, or a press release wouldn't be, since they're either not significant or independent. Pburka (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to clarify some of that - two references are required and those references must be "intellectually independent". That excludes articles that are based on company announcements, interviews with company staff, nothing from affiliated sources. Just be aware that more often than not, "profiles" in the NYT or Forbes fall foul of being "intellectually independent". HighKing++ 18:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom, no indications of notability, no further references forthcoming since the AfD. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:NCORP. There are many business that are "well-known" by individuals but without reliable sources they do not meet the threshold for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Ifnord (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Typical corporation listing (really, spam...). Drmies (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nazar Fedorchuk

Nazar Fedorchuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe this person meets WP:BIO, and can find no reliable sources covering him. The article bears all the hallmarks of a contribution by an undisclosed CoI (paid) editor, including inline external links. An article with this title was turned down at AfC on May 4 2017 and this version was moved to mainspace later the same day. The creator has not edited since. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Can't find any sources to support an article here. Ajpolino (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a nn businessperson. Likely a COI-driven contribution, going by the contents in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 12:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Muslim Lawyers

National Association of Muslim Lawyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing significant found. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Helmer

George Helmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was tagged for notability in 2011, and I still can find nothing online to say he's notable. Natureium (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. To show that Helmer "was influential" we would need mutiple sources. To show that this change in the law in Vermont was actually notable and significant, we would need sources supporting this view. We have only one, and it is not clear from the reference that Helmer gets much mention.03:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with Johnpacklambert's statement on sourcing. And searches turned up virtually nothing to show Helmer passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. obvious spam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Jones (physician)

Lawrence Jones (physician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, and this article is all promotional. All I can find about him is that he promoted a form of pseudoscience he developed. Natureium (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged as G11, even I see promotional content. And normally I don’t see it. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Wakim

Paul Wakim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete Most of the references are general references to membership in various professional organizations. There is no establishment of notability in this article, and as far as I can find, he hasn't done anything particularly noteworthy. Natureium (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough sources to show notability for an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth sourcing from independent reliable sources to show he passes WP:GNG, and nothing in the article nor his citation count show anything which might pass WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 15:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 09:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Magicboard Online

Disney Magicboard Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This online game does not seem to be notable. Coin945 (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 10:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 10:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 12:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wikipedia article notes:

    Disney Magicboard Online (迪士尼魔幻飞板) is a racing online game based on characters from classic Disney series. This online game was released only in China on December 10, 2007. It was developed by the China game developer Shanda under license of The Walt Disney Company.

    A search for sources using "迪士尼魔幻飞板" as the search term returns many results.

    Cunard (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 张健, ed. (2007-07-08). "迪士尼魔幻飞板将亮相2007年Chinajoy" (in Chinese). China Central Television. Archived from the original on 2018-01-15. Retrieved 2018-01-15.
    2. 刘剑俊, ed. (2008-01-18). "最可爱美女军团入驻《迪士尼魔幻飞板》". zh:天极网 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2018-01-15. Retrieved 2018-01-15.
    3. "迪士尼魔幻飞板宝贝古装照比拼四大美人" (in Chinese). zh:17173. 2008-02-21. Archived from the original on 2018-01-15. Retrieved 2018-01-15.
    4. "《迪士尼魔幻飞板》内测后的寂寞等待" (in Chinese). zh:17173. 2007-12-18. Archived from the original on 2018-01-15. Retrieved 2018-01-15.
    5. 晃点, ed. (2007-07-23). "盛大新游《迪士尼魔幻飞板》CJ精彩回顾" (in Chinese). Sina Corp. Archived from the original on 2018-01-15. Retrieved 2018-01-15.
    6. "《迪士尼魔幻飞板》游戏介绍" (in Chinese). Sina Corp. 2007-08-23. Archived from the original on 2018-01-15. Retrieved 2018-01-15.
    7. "《迪士尼魔幻飞板》之飞板的秘密" (in Chinese). Sina Corp. 2007-12-13. Archived from the original on 2018-01-15. Retrieved 2018-01-15.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Disney Magicboard Online to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 12:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sync.com

Sync.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NORG notably WP:ORGDEPTH. The sources are 1: company website, 2: passing mention, 3: business directory, 4: a review of product, 5: an article about the company when it was a startup that says "Here’s a startup that can be successful, and if all claims it’s making are indeed true, Dropbox and Google should take note." 6: routine coverage, 7: PR article with quotes from company personnel, 8: company blog, 9: company website Domdeparis (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bixop

Bixop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any sources in English or other languages that could support such an article. While I don't speak Portuguese, I still can't find any independent RS that have in-depth coverage. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral / Willing to Keep if Expanded While my Portuguese skills are equally poor, this source (not in the article) and this one (included a link) are some of the material available about him that support a claim of notability per WP;GNG. Ideally, I would like to see the article expanded with this material before considering retention as the article as it exists is not sufficient. Alansohn (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn Those are both interviews, thus WP:PRIMARY and not significant independent coverage. I don't see how someone talking about themselves in two sources (one questionably reliable) meets GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not voting to keep at this point nor do I agree with you that an interview violates WP:PRIMARY; as in many interviews, the questioning by the interviewer involves synthesis that makes the interview a viable secondary source; neither of these sources are diary entries or recordings of monologues by the subject that are irretrievably primary in nature. What I indicate is that there is a potential here for a credible claim of notability and that further digging in non-English sources and expansion of the article might result in a credible article per WP:GNG for which I might consider changing my vote to Keep; I'm not sure that you would disagree with that opinion. Alansohn (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are fine for sourcing BLP content. Primary sources, interviews in particular are not fine for establishing notability. I have no issue with an interview being included in an article but it doesn't establish notability, which is why this AFD is happening. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are agreeing here. If I believed that these interviews were prima facie evidence of notability I would have voted Keep. What I am indicating is that there may be credible claims of notability and that further digging -- perhaps using these sources as a starting point -- might well lead to additional sources and expansion of the article that *might* merit changing my vote to Keep. Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we cannot keep an article based on interviews. We need secondary sources, not primary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources. Agricola44 (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- no sources = no article.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth sourcing to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wilder family

Wilder family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this article does not meet the notability criteria, WP:NOTINHERITED. The members of the Wilder family are not important in their own right, but only as being related to Laura Ingalls Wilder and being mentioned in her books. The article contains no references to reliable independent sources about members of the family. Information on her family could be included on the author's page, but not as a standalone article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication that any of these people are notable in their own right, and without that they don't belong here. Collecting a bunch of WP:BLP stubs together and grouping them into a single article (which is essentially what this is) doesn't make the subjects any more notable. The only significant attribute they have is being related to the author, and therefore appearing in her books, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Neiltonks (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of the people here being notable. I also have grave reservations about speculation on why Wilder did not mention her oldest sister-in-law in her works when that speculation is not backed by reliable sources. On the other hand, since all the peoplelisted in this artcie are dead, there are no biographies of living people (BLP) issues raised by it. However nothing justifies this exhaustive article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Roenfeld

Ryan Roenfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe he's sufficiently notable. The references are inadequate for a WP:BLP - two interviews with him and a report of an initiative which he started, but which isn't about him. Even in these, he's usually described as a "local historian". Searches found loads of run-of-the-mill book reviews, booksellers etc. but not the kind of in-depth discussion of him we usually need for an article. There are a few local newspaper sources, but nothing beyond this. Neiltonks (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO. Author of local history books that fail to support notability; Arcadia Press is a vanity publisher of paperbacks tomes of local history lite filled with nostalgic photos of a particular town or neighborhood. They do sell to a local market, and can be charming, but they do not confer notability on an author.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per E.M.Gregory's spot-on analysis. Onel5969 TT me 14:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 10:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee Air

Cherokee Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company web site is dead. No press except for entry in industry directory. It's not an airline (no scheduled service). Two airplanes is not notable. Rhadow (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't find any useful sources. One has to wonder why it's called Cherokee Air, when neither of their planes are Cherokees :-) . -- RoySmith (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jamila T. Davis

Jamila T. Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Convicted for a non-notable (per NCRIME) crime. After release she authored several books, all (or mostly) published via Voices International Publications which seems to be publishing mostly her material ( and related work - e.g. The High Price I Had to Pay seems to be a series by a number of authors). Sources in article are NJ for the conviction in 2008, Daily Kos, a wordpress blog, and 2 items by a Forbes contributor. BEFORE doesn't show much more - she is mentioned in this book - [26] which does not seem connected to her publishing (though is on a similar vein). Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. My searches of news archives turns up a couple of routine, local news stories about her conviction for real estate fraud a decade ago (both stories, possibly from the same wire service court reporter, found under "Jamila Davis".) Certainly not a notable crime or notable criminal. Her work as a writer (Jamila T. Davis) fails WP:AUTHOR for lack of WP:SIGCOV. Appears to be mere PROMO for a non-notable author.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. References do not rise to the level of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:BIO). Deli nk (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I sincerely regret spending my time trying to clean up this article. The story the subject is trying to spin is incongruous with their bottom feeding on the volunteer work here. Rentier (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough significant coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMGC Global Entertainment

IMGC Global Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing significant about the company in WP:RS. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 10:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indications of notability, topic fails GNG. Notability is not inherited. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Sure, the references might all be from reliable sources, but in order to meet the criteria for notability they must also be intellectually indepedent and they are not, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 20:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is simply not enough coverage to show this production house passes WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 14:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matteela Films

Matteela Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing significant about the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 10:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indications of notability, topic fails GNG. Notability is not inherited. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Sure, the references might all be from reliable sources, but in order to meet the criteria for notability they must also be intellectually indepedent and they are not, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 20:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but right now there is simply not enough coverage to show this production house passes WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 14:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 12:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multihousing Professional magazine

Multihousing Professional magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable magazine; a search reveals zero coverage in independent reliable sources. A7 was declined by SoWhy. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do think you should mention that I declined it solely because WP:A7 does not cover magazines. Regards SoWhy 14:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are serious violations of WP:COI and WP:PAID happening in this article involving the sockpuppet accounts, LindaHoffman (talk · contribs), ASNicks (talk · contribs), and MHPmag (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 10:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Diner

Maximum Diner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was able to find only a single review of this book. Granted, it's a reliable one in a major newspaper, but we generally require multiple sources, and I couldn't find even a blog review to get said multiplies. Can anyone help and find few more reviews? Otherwise this fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) I am afraid, and I can't even think for a good target for merge/redirect. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 10:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I too found what seems to be the only review for this book. I found some passing mentions here and there, but not enough to sartisfy WP:SIGCOV. While it sounds like an entertaining read, I fear it does fail WP:BK as noted by the nominator. An article curiously languishing with only 29 edits since its creation 12 years ago. Perhaps the lack of notability explains. Geoff | Who, me? 18:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No additional reviews in my usual searches. Not finding pull quotes to track from reviewers either. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar 01:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 12:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Deschaseaux

Pascal Deschaseaux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notbale business person. 3 news hits and none of them feature in depth coverage and I can find nothing about him beyond that and primary/PR type stuff. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 17:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 17:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 17:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 10:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 12:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Patcher

Lucky Patcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable Android application. MER-C 20:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 10:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly agree. This app has pretty much little significance, and I really don't understand why it's here. 404House (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 12:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Klaipėda Choirs' Association "Aukuras"

Klaipėda Choirs' Association "Aukuras" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable local choir association Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 10:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Palmer (psychologist)

John Palmer (psychologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Exponent of Parapsychology (e.g. ESP). Sourced to CV on Parapsychology organization. Coverage in BEFORE not much more. Does not seem to meet WP:PROF, and is mostly published in the Journal of Parapsychology. Icewhiz (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROF and WP:FRINGE. Note to avoid confusion: there is a psychologist named John Palmer at the University of Washington who is a different person [27]. XOR'easter (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The John Palmer at UW got his PhD at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; the John Palmer at Rhine got his from UT Austin. XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete As I cannot tell if there is one or two Dr John PALMER's (at least) or just the one. So I am having real difficulty finding any notability |(or maybe finding a lot).Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are at least 3 John Palmers who are psychologists. Maybe more. John Palmer, psychologist who is co-author of a highly cited study with Elizabeth Loftus has scads more notability, as does John Palmer, psychologist who runs a religious group. Sorry, this particular John Palmer (para)psychologist does not pass WP:GNG. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A position in or award from a crackpot fringe body does not confer notability. The only publication I can trace to this person is this, cited 31 times, and that's not enough for WP:PROF. Apart from the other John Palmers mentioned above, there is also at least one notable John A. Palmer. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a classic example of why Wikipedia has guidelines for significant coverage of fringe figures. Palmer is fringe and clearly lacks significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 12:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inayat Husain Thaver

Inayat Husain Thaver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to meeting the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 18:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ellsworth Jones

Ellsworth Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

small-town mayor, fails WP:POLITICIAN, also served in World War 2 but doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER, all sources are from the local newspaper (which to be clear is NOT significant coverage in multiple sources). Rusf10 (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All mayors certainly are not notable, that's why we have WP:POLITICIAN guidelines.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As Rusf10 said, mayors are not automatically notable. Per notability guidelines for politicians: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". There are certainly exceptions; mayors of major cities like NYC, Tokyo, or London almost certainly meet notability requirements, but from WP:POLOUTCOMES: Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors. PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of a mayor is irrelevant for a deletion forum, since notability is never a policy-based determinant for deletion of a mayor, see [[WP:IGNORINGATD}].  Note also that WP:N is a guideline, not a policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to tell you but WP:IGNORINGATD is part of an essay which is neither a policy nor a guideline. If notability is irrelevant for a mayor, I guess that's the case for everything else too, deleting anything must be against policy.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATD is a policy and WP:IGNORINGATD is "an explanatory supplement to Wikipedia:Deletion policy."  So for starters, the premise here is at least erroneous. 
Even if WP:IGNORINGATD were an essay, the post has shown no elements of WP:IGNORINGATD that do not represent policy, so the "essay" comment is baseless misdirection. 
The post continues with WP:OSE hyperbole that policy based treatment under ATD of mayors is the equivalent of non-policy based treatment of other topics considered under WP:Deletion policy.  The topic here is a mayor, not OSE topics outside the scope of ATD. 
As for the hyperbole, as stated at hyperbole, "Hyperbole may...be used for...exaggerations for...effect."  "The use of hyperboles generally relays feelings or emotions from the speaker".  Unscintillating (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of WP:AADD (which contains WP:IGNORINGATD) "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.". If you want to dismiss someone's argument for citing a guideline (the widely accepted WP:N guideline), why don't you hold yourself to the same standard??? You can't cite [[WP:OSE] either, for the same reason. The only policy you actually cited is WP:ATD, which you have a really bizarre interpretation of (ie. nothing can be deleted).--Rusf10 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I a seeing enough references from reliable sources for a standalone article. There is no ban on using local sourcing. --RAN (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of mayors of Saratoga Springs, New York, where he already has a listing with significant biographical information. He is a small-town mayor (population 26,000) who has achieved no wider notability. Virtually all of the sourcing is to a single local source, the The Post-Star (with a single item from the even more local Glen Falls Times). IMO he does not meet GNG and does not qualify for a standalone article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  I looked at the Glen Falls Times article, and this is exactly the in-depth significant coverage we look for to support GNG.  I also looked at the Post-Star "Outgoing Spa mayor gives parting views" article, and the byline is "Associated Press".  Again, this is in-depth significant material, such as, "Failure to consolidate some of the commissioners' powers into a city manager's office tops Jones' list of disappointments [in ten years] as mayor."  This is all coverage that predates the internet.  The volume and quality of the material here is suitable to a standalone article.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the localized coverage is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Yusko, Dennis (2007-08-15). "A sign of respect, gratitude - Ellsworth Jones, former Saratoga Springs mayor and war hero, honored". Times Union. Archived from the original on 2018-01-16. Retrieved 2018-01-16.

      The article notes:

      Oh, the irony. It took former Republican Mayor Ellsworth Jones to bring the city's ruling Democrats together.

      Mayor Valerie Keehn and Public Works Commissioner Thomas McTygue, two Democrats who have been at loggerheads and are up for re-election, recently honored the late mayor and Army war hero by renaming Grove Street "Ellsworth Jones Place."

      ...

      Ellsworth Jones was a five-term mayor who served from 1980 to 1990. He died from complications of Alzheimer's disease at the age of 88 on New Year's Eve, 2006.

      ...

      Jones founded the Hayes Tobacco Company in 1951 and operated it until he sold it in 1977. He was a man of principle, who in 1983 was denied an endorsement from the city Republican Committee largely because of his opposition to the city's commission form of government. He ran on the Independent line and won.

    2. Post, Paul (2011-05-17). "One man's life of service: Former Mayor Ellsworth Jones honored as Deceased Veteran of the Month by Saratoga County Board of Supervisors". The Saratogian. Archived from the original on 2018-01-16. Retrieved 2018-01-16.

      The article notes:

      A Greatest Generation hero and popular Spa City mayor was honored Tuesday for his service to country, community and love of family.

      Ellsworth Jones (1918-2006), an Army paratrooper, was one of the first Americans to land in Normandy during the D-Day invasion, was later wounded and awarded a Purple Heart and Bronze Star.

      During his 10 years as mayor of Saratoga Springs, from 1980 to 1990, he was a driving force behind the creation of the City Center, one of the major elements of downtown revitalization.

      ...

      U.S. Rep. Chris Gibson's office gave the Jones family a flag that's flown over the U.S. Capitol and Corsale presented a Presidential Memorial Certificate signed by President Barack Obama.

    3. Kinney, Jim (2007-01-02). "Five-term city mayor dies at 88". The Saratogian. Archived from the original on 2018-01-16. Retrieved 2018-01-16.

      The article notes:

      Ellsworth Jones led a platoon of paratroopers into France before dawn on D-Day. Decades later, he led Saratoga Springs as its mayor during the 1980s.

      Jones died New Year's Eve, Sun¬day night. He was 88.

      He had suffered from Alzheimer's disease for more than a year, Jones' son Matthew Jones said.

    4. Crowe II, Kenneth C. (2005-12-08). "Online Hall of Fame cites service in war and peace - Former mayor of Saratoga Springs among first inductees to state Senate's honor roll". Times Union. Archived from the original on 2018-01-16. Retrieved 2018-01-16.

      The article notes:

      Ellsworth Jones jumped into combat on D-Day in 1944, dropping into France as a platoon commander with the 101st Airborne Division.

      A five-term mayor of the Spa City and a business owner, the 87-year-old Jones doesn't talk about his experiences in Normandy where he was wounded. He still carries near his heart the shrapnel that knocked him out of the war.

      On Wednesday, the 64th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Jones was inducted into the virtual New York State Senate Veterans Hall of Fame.

    5. Williams, Stephen (2011-06-02). "Our Military: Ellsworth Jones, a wounded veteran of World War II, honored at Saratoga County ceremony (with photo gallery)". The Daily Gazette. Archived from the original on 2018-01-16. Retrieved 2018-01-16.

      The article notes:

      First Lt. Ellsworth J. Jones was among the first Americans to land in France on D-Day, parachuting in behind German lines during the night to take out artillery in the hours before the great invasion.

      After intense combat, the 26-year-old paratrooper took a piece of shrapnel near his heart on the fifth day after D-Day, and it stayed there until his death 62 years later in Saratoga Springs.

      In between getting wounded on June 11, 1944, and his death in late December 2006, Ellsworth Jones commanded a prisoner of war camp, ran a successful Saratoga tobacco business, raised four children with his wife, and served a decade as the mayor of Saratoga Springs.

      ...

      Ellsworth Jones, who lived to within one week of his 89th birthday, was honored as Saratoga County’s Deceased Veteran of the Month in May. Several dozen people attended the ceremony in the county board meeting rooms.

    6. Crowe II, Kenneth C. (2007-01-03). "Former mayor's service recalled - Ellsworth Jones, a D-Day veteran who championed Saratoga Springs development, dies at 88". Times Union. Archived from the original on 2018-01-16. Retrieved 2018-01-16.

      The article notes:

      Former mayor Ellsworth Jones, who fought with the 101st Airborne at Normandy and championed the construction of the Saratoga Springs City Center as a way to revitalize downtown, died Sunday night at Wesley Health Care Center, his family said Tuesday afternoon. He was 88.

      Jones, a Republican, served five terms as mayor. He died from complications of Alzheimer's disease, family members said.

      ...

      Jones received the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. He also served during the Korean War.

    7. Yu, Winifred (1989-05-01). "SPA Mayor Insists He's Ordinary. Decades In Office Ends In Retirement". Times Union. Archived from the original on 2018-01-16. Retrieved 2018-01-16.

      The article notes:

      He's danced with Ginger Rogers and dined with Ronald Reagan. And during the city's celebrated horse-racing season in August, he's a guest at the most elegant black-tie affairs.

      But Mayor Ellsworth Jones says of himself and his family, "We are very ordinary. We have a little house, with three bedrooms, a living room, dining room and a one-car garage. One car sits outside."

      ...

      Having spent the last decade as mayor, Jones is known by just about everyone in Saratoga Springs. When he retires at the end of 1989, he will have held the city's second longest tenure as mayor. Only Addison Mallery, who held the reins from 1936 to 1959, will have been there longer.

      Through the years, Jones spearheaded several projects that changed the face of the city. The downtown development projects he cites among his successes include the Ramada Renaissance and the City Center convention hall.

    8. Yu, Winifred (1989-04-18). "Mayor Jones Bars Bid For A 6th Term at SPA". Times Union. Archived from the original on 2018-01-16. Retrieved 2018-01-16.

      The article notes:

      After nearly 10 years at the helm of this city renowned for its horse racing and mineral water, Mayor Ellsworth Jones announced Monday that he would not seek a sixth term.

      ...

      Through the years, Jones has spearheaded several projects that have changed the face of the city. Among those he talked about Monday were the Ramada Renaissance Hotel and the City Center convention hall. The Ramada recently agreed to give the city $130,000 toward the improvement of the municipal parking lot on the High Rock Parcel on Maple Avenue, another project Jones cited among his accomplishments.

      In addition, Jones said, he has succeeded in keeping property taxes stable for the past decade. Since 1979, he said, when the city's residents experienced a 27 percent increase in property taxes, property taxes have basically remained the same. That stems in part, he said, from the arrival of new industries, Jones said, including the printing company, Quadgraphics.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ellsworth Jones to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 09:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think this subject has received significant coverage in sources independent of the subject and does not violate the notability guideline, any of the other reasons for deletion, or any of the core content policies. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mayor Jones has received significant coverage, which does not violate notability. Scanlan (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cunard has provided sources to demonstrate significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. That clears WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 12:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem John Shakir

Nadeem John Shakir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing significant in coverage. Clearly not notable per WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just being a priest in the Catholic Church does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wassana Im-Em

Wassana Im-Em (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not for free profile. Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 12:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Mendes

Bonnie Mendes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing significant in WP:RS. Almost sourced with Catholic sites like UCA. No independent coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a bishop and no other indicators of notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of blacklisted keywords in China

AfDs for this article:
List of blacklisted keywords in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Huge tangled mess of unsourced garbage. Too little of this is verified or verifiable. The article has been tagged for OR for ELEVEN YEARS with no improvement. List openly admits to being fluid, incomplete, and difficult to verify (" It is known that trying from different locations inside and outside China, on different search engines, and at different times can yield different results."), meaning there is no point in even having a list if so little of its content is even consistent. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - while the topic is potentially notable, the list is a hopeless hodgepodge of unsourced and unverifiable WP:OR. WP:TNT. -Zanhe (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP and add refimprove. -- Dandv 03:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dandv (talk · contribs), the closing admin might give less weight to your AfD comment under WP:JUSTAVOTE. Would you explain your rationale for retention in more detail so that does not happen? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the topic blacklisted keywords in China is itself notable, the list is meaningless if not backed up by reliable sources and maintained up to date. If we cut out all the unverified and outdated parts we would be left with a very small list. The core topic is already covered at Great Firewall and Internet censorship in China. Rather than trying, and failing, to maintain this list on Wikipedia, the Great Firewall article should instead have a external link at the bottom pointing to a site that does maintain details of blocked sites and keywords. Rincewind42 (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A rare case of a topic perfectly suited for an article but unfeasable for reasons beyond our control. Given the nature of banned words as being, well, banned, they are not allowed to be officially discussed, and any research of them must come from OR, whether from users here or another source. Even if someone meticulously documented some of these words, changes are too frequent and too hidden for the article to be anything resembling a maintainable list. Pinguinn 🐧 10:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because such a list would forever be incomplete and impossible to source without some form of original research, considering that the Chinese government updates its banned keywords on a whim. feminist (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the delete arguments above by Rincewind42, Pinguinn, Feminist, Zanhe, JohnBlackburne, and the nom are all cogent and on-target. Onel5969 TT me 14:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Due to low participation, this is closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Mz7 (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Cross

Cyber Cross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two-line stub unsourced since 2007, fails V and N. See the analogous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cross Wiber. Sandstein 10:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 11:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Giant Bomb, Video Game Den Magazine Review, Computer and Video Game Magazine Review - The two magazine reviews should be enough to prove notoriety. I also feel like the old AfD for Cross Wiber was poorly reviewed, as there are several magazines that published reviews, that can be easily seen by one look at Mobygames Reviews for Cross Wiber. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 Talk 03:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redbox Movie Awards

AfDs for this article:
Redbox Movie Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was previously nominated for deletion a few years ago resulting in no consensus. I think its time to revisit. That discussion was flooded with SPA accounts who did not make policy arguments to keep. As stated in the previous discussion, this is not a notable award and does not meet WP:GNG. Also it seems that redbox no longer issues this "award" as the most recent mention of it I can find was from 2013. I know a merge was mentioned as a possibility in the previous discussion, but I really don't see anything worth keeping here since it only existed for two or three years. Keeping everything here would certainly create WP:UNDUE in the Redbox article. Rusf10 (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Abandoned honor with no trophy based on proprietary information, and without the SPAs polluting this nom and four years out, that's even more clear now (I'm surprised we didn't strike those votes in the first nom). Nate • (chatter) 18:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redbox's self-promotional "awards" sourced entirely to either non-reliable or non-independent sources. No possibility of passing WP:GNG or any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 05:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of virtual private network services

Comparison of virtual private network services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR concerns. There are no references as to whether these VPN providers are notable, or why these attributes are relevant. Possibly a WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shouldn't references as to whether the providers are notable just be included in the providers' own articles? Also, could you please elaborate on why the article might be a WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation? On a side note, do you know where I can learn more about writing a comparison article? Thank you.--Stempelquist (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this seems to be a case of WP: OR.Vorbee (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I understand that the article is currently based almost exclusively on primary sources (ie. the providers' websites). However, I feel that it can be appropriate to use such primary sources in the context of a comparison article. Doesn't it seem logical to visit the providers' websites in order to verify some basic facts about their products? I'm not referring to subjective claims like "our product is the best product", but claims like "our product has this particular feature" or "our product can be bought with Bitcoin." In this explanatory supplement to the WP:OR policy, it is stated that, in an article about a business, "the organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." Furthermore, much of the material in the article is also attributable to reliable secondary sources, such as PC Magazine, TechRadar and PC World. Instead of deleting the article, I could add secondary sources on top of the primary sources in the wiki tables in order to establish notability. Would that be in accordance with Wikipedia's policies?--Stempelquist (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any article on this topic will be either (A) original research or (B) only citable to affiliate marketing websites for the VPN services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billhpike (talk • contribs) 03:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you elaborate on why you think it will inevitably be original research? I'm aware of the many affiliate marketing websites, but there are also reliable sources such as PC Magazine, TechRadar and PC World - maybe even That One Privacy Site. Please read my Keep input above, where I argue that it's not necessarily original research when citing the providers' own websites.--Stempelquist (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • About the original research part, primary sources can indeed be used, but here they make up the majority of sources, and the criteria for determining what is bad and what is good is the very same list that this article's content and formatting is based on, so there's also a weird kind of circular sourcing going on. Likewise, Wikipedia should not be be stating what is good or bad in the first place. Eik Corell (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since the primary sources are reliable in the context of this comparison, I don't think it's problematic that they make up the majority of sources. However, I agree that secondary sources are needed in order to establish notability - I'm currently working on that. As far as I can see, the policy you linked only states that an article shouldn't be based entirely on primary sources. Regarding the circular sourcing part, I fail to see where I have indirectly referenced Wikipedia. Could you please elaborate on that? In the Definitions section, I'll try to insert explanations (with sources) as to why the various columns matter in an effort to address the "Verifiability, not truth" problem.--Stempelquist (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't follow the reasons for deletion. If taking facts even from a primary source, it's not original research (say what you will about the quality of those sources, OR is irrelevant). Nomination mentions whether these VPN providers are notable... for a list comprising only VPNs which already have their own article. If they're not notable, the place to take issue with that would be at their respective articles. The attributes could indeed be changed and there may be some elements of OR in the selection of variables, but there's no shortage of comparisons of VPNs even in some reliable sources, and I entirely disagree that it's not possible to do without OR. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Original research is relevant because the article is a derivative of this chart, which is entirely based on first-party sources. It uses a lot of the same formatting: Which country, is the provider based in the 14-Eyes, Is the provider based in one of the enemy of the internet countries, etc. This is also why the article says whether something is good or bad; In the original, whether something is good or bad is determined by the author. Basically, what is being made here is a split-up copy with a few third-party sources thrown in. Eik Corell (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:OR isn't about other people's original research. It's about Wikipedians' original research. If it copied another source, there may be a copyright problem, but if it cites another source, it's already not OR unless the editor is adding things that are not in that source. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article is a copy of this chart, and similarly determines determines which qualities are good or bad. Eik Corell (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is not a copy "with a few third-party sources thrown in," as you've written further above. As I have explained on the article's talk page: "Although I have used [the chart] as inspiration, I have manually updated and sourced the information, split it up into smaller sections, inserted explanatory notes and removed and added various columns. Also, I have only included "notable" services (services that have their own Wikipedia article)." Please notice that none of the first-party sources in the article have been "copied" from the chart and that the chart doesn't even refer to such sources. As I see it, two separate tables comparing VPN services will naturally look similar, and I fail to see why they should differ in layout. I agree that the Fourteen Eyes and Enemy of the Internet columns are controversial. Since the article doesn't contain a referenced explanation for them, I have been bold and removed them for now.--Stempelquist (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Eik Corell: On what basis are you saying it's a copy? I see far more information in our comparison than in that table. In fact, if you removed all of the information from that table, there would still be a lot here. There are many, many columns with very dry information. If there's language that you think is problematic in telling good vs. bad, then WP:SOFIXIT. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I mean by copy, if copy is the right word here, is that it uses the same layout, but also shares the methodology of the chart which is exclusively first-party sources. The way this version differentiates itself is by linking to these same first-party sources that the original author used to compile the list, along with adding some third-party sources. It's basically the same list, with more transparency into the sources used by the original author. The problem with good vs bad isn't a language thing, but a problem of verifiability, specifically WP:TRUTH. Even if the classifying of attributes as good or bad is removed, the problem with first-party sourcing persists, that's why I voted delete as other things can be fixed as you said. Eik Corell (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I should say that when I wrote the above, the page had not properly loaded and I didn't have (or didn't see) the horizontal scrollbar on the table. It looked like it only had a few columns, so I was confused why you said it was a copy. I'm not quite sold on the idea that it's either a copyright issue or a particularly bad place to start (i.e. fixable rather than beyond hope). Will wait for some other opinions and maybe take a closer look later today. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have edited the article to include three computer magazines' criteria and recommendations, and I believe this may have solved the verifiability problem. Thoughts?--Stempelquist (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rhododendrites and WP:SAL. This looks like a well-structured standalone list, with each VPN having it's own article as the usual WP:CSC inclusion criterion, and the topic of VPN services being obviously notable. It is better referenced than most. Particular instances of synthesis, OR, or inadequate sourcing can be dealt with by ordinary editing. Hence, keep. --Mark viking (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time for closure?--Stempelquist (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After two relistings, no consensus for a particular outcome has emerged within this discussion. Matters regarding the article can continue to be discussed on its talk page if desired, including the notion of a merge. North America1000 10:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struggle against political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union

Struggle against political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a POVfork of Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, and the differences are WP:SYN. It is a monograph by a WP:SPA with numerous dodgy or self-published sources, so I think deletion is the correct response rather than an attempt to merge. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a fascinating article, well supported by a large variety of sources. Whilst certainly could be improved - eg for POV or weasel words - it is definitely salvageable. I believe the topic is notable and the article should be kept. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:INTERESTING. You do not address the issue at hand, which is that this is a WP:POVFORK. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mistake me, JzG. As I state above I believe this is an independently notable topic, ie. more than a POV fork. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I see that most of the edits - almost all, n fact, are by a user:Psychiatrick, and I see POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 00:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is sub-section of this page included in main page: Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union#Struggle_against_abuse. The summary is very brief, and I do not see any significant overlap. My very best wishes (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quick examination shows that the page includes a number of sections ("Soviet psychiatric abuse exposed", "Congress in Mexico City", and so on) that are not present on main page, Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. Hence this is not a content fork, but a subpage specifically on the subject of "struggle against abuse" rather than abuse itself. Moreover, the entire current content of the page is indeed on the subject of "Struggle against political abuse...", rather than abuse itself. Just another proof this is not a content fork. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, both pages are properly linked (see here). My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, user Psychiatrick is not an WP:SPA, and he made good significant contributions to the project [29]. Telling that page should be deleted because it was created by him is unreasonable. Yes, he created a number of reasonable pages on related subjects because this is area of his expertise and/or interest. This is not a content fork, and not a POV fork. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has valuable information and sufficient sources, may be references style change required. Glycomics123 (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC) — Glycomics123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the general article on the use of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. I have to admit that I question the violation of NPOV rules both in this article and in the more general one on the topic. "Abuse" is a red-flag word for NPOV application. Saying the treatment of a person was abuse is justifiable, saying the use of an academic idea was abuse, to me cheapens the power of the word. Lastly, the whole name furthers the notion that the use of psychiatry for political goals in the Soviet Union was an aberration, ignoring that psychiatric commitment was used to further the goals of some religious groups against others in 19th-century America, and many other questionable uses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see any reasonable way to add such huge amount of non-redundant content to main page on the subject. This sub-page has maybe only ~10% overlap with main page if anyone bothers to check.My very best wishes (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jung-min Kim

Jung-min Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At this points, fails WP:NFOOTY since he never played a match in a fully professional league. This might change, but as soon as it did not he is non-notable for us. Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Soccer-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I find one article (title: Next Generation 2016: 60 of the best young talents in world football) in the Guardian about Kim Jung-min. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is much better, I would say one or more articles of this level, and we can probably keep the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genius (flashcard software)

Genius (flashcard software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Software product of questionable notability, the website appears long dead, could find no coverage in third-party refs. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of the good reviews I found was at flashcardguru.com; that was about it I guess. Fails to clear the WP:GNG threshold due to unavailability of any reliable sources discussing the subject significantly. Lourdes 07:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Casado

Isaac Casado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. There are three sources, of which two are primary sources simply confirming him winning different prizes (e.g. one confirms he was one of 35 people to get a specific scholarship from Georgetown). A search on Google News finds three relevant hits, two of which are purely incidental mentions that don't provide any biographical information. No prejudice for future recreation of this article. Chetsford (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Martinez

Joseph Martinez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Now that the Afd of Luis F. Castro has concluded that the award of a single DSC to a Puerto Rican is insufficient for an article, it's time to clear out part of the list of Puerto Rican recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Badel Hernández Guzmán (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Elmy L. Matta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Efraín Figueroa-Meléndez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ramiro Ramirez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reinaldo Rodríguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Martinez sourced to DSC citation (note however that there is a different Joe P. Martínez (who is referred to as Joseph more formally) from Colorado who got the medal of honor). Guzmán DSC cited + a few Korean war book mentions (of the action that led to the DSC). Matta - similar. Figueroa-Meléndez sourced to DSC, book mentions on receiving the DSC. Ramirez - nothing found beyond the DSC citation (though there are others who share the name). Rodríguez - DSC cite, mentioned in book as receiving DSC.Icewhiz (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Private with a single level 2 decoration. NN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't find anything about these individuals on newspapers.com, except from Hernandez Guzman.[30] Other than a few articles about the DSC, there is also a few articles which include a picture of him stating that he took part in ceremonies for the 1952 organization of Puerto Rico into a commonwealth. These are not in-depth about Gusman in any sense, but I point this out because while I see no reason to think he had notable involvement in that event, someone with different access to sources might find something more. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the DSC is not enough on its own to show notability, and these individuals have no other claim.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reformation Bible Puritan Baptist Church

Reformation Bible Puritan Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:FRINGE group, and doesn't appear to be a notable one. The only independent coverage I find is [31]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteNot any more notable than any other church. Just because it is a hate group doesn't make it any more notable Neither, does the fact that the pastor has an internet radio show (anybody can do that). Fails WP:GNG making this a strong delete.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is an obnoxious group in my view. It sounds like a small one, possibly a one-man band. The only reason to keep it would be that it was so notorious as to be notable on that ground. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage in WP:RS appears to be limited to a small number of articles mentioning this church (apparently a single location denomination) as among the groups listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and a feature article in the local newspaper Lebanon Daily News (pop. of Lebanon, Pa., : 23,000) Newmanstown man plans for racially separated Lebanon County. While the Lebanon Daily News is a WP:RS, this church, recently established run by an avowed racist, fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm not convinced that simply getting listed by the SPLC is enough notoriety, and while appears that Phelps's book has a better claim to that, notoriety, er, notability is not inherited. One gets the sense that it isn't so much a hate group as it is one hate person who wrote one hateful book. Mangoe (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semi-strong keep. The SPLC is a major organization related to the subject, I'd say a designation from them confers notability. That should be worked into the article per WP:IMPROVE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etzedek24 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is an article on the Rational Wiki on the elder bishop Eric Jon Phelps. He has been on a couple of talk shows as well. Most of these churches are single church independent groups, much like the Westboro Baptists who have only a single Church without affiliation to a larger church group. However, Phelps does have quite a bit of influence over some of the independent fundamentalist through his writings - Vatican Assassins which is now a four volume book (fourth edition). Individuals who peddle conspiracies quote from the books as if it is fact. DeusImperator (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient coverage. Being listed by the SPLC does not automatically make an organization notable. feminist (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pigment (software)

Pigment (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long dead software program, could not find sources. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Already deleted G5 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Treeium Inc

Treeium Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Haven't been able to find sources that would pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG SeraphWiki (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to College of Wooster#Student life. Given that there is consensus to not keep, but not consensus for deletion. Sandstein 20:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of student social organizations at the College of Wooster

List of student social organizations at the College of Wooster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of this content is individually notable. Cramming it into one article does nothing for notability or sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:SCHOOLCRUFT. Most of this appears to be summarised achievements of frats and sororities, sources do not prove notability. Ajf773 (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge useful and reliable sourceable material in the lead into the article on the College of Wooster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 12:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of Ghana (1966–79)

History of Ghana (1966–79) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant to other articles on Ghana's history. Totally arbitrary set of years (why 1966-79 specifically?). Only one source. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an article copypasted from a single source adds nothing to the encyclopedia beyond a link to the book in the Ghana article. Rhadow (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The years are based on the rule by the NLC and NRC, starting with the 1966 coup and ending with the rise of Jerry Rawlings. If we want to periodisize the history of Ghana, it would be, pre-1956 (which is split in many ways based on colonial and pre-colonial periods), 1956-1966 (which is in part covered by the page on the Monarchy period and could be split by pre- and post-monarchy), 1966-1979 (which could be split by NLC and NNRC rule), 1979-2001 (which currently would be the page on Rawlings, although it could get its own history of Ghana section), and 2001-present. The article is based on a public domain source and has received minor edits since creation. The History of Ghana article uses a similar source for the section on the same. The two articles should be cleaned up and the more general article trimmed a bit, but that doesn't make this article inappropriate. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking why there is a separate article for these years and not other years?Smmurphy(Talk) 21:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Why these totally arbitrary years and no others? Why should this content not just be merged back into the overall History of Ghana article? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I described why these years are not arbitrary, I'm sorry that you think that they are. I don't know why there isn't an article for all of the other periods of Ghanaian history, but there are two articles for two of its colonial periods. I think the reason the content has its own page is that the History of Ghana article is very long. Smmurphy(Talk) 04:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- This is a badly structured article, but it is common in WP to have a general article, with a number of "main" sub-articles. 1966-79 is clearly not a random period, as it starts with a military coup and ends with Rawlings' takeover. It should be joined by articles on the Rawlings era in Ghana, and Post-colonial Ghana. The general article is much too long and should be trimmed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Looks like it is already covered in History of Ghana--Rusf10 (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or possibly merge back to History of Ghana. One could make some argument that the corresponding section in the main article could be more summarized and this article cleaned up. I'm not convinced that outright deletion is the best response, except on at WP:TNT basis, and my cursory reading is that it isn't irredeemably bad. Mangoe (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see no reason why this article should be deleted. Yes, improve it but not delete. There is plenty of coverage from reliable sources. Further, I am very concerned about this systemic bias especially when it relates to Africa. How can we have History of the United Kingdom, History of the formation of the United Kingdom, Early modern Britain, Georgian era, and I can go on forever - all about one particular small western country (UK) - the size of a peanut, yet some wants to throw a fit about an era/period of Ghana's history (an African nation)? Let's stop this foolishness! Senegambianamestudy (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep AFD is not for cleanup or pointing out deficiencies in articles. Article is otherwise a valid sectioning of the parent article History of Ghana, per the information given by others which demonstrates it's not just arbitrary years. Much like History of the United States (1776–89), which starts with the US declaration of independence and ends with the ratification of the constitution, 2 important events in US history - this demonstrates dividing articles into more appropriate sub-articles is in line with community consensus, hell it's even suggested by WP:DETAIL! Nominator also has a history for frivolous nominations. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for pointing us to that article. I see that the nominator is very careless when it comes to nominating articles for deletion. This[32] surely is one of his greatest moments, and will go down in history as one of the worst nominations for Afd. I'm always concerned about those who do not edit much but simply driveby and tag or nominate articles for Adf. This is a silly nomination and evidently the nominator has a long history of doing this.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As others have noted, the content of this article was indeed a word-for-word duplicate of the content at The Unknowns. Mz7 (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Punk

Black Punk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable hacker group. May be the case of WP:TOOEARLY Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is almost a letter-for-letter a duplicate of The Unknowns, which is the actual name of this group. — Warren. ‘ talk , 06:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for precisely the reason Warren. points out. I can't find anything on "black punk" as a hacker group; even when searching with keywords like "hacking" "internet", "FBI" what turns up in searches is punk music. DO NOT redirect because the term Black punk is in very wide use to describe punk rock, so that keeping this title even as a redirect would cause needless confusion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax/fork/duplicate of The Unknowns. Note creator place misleading reference titles so that the false name would seem to appear. e.g. "NASA, ESA confirm they were hacked by 'Black Punk'". Retrieved May 7, 2012. "NASA, ESA confirm they were hacked by 'Black Punk'" actually leads to "title= NASA, ESA confirm they were hacked by 'The Unknowns'"Icewhiz (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  samee  talk 09:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vinit Singh

Vinit Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:GNG. Article has minimal sources and the handful found in a search are about the musical talent show where they finished 2nd. Passing mentions as a playback singer after that. Ravensfire (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Community boards of the Bronx. Content remains behind the redirect for very selective merge to the target. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bronx Community Board 8

Bronx Community Board 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be notable, no sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why this board in particular, and not the other 58? Station1 (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In a city of 8.5 million, community boards serve a critical function of representative government in each of the five boroughs of New York City. While each of the 58 articles has different levels of sourcing included within each of them, the overall community board structure in general, and this article in particular, are all notable. Sourcing available outside the article should be added. Alansohn (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Most of the article just describes how community boards work (not this one in particular). Almost everything in this article is already in Community boards of New York City and Community boards of the Bronx. How many articles do we need that just repeat each other?--Rusf10 (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- non notable. The article offers three citation, all of which are to gov web site (primary source) and are not suitable for establishing notability. The page reads like the org's web site (Membership, Board Responsibilities, etc), which is where such content belongs. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The complete lack of narrative emphasizes the points made above: this is an article about community boards may do, but there's nothing about this board and what it has done. "Why is this board different from any other board?": that question isn't answered, and therefore it appears that notability is lacking. Mangoe (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Alansohn's reasoning. HugoHelp (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Selective merge to Community boards of the Bronx. There's nothing in this article that's not either totally boilerplate about NYC CB's, or just WP:DIRECTORY information. Sure, CB's are important (I happen to live in CB-10), but that doesn't make them WP:N. And, to ansswer Station1's question above, why not delete the other 58, my answer would be that we probably should. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to a merge/redirect per SoWhy, below. But, it would have to be a very selective merge. My first thought was all that would be useful would be a list of communities covered, but I see that's there already. Maybe just bring over the demographics info, and a link to the CB's website. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Why deletion and not redirect/merge to Community boards of the Bronx? Seems like this can and should be handled by WP:ATD (as can the other 58 if necessary without creating 58 more AFDs). Regards SoWhy 11:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to Community boards of the Bronx as per SoWhy's reasoning. Definitely not notable enough for a standalone article. Have not looked at the other 58, but they also could be redirected if they do not meet notability guidelines, without going through the afd process. Onel5969 TT me 14:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is a consensus that sources are avaiable for use, even if they will be predominently in Rissian. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim society №3

Muslim society №3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability asserted, no sources found. A7 declined for no reason Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are some English sources, e.g. [33], and quite a bit of Russian language sources in the Russian wiki page. A7 should've been declined - there is a definite assertion of significance (a few hundred terror victims).Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The external links and Russian-language sources appear to be more than adequate. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Russian topic is natural most sources will be in Russian and the sources given above will prove notability given how more developed the article is on ru-wp.–Ammarpad (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. SoWhy 11:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Outstanding Young Persons of the World

Ten Outstanding Young Persons of the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. References provided are either mentions-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Edwardx (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally adding page originally separately nominated with identical rationale; list is obviously dependent on the parent topic article and should have been bundled (see WP:MULTIAFD). postdlf (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of recipients of Ten Outstanding Young Persons of the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
Found these independent international sources, which I will add in coming days:
Bogger (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can anyone evaluate the sources presented? I note several tabloids.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the List article, Merge the award article to Junior Chamber International (the organisation that sponsors the award). Both of the nominated articles could use some better sourcing, but so too does the article on the sponsor. And that's going to be a problem, because a great many specialised organisations find it difficult to get coverage in the mainstream press. Nonetheless, it is possible for us to take "encyclopedic" notice of the fact that the JC International was formed more than a century ago and that many (most? all?) of the milestones in its development probably happened before the Internet era. Because of this, I'm not too troubled with having much of the target article's sourcing come from the organisation's own websites. And merging in the discussion of one of its major annual projects (the award) will be of benefit to the target article. As for the list article, it's easily justifiable as a stand-alone article per WP:SPINOUT.

    By way of comparison, the only national member of the JC International to have its own article is the United States Junior Chamber. They, too, have an annual award (the Ten Outstanding Young Americans) and an accompanying list article for the honorees (List of Ten Outstanding Young Americans). And all of these U.S. articles suffer the same lack of third-party sourcing. Of course, pointing to "other stuff" isn't a compelling argument in a deletion nomination. But I think we can all step back for a minute and ask ourselves whether the level of sourcing needed to keep a set of Junior Chamber articles really depends on whether we're talking about the organisation that is based in the U.S. or the one that is based in Hong Kong.

    In all, I think the merger of the award article into the organisation's article will be an improvement in the coverage of the topic. Indeed, the same approach should probably be taken for the U.S. articles, as well. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 12:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March of Empires

March of Empires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure this iOS mobile game readhes WP:GNG. It's also written like a fanbook. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't know whether WP:NGAME would help here as might WP:IMPROVEIT though I don't know whether it actually meets WP:GNG which is still the main source of deletion reasons for videogames as WP:NGAME is just an essay. [Username Needed] 13:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to Delete. A Gamezebo review and a Slide to Play review does not notability make. --Izno (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Archived 2017-12-14 at the Wayback Machine, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38. I'm guessing most of these are reliable. Adam9007 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adam9007: Please don't ref-bomb. Figure out which are actually reliable and which are not, and which cover the topic in depth to boot. --Izno (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They all cover the subject in detail, and none are obviously unreliable. Adam9007 (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a difference between something being a secondary, reliable, independent source, and something not being "obviously unreliable". Very few of those are listed as video game reliable sources. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also a difference between "not listed at WP:VGRS" and "source is not reliable". WP:VGRS is not intended to be exhaustive, and sometimes common sense should be used. Plenty of video game articles (including GAs) use sources not listed there. I'm not familiar with some of these sources and cannot read the languages. Can someone provide proof of unreliability? Adam9007 (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is there a really popular mobile phone game with a similar title or something? I feel like this is one of those really popular games that gets TV spots, but with the sourcing bordering between "not-notable" and "niche/barely notable", I wondered if maybe I'm thinking of a different game? Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: Clash of Clans, Game of War, March of Empires, Action of Things? :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Salvidrim! - Finally figured it out. Forge of Empires is the one I always see those stupid commercials for. That's what it was, not this game. So it looks like I'm unfamiliar with this game then. Sergecross73 msg me 03:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Izno and a few of Adam9007's links (148apps, PocketGamer, Adweek, multiple 4gamer articles), SIGCOV in reliable sources exists. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability established by extensive coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Most, but not all of the arguments in this discussion for both deletion and retention include Wikipedia guideline- and policy-based rationales. Ultimately, this discussion has received ample input, and no consensus for a particular action has surfaced. A fair amount of discourse regarding the article's content has occurred here, such as limiting its scope, improving the management of the article, and moving it, among others, all of which can be continued on the article's talk page. North America1000 11:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes

AfDs for this article:
List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  1. This article really conveys no information that cannot be found on RT's own pages, including but not limited to https://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/ . If someone wants to find films with 100% on RT, surely the best option would be to go straight to RT instead of assuming Wikipedia has an article on the topic. This article feels redundant.
  2. It gives really no impression of encyc value - all encyc information on this topic can be found at List of films considered the best. I can understand that we have an article about this list and this list, but those are static. This article, however, is in constant need of dynamics and updating to current events - feels almost like a news feed providing extremely blank and pure information.
  3. Also, the list is wayyyy too long. Is it truly a notable accomplishment for a film to get a 100% rating when it is this common? Who says it is? Who says that 100% is a famously notable achievement?
  4. It smells of publicity for RT. I know RT is a widely respected website/publisher, but is this kind of detail really due? Of course, as said before, the article content cannot be undue to RT since that's what the title specifies - however, the title and thus the article as whole feels out of place in an encyc environment. RT is big, but are they this big?


(I know it was kept previously and are knowingly creating another. I have considered all past arguments.) Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (t,c,l) 00:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete That the film that spawned the rebirth of the KKK, Birth of a Nation, is on this list, should cause the people who run the Tomato meter to question the validity of their rating system. However there is no reason to treat this rating engine as the ultimate say-so on everything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not seeing a policy- or guideline-based argument here. In regard to The Birth of a Nation, it is recognized for its production but critiqued for its racism. This is content written by Wikipedia editors that readers can access when they click on this film's title. There is commentary here that could be included in running prose. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, plus Rotten Tomatoes reviews include non-notable blogs. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question will there be a bot removing links to this if deleted? A few of my articles would link to it. Second point, nominator mentions List of films considered the best. Since the creation of the nominated list, I've always opposed it being merged with "List of films considered the best" since they're not the same thing- the fact that 20 out of 20 critics approve of a movie doesn't mean any of them think it's the best ever. Third point, for what it's worth, creator seems to have given up on wanting to keep it Ribbet32 (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because there is significant coverage in reliable sources about films getting 100% ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. The next question is, is a list justified? Per WP:NOTESAL, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources," and this has happened: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. Now, this does not necessarily mean that the list has to be comprehensive, as I do agree that the list is too long as it is. What about determining a cutoff by community consensus? Obviously that has to be done for box-office articles, and we can do that here. Top 10? 25? 50? To address the nominator's points:
    1. The fact that a similar list exists elsewhere is not a reason to have one here, especially considering the coverage about this particular recognition. This list can be of interest to readers and also be useful navigation in this regard. (EDIT: Reviewing this, it does not actually match this list at all. It is RT's curated list with adjusted scores and percentages less than 100%. So this is a false claim that these lists match.)
    2. "100% rating" is distinct from "considered the best". On Rotten Tomatoes, 100% simply means every review for a film was positive and not negative. (There is no middle ground.) Regardless, as seen in coverage, films with this score are well-discussed. Now that I think of it, maybe a prose-based article with an embedded list of "top" films? The point is that the coverage about this specific score is especially distinct and abundant as it relates to the website itself.
    3. As stated above, I agree that the list is too long and that a cutoff can be implemented.
    4. As stated above, the score has gotten significant coverage, so we can avoid puffery. If anything, we need to discuss in this article why 100% is arbitrary. I know there is commentary out there that just one negative review removes the score and that a 99% film with 250 reviews is still more recognition-worthy than a 100% film with 25 films. This is the place for us to summarize that coverage. Rotten Tomatoes isn't going to do that critical assessment of themselves.
Essentially, we need to have a distinct space about 100% ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. It's too much to be captured at the website's article, but we can certainly reel in the list and boost the prose further. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (updated from Comment) - I think that I mostly agree with Erik's comments above. Two options for cutting the list down: (a) only include movies which a secondary source has reported on being at 100% (rather than having Wikipedians scour the database); (b) a minimum number of reviews. "Movies which achieved a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on at least 50 reviews" for example. That way, once it's in, we don't need to reassess and the list isn't always changing. If it has 100% at 50, then our work is done. Ideally, we could find a couple sources to give us a number to use (this one, linked above, uses 100, but that would make for a very short list), but it wouldn't be the only list for which we had to use editorial judgment to select a threshold. Another option would just be to use "certified fresh" on top of 100%, which means at least 40 reviews for limited releases and 80 reviews for wide releases. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Hmm, both these suggestions sound good for making the list less arbitrary and static. Make sure a 2nd source reports it as 100%, have a minimum number of reviews, and have a minimum time it must stay at 100%. Would surely make it more wikilike. That's what I'd suggest if this is kept. However, I don't change my stance, I still advocate deletion. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (t,c,l) 22:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The only possible source for this is, well, Rotten Tomatoes, and given that it is an aggregation site, this is a dynamic list, albeit that it tends to change fairly slowly except for recently released films. Therefore even to the respect that much of the list is pretty stable, we're getting it from WP writers doing research in querying the site. Rhododendrites's suggestion is not completely off the wall, but (a) reports from secondary sources will tend to become dated; (b) it's not clear that there actually will be many such reports compared to the number of movies so ranked at any given time, and (c) setting a minimum number of reviews is arbitrary and still requires researching the site. This kind of list just isn't within our purview. Mangoe (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is false to claim that there is original research here. WP:NOTESAL says, "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." A film with a 100% rating is directly verifiable. There is nothing here that, per WP:NOR, "serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Since original research is not happening here, a cutoff is still appropriate to implement. Furthermore, being "a dynamic list" is not grounds for deletion. Would we delete a list of tallest buildings because we keep building taller ones? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What you cite does not bear on the matter of research, and what we say about researching includes the drawing of new conclusions; but that is not the end of what research is. This article is either (a) a copy of some list from RT (which I gather it is not, but for the sake of argument...), in which case it's a copyright violation, or (b) it is the amalgamation of primary source data from that site, which is a form of research. Mangoe (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Erik's argument and the cites he links are solid. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying this in multiple discussions, as though (a) it were even true, which doesn't appear to be the case, and (b) it addressed the objections being raised. Could you please familiarize yourself with policy on this? Mangoe (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is that substantial coverage in reliable independent sources establishes notability. See wp:gng. Erik has detailed some of the sources covering this subject and they clearly satisfy the criteria. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move While this page has issues, it could be put to better use if it was made to something along the lines of "List of movies with an RT score higher than 95%" rather than just 100%. There are films that were formerly on this list that had 100% with over 150 reviews (Get Out, Lady Bird) but are now down to 99% based off literally one or two negative reviews. Perhaps there should be some info on the story behind those film's RT score drop as well? All I'm saying is that this page could have some potential that isn't being fully used. ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 05:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously? The list is already massive, and lowering the bar won't help with those issues- it will exacerbate that. Not to mention "higher than 95%"- simply 96% or anything above, or 95% inclusive- would be a completely arbitrary number invented by Wikipedians. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This has always been WP:UNDUE, and ironically per above keep vote, unmaintainable- essentially WP:LISTCRUFT. "I don't like Birth of a Nation" isn't a valid delete argument by any stretch of the imagination, but points about WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the nominee's rationale are well-taken. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it undue weight? Films that have received 100% scores have been significantly covered in reliable sources, most recently Paddington 2. The list may be of indiscriminate length, but that does not mean deleting everything. Like we draw the line somewhere at listing the highest-grossing films, we would draw the line here somewhere. As it has been stated elsewhere, we could list just films whose perfect scores have been noted in secondary sources. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On the first AfD this seemed like a keep. In the past few years the number of "contributors" from blogs and/or other non-notable sources seems to have swelled the numbers. As Rim mentioned above, you can have hundreds of "fresh" votes and all it takes is one person to knock it out of 100%. Took a look at one of the reviewers who knocked out a 100% movie and noticed they marked many 95%+ movies as rotten and many sub-10% movies as fresh. While we all have differing opinions, the concept of 100% fresh is just at the whim and control of one person. On the other hand, this is a verifiable list, as aggregated on RT. Unless there is a question as to the validity or mechanics of the counting/formula, these are significant numbers and values. My honest first opinion was to suggest deletion followed by the idea of having a companion "List of formerly 100% films" to negate the naysayers or trolls of the reviewers. Unfortunately that would be a bit indiscriminate and involve a bit of OR to determine how many freshes were there before the rotten.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, we can have a paragraph about so-called "formerly 100%" films that are limited to those discussed in reliable sources. There shouldn't be more than a half dozen movies that qualify. The fact that there is significant coverage by reliable sources over people's anger about a 100% score being changed to 99% due to one negative review is worth covering on Wikipedia. Rotten Tomatoes is not going to get into that kind of commentary itself. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Erik's detailed and convincing analysis of the reasons for this list's continued existence, and per additional positive particulars submitted by Rhododendrites. This list deserves to survive on its own merits. It was created by Dr. Blofeld 4 years and 4 months ago [September 14, 2013] and has entailed a massive amount of time and effort (1,031 inline cites) in an extended endeavor to aid and expand film scholarship. It can be sorted alphabetically, chronologically and by number of reviews. Its loss would leave users of Wikipedia film resources bereft of the instantly available data that it provides, and of the ability to continue working for its improvement. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree with the general sentiment that the list is indiscriminate in length, with some films having 100% based on only five reviews. Are you opposed to implementing some kind of cutoff, if the list is kept? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't advocate the deletion of already existing titles, I would certainly not oppose this list's reduction if that is the general sentiment. Its survival is the primary objective. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is intended to be a continually growing list, one solution to the problem of excessive length may be a split into two lists, with 1999, 2000 or 2001 selected as the end-of-first-list, start-of-second-list years. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why not a cutoff by number of reviews or an arbitrary number that we can copy from elsewhere? For example, in statistical sampling, 32 is the minimum sample size. Alternately, List of highest-grossing films cuts off at 50 movies. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since Rotten Tomatoes was launched in August 1998 and, as has been already pointed out, the majority of the titles with heavy multiplicity of reviews were appended in the 2000s, it would seem that most of future additions will come from the future, rather than from the past. Thus 1999–2000–2001 may be considered appropriate points of division.
In proposing a list of pre-2000 and post-2000 films, I was primarily concerned with retaining a comparable chronological sorting capability between the two lists (each list would be forced into its own separate sorting by alphabet and by number of reviews). All such proposals are, of course, dependent on the survival of the list and consensus for division into separate lists. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but establish a review number criteria above 5, and sort the list starting with the 100% movies with the most reviews on top. Googinber1234 (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete anything with over 1000 references to a single primary source is likely to be an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. Simply because people have wasted their time creating this monstrosity is not a reason to keep it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take it you're not interested in the many ways that have been proposed which would cut the list down? What about the list, with those restrictions, would be indiscriminate? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How are the number of reviews other than an arbitray setting. At a minimum the article should be renamed to List of films with more than 5 reviews and a 100% rating on Rotton Tomatoes. However that is the very definition of indiscriminate. It is not based on a reliable source recognized body of work, but just a grab bag connection of work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Does not meet WP:LISTN and significant RS coverage not found. An indiscriminate collection of information and listcruft. The web site of Rotten Tomatoes is where this content belongs, where it would also be most up to date. Housing such content here is not useful or helpful to the readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful list for film buffs, and like Erik says it has the coverage, but the cut off point needs to be more like 15 or 20.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep passes WP:GNG and serves as a useful directory. Shouldn't really get rid of anything that has high accessibility. JAGUAR 12:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There seems to be some disagreement about whether or not a cutoff is appropriate. WP:CSC says, "...one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list." WP:COMMONSENSE itself says, "Our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers. Being able to articulate "common sense" reasons why a change helps the encyclopedia is good, and editors should not ignore those reasons because they don't include a bunch of policy shortcuts. The principle of the rules—to make Wikipedia and its sister projects thrive—is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment." The point is, obviously editors elsewhere on Wikipedia have to determine a cutoff when it comes to other kinds of lists, like list of tallest buildings. Reliable sources focus on what movies have the "most" complete set of positive reviews, the most recent being Paddington 2. That shows an interest in movies that have the score and the highest number of reviews. We can try to find a rule of thumb like what the biggest list of 100% movies on RT has been, or what 100%-rating movie with the least reviews has been mentioned in sources. If there's nothing solid, there's nothing wrong with an arbitrary cutoff. We editors decide by consensus a way to make a list more discriminate, per what I quoted above. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lady Bird is a perfect illustration of why this article is unsustainable. It actually won a Rotten Tomatoes award for having the best score ever (100% with 196 reviews)... and then the 197th review came in, and it was negative, so it fell to 99%. It's an entirely arbitrary achievement (since Rotten Tomatoes only contains a subset of movie reviews) and one that is subject to change at any time - who is going through this article making sure the scores are still 100%? It's just not well suited to the wiki format, and works better as a dynamic database hosted by Rotten Tomatoes. Smurrayinchester 15:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list is unmanageable and the fact that many of the films listed only have a few reviews makes it of very little if any encyclopedic value. Death Race 2050 is on there and thats clearly not one of the better films ever made. Since films can be added or subtracted daily based on the whims of whatever internet troll posts a review its kindof pointless to have an article here that updates it. Just link to the actual RT page at the Rotten Tomatoes article and be done with it. Creating some arbitrary cutoff point to decide on its inclusion smacks of original research so thats a non-starter. Spanneraol (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Keep, but MAYBE include some reliable third-party sources
Dpm12 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cull. This is an interesting list and useful for moviegoers. I have often wanted to see the all time list of movies that got 100% on Rotten Tomatoes - like me I'm sure most of you are active on Wikipedia because you're information junkies - and I wanted to make sure I've seen them all. This discussion motivated me to go to the Rotten Tomatoes site to see if the site allows me to do just that. After some hunting on the desktop site, I found this link for the best of Rotten Tomatoes: [[39]] The problem is, Rotten Tomatoes doesn't limit the list to movies that got 100% - you'll see that they include movies that go down into the 80%s. There's a background weighting algorithm to more fairly weight movies that get more reviews. That's why Wizard of Oz is first on the list with 99%. So, there's no easy way to use that site to see a list of movies at 100%. Also, the default is just the top 100 overall, and the filtering options only let you select by year or by genre - there's no way to replicate the list the way this Wikipedia list would do it - and the year sorting is a bonus. You can go back in time and view them all in reverse order. Also pertinent to our discussion - Rotten Tomatoes only lists movies that have at least 40 reviews. Going back to this list and the related AfD discussion, I agree that the list as is is unsupportable. Many new movies are front loaded with positive revues because the friendly critics attend private screenings, and the reviews drop once the movies get wider release. Their 40 cutoff number is most likely to address this. So maybe we should use the same cutoff of 40? I think that eventually Paddington 2 is going to lose its 100% score, due to an attention seeking critic who hosts a blog, but when that happens it will be news. Finally, the number of reviews is the hardest number to maintain, but once a movie hits 40 reviews and makes the cut, it can be added, but others will also be watching the almost inevitable fall from perfection, and off the list it goes. Movies older than a year are not likely to have their review totals change, so that part shouldn't be too hard to update. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenia Cooney

Eugenia Cooney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe we have a case of WP:BLP1E here. The subject is a YouTube presenter, and the majority of coverage available about this subject in mainstream reliable sources seems to focus on an October 2016 petition to ban her from YouTube due to her underweight appearance: see [40]. In fact, I couldn't find any reliable sources which discuss her outside of the context of this incident, and as a result, I think this is a fairly clear-cut BLP1E case. Beyond that, I would also not consider the available coverage as satisfying either WP:ENTERTAINER or the WP:GNG. Mz7 (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sharestates

Sharestates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private business. Significant RS coverage not found. Article is cited to passing mentions, routine news, WP:SPIP, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created by an account currently indef blocked for undisclosed paid editing; pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Draykyle. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the provided sources are nothing better than regurgitated press releases, what tips this over the edge is the UPE problems along with the fundamental lack of notability. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beemer69: Hi- UPE stands for undisclosed paid editing- sorry for the jargon. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcc: Not a problem. :) My brain kept reading it as "UPI." sixtynine • whaddya want? • 22:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mz7 (talk) 06:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The White Company (retailer)

The White Company (retailer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Potential sources that mention The White Company are limited to press releases about profitability or the opening of new locations. Much of the coverage of the company mentions Chrissie Rucker, but per WP:NOTINHERITED The White Company is not granted inherit notability by it's founder. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: But isn't the article on the notable founder make for a good redirect/merge target per WP:ATD? So why bring it here? Regards SoWhy 08:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's easy to find substantial coverage such as How The White Company broke America. Andrew D. (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep there is a ton of in-depth coverage in RS out there, a WP:BEFORE search would have turned them up very quickly. Here are just a few [41], [42] [43] [44] it's even used as a synonym for "pale and interesting" here. The founder became famous because of the company even if notability is not inherited it's difficult to say that she is notable and her company is not as all the sources that talk about her talk about her company. She was awarded an OBE a few weeks ago and the reason was Founder, The White Company. For services to Retail Domdeparis (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd possibly advise against using the Daily Mail as a source for article improvements though, see WP:DAILYMAIL --Topperfalkon (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on the above. Seems fairly trivial to find reliable sources, like this one. Article needs improvements and infoboxing, but shouldn't be deleted. --Topperfalkon (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the article has problems, but sufficient notability isn't one of them. Links provided above are sufficient to establish notability and can be used to improve the article. Slideshow Bob (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_January_16&oldid=1142616403"