Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 March	18 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Murtaza Malik

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. The Tamgha-i-Jurat is a fourth-level award. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree fails WP:SOLDIER Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes, fails WP:SOLDIER. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass on SOLDIER. In terms of GNG - I see two (fairly short) book hits describing the mission in which he went missing.Icewhiz (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junior officer with low-level decoration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SOLDIER. Junior officer with single award of fourth-level decoration. Does seem to have attracted some media attention in the non-English speaking world [1][2] His story apparently gets mentioned in a book, "Sentinels in the Sky" (2014) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:37, 21 March 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 Nazis in fiction. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Space Nazis

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

A giant wad of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. While it is clear that Space Nazis are a recurring trope, nothing proves said trope is notable, rather than just TVTropes fodder. There are plenty of tropes that aren't sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, and in some cases this is just confused for "authoritarian species in space" regardless of their ideology. The previous deletion discussion cited no sources as to the claim that it is notable. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously examples exist, but Delete per nom unless someone can link some decent literary study of the idea. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR.--Theredproject (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [3] seems like substantial coverage of the trope, and I'm sure there are other sources. The existing article is bad enough I wouldn't object to a TNT deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome to rewrite the article and prove notability (per WP:HEY), but just that journalistic fluff article certainly won't put it past the WP:GNG threshold. It will need a number of significant examinations of the trope._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Propose to merge Space Nazis into Nazis in fiction. Further propose to move content from Space Nazis merely describing science fiction with Nazi-like aesthetics but not specific mention of Nazis to Nazi chic and rename Nazi chic to "Nazi aesthetic in popular culture" with redirect from "Nazi chic." Link to merger discussion. Audiovideodiscoo (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with this proposal. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The problem I have with this proposal is acceptance of, for example, articles like Headcrab. Space Nazis is a far broader and more broadly relevant topic, with solid base in 20th century popular literature, plus the article is technically better, infoboxes, etc. Would it make it in a "real encyclopedia?" with an aim for conciseness? Maybe not at 4Gb of compressed text. But upwards of 12Gb..Corella (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I"m here, check out Vortigaunt for laughs. How deep does the rabbithole go?Corella (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You are free to nominate those other articles for deletion if you think they're equally non notable. It may very well work, as people are now coming out against articles with far more sourcing than those._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I think this is a relatively bad and unpolished article about a relatively important subject, certainly one that romps Wikipedia:PTEST for example. The general character infobox included has potential but could also be improved. Neglected article (as opposed to those other ones I quoted).Corella (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Space Nazis → Nazis in fiction, as per the proposal of Audiovideodiscoo. With that said, I believe that the "Nazis in space" trope can be important enough to stand on its own, but this article is poorly referenced and disorganized at this point, and does not do the topic justice. If several scholarly, published opinions can be introduced and cited regarding this fiction trope, I am willing to reconsider my present stance. But merging is, in my opinion, the best solution for the time being. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 05:46, 25 March 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) 00:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alberich Bormann

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

Redirect to 11-11: En mi cuadra nada cuadra or eliminate. The actor has only made himself stand out for his participation in 11-11: En mi cuadra nada cuadra, since then he has only had recurring roles and very few notables. Philip J Fry / talk 22:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not seem to have significant coverage to establish notability. The Spanish Wikipedia article for him does not seem to have any additional information or references that could help to substantiate a notability claim. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass the WP:NACTOR guideline which requires significant roles in multiple notable films. There are also little significant coverage. KingAndGod 16:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Evil Lord

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

A single review does not notability give. Doesn't pass WP:GNG due to lack of sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Ral Partha. BOZ (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: BOZ (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Delete per nom. Does not pass the general notability guideline. KingAndGod 16:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is quite stubby, and only has one source. Has no discernible evidence of notability, if article is to be taken at face value. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5 RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ercan Kara

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has never appeared in a fully professional league. JTtheOG (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Player fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Govvy (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G5. The author is a sockpuppet. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5 RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wassim Azaz

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has never appeared in a fully professional league. JTtheOG (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Player fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Govvy (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - according to the article the subject is semi-professional, and only professional footballers and/or national team players are eligible for articles. Clear failure of WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pile on, I agree with everyone else. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G5. The author is a sockpuppet. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5 RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emre Yilmaz

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has never appeared in a fully professional league. JTtheOG (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Player fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Govvy (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G5. The author is a sockpuppet. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5 RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oguzhan Önemli

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not appeared in a fully professional league. JTtheOG (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY, not playing for a professional team in a fully professional league. NZFC^(talk) 02:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, player fails NFooty and GNG. The club article which I looked at is terribly written and doesn't help! Govvy (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G5. The author is a sockpuppet. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:33, 19 March 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.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It is clear that this discussion has been advertised externally in an attempt to influence the outcome. In this case, the strength of the "Delete" arguments is superior to the "Keep" side, which are largely WP:PERX and vague assertions of notability without the high quality sources needed to back that up. No prejudice against the creation of an article on this topic in the future, provided it goes through WP:AFC or some other process so that the community regulars can carefully assess its notability before it hits mainspace. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burstcoin

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

This appears to be just another Bitcoin with very many references with not a single one adding to notability. Sure we can buy apps, see mentions and artilcles in very niche publications,read so very many press releases, get downloads from GitHub but where is notability supposed to be found ? Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been linked to on Reddit, see WTF is going on with Burst Wiki's at /r/burstcoin. Of the current keep/"Do not delete" votes, 4 out of 5 are likely the result of canvassing. 1) Jeranzarus: new account, no other edits; 2) MrPilotMan: inactive for 4 months; 3) CNaerys: new account, no other edits; 4) LinguistManiac: inactive for 5 months. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "LinguistManiac: inactive for 5 months." Hrodvarsson spreading a little fake news here aren't we? Not everyone is active just in the English Wikipedia. I find the amount and kind of superficial arguing here with "modern Wikipedians" highly disturbing. The "number of edits" and "last activity" are suddenly used as indicators for another editors credibility or competence. Hrodvarsson - You really want to go down that lane? How about we start looking at since when an editor is part of the Wikimedia family? Because if we do that, especially you - young one - look to me like a recently instantiated sockpuppet. 2017, "mostly edit biographies" ... yeah, sure. I see not a single crypto-related edit made by you, in short: not a single evidence you'd be able to participate in this discussion with anything of relevance. User:Hrodvarsson an absolute redundancy of chess players missing even the most basic WP:BIO requirements. IMHO sockpuppet trying to establish some "History" in Wikipedia. (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that editors can be active on other projects. Looking at your global contributions, you were active on the German Wikipedia recently (after over a year of inactivity) to participate in the deletion discussion of Burstcoin there too. Regarding your comments about non-editing of crypto-related articles, it is not a requirement for someone to have edited an article to participate in its AfD discussion. For example, you have not edited any chess-related articles but were capable of nominating a chess-related article for deletion. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They basically admit the lack of notability there. Some of them also show gross misunderstanding of Wikipedia rules and goals (conflict of interest editing, proposal to copy-paste later, conspiracy theory about bullying new editors etc). Retimuko (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"They"? Oh it is "us" against "them" then. How about you? Account created August, 1st 2017. Sock puppet aren't we? Show me where your self-confidence to even qualify for a discussion here comes from, because I am missing the WP:RS for it. LinguistManiac (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an absolute tour-de-force showing how to make something out of nothing, but when it comes down to it there are no independent sources, so no notability. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One more coin with no coverage in reliable media. Not notable. Retimuko (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know that there are plans in the Burstcoin community to improve the wikipedia page soon. I understand that this does not address 'notability' concerns, so I tried to find sources that might. (Apologies for the sloppy referencing, it will be fixed when we update the page.)

(recent) NEWS ARTICLES about Burst

––– Forbes article: <https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessedamiani/2017/12/23/crypto-watch-burstcoin-burst-price-goes-4x-in-29-hours-what-is-burst-and-why-is-it-surging/#3c35c0a04757>

––– Coincentral article <https://coincentral.com/what-is-burstcoin-beginners-guide/>

ACADEMIC WORKS mentioning Burst

––– Mattila, J, (10.5.2016). 'The Blockchain Phenomenon – The Disruptive Potential of Distributed Consensus Architectures.' ETLA Working Papers No 38. <http://pub.etla.fi/ETLA-Working-Papers-38.pdf> (Published simultaneously as a Berkeley Roundtable of the International Economy working paper).

––– Meessen, P.N. (manuscript). 'Long term data storage using peer-to-peer technology.' <https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5b0c/1e810c05fcbf05f3fa3c35046b0b5a3ebc32.pdf>.

––– Armknecht, F., Bohli, J.M., Karame, G.O. and Li, W. (2017). 'Sharding PoW-based Blockchains via Proofs of Knowledge'. IACRA eprint. <https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/1067.pdf>.

––– Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H.N. and Wang, H. (2016). 'Blockchain challenges and opportunities: A survey'. Work Pap.–2016. <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hong-Ning_Dai/publication/319058582_Blockchain_Challenges_and_Opportunities_A_Survey/links/59d86d50a6fdcc2aad0a2f2a/Blockchain-Challenges-and-Opportunities-A-Survey.pdf>. (Cited by 24 - see here: <https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cites=4656506343713928641&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en>)

––– Arredondo, A. (2018). 'Blockchain and certificate authority cryptography for an asynchronous on-line public notary system'. Doctoral dissertation – University of Texas at Austin. <https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/63754/ARREDONDO-MASTERSREPORT-2017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y))>.

––– Hønsi, T. (2017). 'SpaceMint-A Cryptocurrency Based on Proofs of Space'. Master's thesis, NTNU. <https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2461338/17937_FULLTEXT.pdf?sequence=1>. (Cited in Bano, S., Sonnino, A., Al-Bassam, M., Azouvi, S., McCorry, P., Meiklejohn, S. and Danezis, G. (2017). 'Consensus in the Age of Blockchains'. arXiv preprint. <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.03936.pdf>

Jeranzarus (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)— Jeranzarus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete can't see any/enough indi WP:RS for GNG. Providing lots of demonstrably non-RS e.g. a research thesis (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP) are primary don't count for N and indicates an absence of RS for N. Widefox; talk 02:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Burst is a notable coin due to the fact that it was the first cryptocurrency to implement the proof-of-capacity concensus method as well as smart contracts, a technology now used widely. It is not "just another Bitcoin" as stated, and such a statement displays a complete lack of understanding of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. Burstcoin is neither a fork, or relateable to Bitcoin other than its use of blockchain.MrPilotMan (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer That's an assertion of notability. Note that for WP:notability we require multiple WP:RS to pass WP:GNG etc. NB this is not a WP:VOTE and non-guideline based arguments should be weighted as such. Widefox; talk 11:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very good observation that this is not a WP:VOTE. In this context, all deletion-votes/utterances without further evidence - I'm referring especially to the above L3X1 and Retimuko must be seen as such. You at least wrote "can't see". LinguistManiac (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to prove a negative. If an attempt to find articles in reputable media turns up virtually nothing, then I just say that there is no in-depth coverage. I see a lot of links have been dumped here since my last edit, but most of that is from a "mentioning in passing" or "obscure and unreliable sources" category. I still don't see in-depth coverage in serious sources. Retimuko (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the reasons for presumption of innocence. You must excuse, that from the view of a linguist your statements look very informal. "Reputable media", "virtually nothing", "most of that", "serious sources". At least now you have there the "I still don't see" - I can live with that. I don't see how one can't see. How the 1st German state TV is either obscure or unreliable or not reputable or not serious evades me. Having a separate box in there about Burstcoin in contrast to Bitcoin (of all the 1500+ existing currencies) when it comes to energy consumption while being a mineable coin is not just "in passing". I have intentionally presented media coverage below from at least 3 different countries (please - pretty please: tell the Swiss Basler_Zeitung it is obscure/unreliable/not serious). WP:RS talks about how context matters. In the context of the Wikipedia in its present form the norm you try to apply here "in-depth coverage in serious sources" would mean to remove at least 40% of the articles currently present in the WP. If that is the goal, so be it. LinguistManiac (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per MrPilotMan's comments. This is a notable blockchain in its unique consensus mechanism, proof of capacity. Over time the article's subject should get some more coverage. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per MrPilotMan, it fails notability due to lack of RS, please see WP:GNG and WP:N. Widefox; talk 11:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with both comments above. I would also add that burst is interesting also from a historical perspective as it was created in 2014 and at the time was the first to offer solutions to solve the energy consumption problem of blockchain. As this technology becomes more and more mainstream I would argue that there will be more traffic coming to this page in the future. I also believe you can count on Burst community to maintain this page up to date. CNaerys (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)— CNaerys (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Additionally to the issues with those !votes, "interesting" is an argument to avoid at AfD per WP:INTERESTING. Widefox; talk 11:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, interesting is the wrong verb in this context. I meant "useful" from a historical point of view CNaerys (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that it's a shame that the INTERESTING technology is not covered yet in depth good enough for us to include, it's a case of WP:RECENTISM/WP:TOOSOON with a lack of quality WP:SECONDARY sources in a field that's exploding in different ways. We must be true to our standards as readers rely on us, but poor sourcing just doesn't pass GNG. We need quality sources with proven editorial standards (fact checking etc), and not PRIMARY close to the event. That rules out all these new techs apart from those with substantial coverage like bitcoin, Etherium etc. There is discussion about enforcing our standards as there's much enthusiasm for creating all these cryptocurrency articles that aren't backed by good enough sources. Widefox; talk 15:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable mentions in the press and TV:

––– ARD Börsenmagazin (the finance section of ARD – the first state television in Germany – mentioned Burst as an alternative to Bitcoin) <https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/bitcoin-stromverbrauch-101.html>

––– PC Magazin (German PC magazine) <http://www.pc-magazin.de/ratgeber/burst-kurs-kaufen-burstcoin-anleitung-mining-3198913.html>

––– Basler Zeitung (Swiss Newspaper) <https://bazonline.ch/wirtschaft/stromfresser-bitcoin/story/27178604>

––– HP De Tijd (Dutch magazine - “one of the four most influential Dutch opinion magazines” according to WP) <https://www.hpdetijd.nl/2017-10-22/bitcoins-verantwoorde-belegger/>

Wikipedia itself keeps Burstcoin as one of the coins in the cryptocurrencies category, the single existing cryptocurrency using Proof of Capacity / Proof of Space. This is not "Just another Bitcoin", this is a unique, old cryptocurrency. Deletion of this article means WP can carve out all material about Proof of Space, including the research papers that also happen to mention Burstcoin (see refs brought up by Jeranzarus)

Also please allow me a personal remark as someone who has been contributing to several Wikimedia projects since 2002. While I think that Special:WhatLinksHere/Burstcoin and the references section should be self-explanatory: If it is consensus in the "new Wikipedia", to remove information of notable interest, then so be it. However, you will not be able to undo the fact, that Burstcoin had the first smart contract system and the first inter-currency ACCT Smart_contract#Implementations. Even if Burstcoin ceased to exist, this information alone would justify presence of it in the WP. I can fully understand the need to keep WP free from cruft (Titcoin, Peercoin - which is not tagged for deletion consideration, NuBits - seriously), but this discussion is a premier example in autoimmune disease of the WP project. LinguistManiac (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

>"Wikipedia itself keeps Burstcoin as one of the coins in the cryptocurrencies category"

Who is "Wikipedia itself"? Editors (like you and me) just did not object to keeping it there since the article still exists. This is an "other stuff exists" type of argument. Retimuko (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes exactly. "Wikipedia itself" is Editors like you and me. And I intentionally presented the category box so "you can see" the unique position Burstcoin has. This category box was visible far beyond the scope of just the Burstcoin article for a very long time with no objections, no undo/edit war history. A given. And now you come along and say this is nothing. You must excuse if I consider the value system you use for your arguments to be very ... flexible. LinguistManiac (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Come on! You claim to have been around since 2002. You should know the rules better than this. The age of something is not an indication that it complies with the policy. This is an "other stuff exists" kind of argument. Let's consider the question at hand: is Burstcoin notable or not. So far I have seen very poor sources, and no in-depth coverage in mainstream media. If you can show otherwise, I will reconsider. Retimuko (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct: Come on! Suddenly the age is not an indication, because it suits you my fellow young Wikipedian. But - see above - the number of edits is? The time since last activity is? I suggest you young ones study Wikipedia:Notability again, and in depth. "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article" observe the words no and the words should. You do have a position in stark contrast to that. Because you - allegedly - misunderstood that sentence for "If very poor third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it must not have a separate article". At least this is how you behave in this discussion. Your qualification of the 3rd party sources is highly debatable. I consider the Forbes article quite in-depth and there are other articles, in other languages (not sure you were able to research them) I have presented that are all pretty in-depth, especially when it comes to energy requirements. I do know the rules better. WP:IS You build up the illusion "in-depth coverage in mainstream media" being required. Read the guidelines again. The problem is, that you just keep saying "I have seen very poor sources" no matter what. Then explain yourself (and this is not about proving a negative), or it is not worth the effort to point you - once again - to these sources. https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/528.pdf - third party, independent, reliable (peer reviewed). Burst complete appendix B, and comparison to SpaceMint, because the only existing Proof-of-Capacity coin. And SpaceMint does not even exist to present day. What is "very poor" about this source: https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/bitcoin-stromverbrauch-101.html ? Please explain rather than just making the claim. The way you - and Hrodvarsson put things, Wikipedia would be in the pervert situation to delete the Burstcoin article and add e.g. a Chia article instead, because the guy who does (rather: intends to do) Chia had some fame to start with and when he presented his intentions quite some media reported about this. So Wikipedia would have an article about something non-existing and instead kicked out something real-existing (and unique and significant), but you would be presumably satisfied, because there would be a lot of "independent 3rd-party sources". I am around since 2002 and I do have enough "Thank you" letters form the Wikimedia Foundation in my office. And yes, I do get slightly angry how "you youngsters" fuck Wikipedia up. With you having only best intentions of course. LinguistManiac (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not referring to Retimuko as a "monster" as you put it... I'm expecting that this discussion remains civil and free from personal attacks; please do not engage in making them (if this is what you were doing). Keep calm, keep cool, keep civil - and discuss things peacefully :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? "Monster"? I see no other mention of that term until you brought it up. Please do not make allegations of personal attacks. I do consider - after some research - users Retimuko and Hrodvarsson as sock puppets (no offense, just stating results of my research). But I might be wrong and them are just new Wikipedians trying to get some merits here. Nothing wrong with that. I certainly do not want to "Bite the Newbies", but I do feel the need to decidedly refute "ignorant biting" done by the newbies. Peace. {{{LinguistManiac}}} (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with proof-of-space — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.0.221 (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is unique in that it uses disk space as the mining resource, but it is does not meet the notability guidelines. It could be merged to proof-of-space but a merge vote would imply that the content currently on this article to a significant extent should be moved over, which should not happen as this article is a total mess. Deleting this article and adding a couple lines at proof-of-space is enough. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a revolutionary cryptocurrency with x500 Energy Efficient than Bitcoin, using free hard disk capacity. It's the future of Blockchain Technology. User:baybil —Preceding undated comment added 05:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC) — baybil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note:

––– "[...] Of the current keep/"Do not delete" votes, 4 out of 5 are likely the result of canvassing.", Hrodvarsson. You fails at WP:AGF and at WP:NPA.

––– "[...] an absolute tour-de-force", Smallbones. You fails at WP:NPOV.

––– "One more coin [...]", Retimuko. You fails at WP:NPOV.

––– "[...] as this article is a total mess.", Hrodvarsson. You fails at WP:NPOV.

––– "I do consider - after some research - users Retimuko and Hrodvarsson as sock puppets", LinguistManiac, You fails at WP:AGF and at WP:NPA.

I know that it is important to some people to delete or to keep this article, but everyone must respect the following policies (even if the policies were "designed" for articles) while writing comments/informations : WP:NPOV, WP:BITE, WP:AGF, WP:CIV. Also always remember : "facts before opinions". Umbrellacorp03 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another bitcoin clone with no decent available sources (the best I found was this one), accompanied by an army of socks desperate to save it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of hype and references to promotional sources, basically no sourcing in reliable secondary sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:51, 25 March 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 11:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rulers.org

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

Does not satisfy software notability or general notability. Purely a description of the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable website. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems somewhat WP:N. Should be given a chance. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not reliably sourced as notable — one of the two "references" is to itself, but you don't make a thing notable by metasourcing it to its own existence, and the other reference is to the Google Books profile of a book about the general phenomenon of name-matching databases, offering no way to verify whether this particular database is the subject of enough content in that book to count for anything toward meeting WP:GNG — and even if it is, it still takes more than just one GNG-worthy source to pass GNG. So no, this sourcing simply isn't good enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
about 69 articles in wikipedia.en refer to this database mostly as a source Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles. --Grad wits (talk) 13:45, 24 March 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 on availability of new sources. (non-admin closure) MT Train^Talk 04:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Central Coast Ferries

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

Issues with notability. MT Train^Talk 12:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company providing regular commuter service with plenty of reliable sources to establish notability. [4] [5] [6]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whats new? (talk • contribs)

Whats new?: See WP:NOTINHERITED. Those sources you provided, No. 1 sounds like a travel guide, 2 and 3 sound like standard run of the mill news to me Nightfury 08:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first article is nothing like a travel guide, and the other two are examples I found through a simple gnews search to establish notability. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nightfury 08:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability and primary sources issues has been addressed with addition of secondary cites. Ponyo98 (talk) 04:07, 22 March 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, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Car Charging Group

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

Non-notable company. Most of the references in the article are to the company's own website. The Orlando Sentinel is a passing mention. GreenAutoMarket is a blog. The NYTimes article is a solid source, but by itself, not enough. My own searching only found routine press releases, and other non WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As per nom, doesn't meet WP:CORP--Rusf10 (talk) 18:38, 24 March 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) 00:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raakshas: India's No 1 Serial Killer

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

No references. No indication of satisfying book notability with independent coverage. Contains too much promotional language. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding additional unsourced book articles by same author:

Compass Box Killer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Anti-Social Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mumbaistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Comment - Portions of some of the articles have been redacted due to copyvio. Of course, this means that there is less worth keeping and less to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Appears to have been created by the author or someone known to them to promote the books. MT Train^Talk 07:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, possibly creating redirects to the article about the author. No independent notability for the books and obvious promotional effort. --bonadea contributions talk 09:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom — F R ⁺ 11:45, 20 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Championship Rally (Atari Lynx)

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

Article was previously deleted by expired WP:PROD, then restored at the request of the article's creator. Took it to AfD, where only one editor responded, so it was closed as WP:SOFTDELETE. Thus the article was deleted and restored at the request of the article creator a second time. There have been virtually no edits to the article in the year since, so the same reasons for deletion from the first AfD still apply: homebrew video game with insufficient sources to indicate notability. Martin IIIa (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. -- ferret (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at work so I can't review to ensure these are topical given the existence of the other version of the game (on a Saturday D:). Here are some VG/RS: Atari HQ, IGN1 IGN2. --Izno (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The first IGN link is just a passing mention, though the second one is a short dedicated review. Atari HQ is a dedicated preview too, though I'm surprised it'd be considered reliable - the layout screams old fansite/blog. Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The last discussion on the point was in 2011. --Izno (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm inclined to think Atari HQ is reliable. I question whether coverage of a Lynx game on Atari HQ is notable, though, since it's an Atari-specific fan site.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My rationale from the last discussion still holds. czar 03:38, 18 March 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) 00:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boholqoriley

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

Picking up where I left off, another "locality" which is a blank spot with a dirt road running through it, no references other than geographic clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no sources other than one unreliable database (which doesn't even claim this is a populated place) and satellite imagery just shows a patch of desert with nothing. Hut 8.5 20:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a place L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:45, 22 March 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! 06:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Tech Challenge

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

I am a bit on a fence for this, but it looks not notable organisation. I couldn't find comprehensives references for this Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An ever-increasing number of important organizations seem to be involved in this program ^[1]; it is sponsored by the National Cyber Agency of Israel, BillGuard, and others. It seems to be an important program on the radar of the Israeli government.^[2] They also just announced a partnership with Mobileye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microslayer (talk • contribs) 22:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources already on the page, the two sources brought by User:Microslayer above, and the sources that come up in a News searches. When a new article looks this plausible, it can be a better contribution to the project to tag it for improvement, and wait six months or a year before taking it to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It isn't a college or educational facility, it is just a 'training program' - the type anyone can start. Let me guess how many of these there are in the UK.... 10,000. You pay someone, they train you. There are refs but nothing substantial. Szzuk (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- New sources added. Szzuk (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As opposed to E.M.Gregory's !vote, Szzuk's assertion that the references are there but are not substantial, encourages me to relist this AfD one last time to allow editors to decide what they'd like to do with this article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 19:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, WP:HEY, I did a little source, expand, drawing on the kind of "substantial" sources demanded by editor above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per E.M. Gregorys improvements of the article. Clearly notable per Third party sources. These kind of articles doesn't have to include some major person or major event.BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Eyerman

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

fails WP:GNG. A before search only threw up a couple of local news stories and affiliated sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are sufficient. Subject was director and CEO of a notable museum. -- econterms (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Econterms: Unless I'm very much mistaken notability is not inherited. I looked over the new sources do you mind pointing out which ones are in depth independent coverage as I can only see passing mentions in RS. The rest are associated sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making a legal or administrative claim, just stating my view. The subject also received an award whose recipients are treated as notable on this list: List of members of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres -- econterms (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting concept that WP:INHERITED means we should not argue that people are notable on account of the jobs they do. That's not my reading. My take is that, even if a job is notable, a person doing it is not notable unless they are personally covered in independent, reliable sources. For example.[7][8][9] WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO do not discount local sources. Thincat (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it says "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects. This is usually phrased as "____ is notable, because it is associated with Important" there are a lot of very notable organisations for which the CEO is not considered as notable over and above his relation with that organisation. I would also say that readership does matter. The Californian has a distribution of something between 7and 10k. There is an essay that I can't pay my hands on that explains that distribution matters. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Domdeparis no there isn't any policy regarding how large the circulation of a source is. All that matters is that it's a reliable source. Essays aren't policy. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree essays are not.policy but would a piece in a local paper with a circulation of 10k be sufficient to show notability for all biographies? If it is then we are going to have a hard time in AfD debates because most local businessmen will pass that one. Authors require much stricter levels of notability as do actors. If you are saying that this article is good enough for GNG we might as well forget the topic specific guidelines because everyone will be able to pull up local news coverage for almost any subject. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found the piece I was looking.for and it is actually policy but it refers to organisations WP:AUD. I am curious to know what you think..Dom from Paris (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes GNG at least with profiles of her in several sources, however, she also passes CREATIVE with reviews of her work and her high-level jobs in the Museum world. Added sources to the article, including the reviews of the books.
Keep As above. I have fixed some sources and strengthened the lead. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Hello. Many thanks to all for your comments. This Eyerman submission is my first article for Wikipedia. As a participant at the Edit-a-Thon on March 17 at National Museum of Women in the Arts, I followed the assigned focus: women museum directors or gallerists. I had seen the exhibition Eyerman curated in Rome, Italy, was impressed on that one occasion I met her, and from afar have followed her trajectory. Wikipedia experts present at the Edit-a-Thon said that Eyerman would be a good candidate, but to build a case and find citations. The time constraints at the museum did not allow for all guidelines to be explained. All of your comments have helped to clarify. I may not be able to get back on Wikipedia again this week, but will add better citations and fill in as much as possible. Many thanks to those who have made additions; they are much appreciated. Agree that don't want to add any Tizio, Caio, or Sempronio to Wikipedia. I carefully considered this candidate before selecting and will gladly ferret out other material, but defer to your judgements as to whether I am on track with this. If this is in limbo, I'm glad to give it some boosts upward. Thank you! - these words added by article creator, OnTheRoad21C, to the top of this afd, i have moved them here as a "comment". Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE, article reflects this with sources included, here are some notes ive made (some may be seen as snips) that also contribute to notability ie. "well known" and "number of reviews" - Charlotte Eyerman: Music and Modern Art (pp. 38-60) - Playing the Market: Renoir's Young Girls at the Piano Series of 1892 by Charlotte N. Eyerman - 400 libraries, Courbet and the Modern Landscape: New York Times review - - "whose landscapes are the subject of a bracing exhibition at the Walters Art Museum. “Courbet and the Modern Landscape” was organized at the J. Paul Getty Museum by Mary Morton and Charlotte Eyerman, its associate and assistant curators of paintings, ... As Ms. Eyerman details in her catalog essay ..." - 500 libraries, Birthing the Nation: Sex, Science, and the Conception of Eighteenth-Century Britons - "Acknowledgements: and to Charlotte Eyerman for her boundless enthusiasm and support." - 1150 libraries, Modern Antiquity: Picasso, De Chirico, Leger, Picabia - "For their help during the planning and organizing stage we would also like to acknowledge ... Charlotte Eyerman, ..." - 340 libraries, book reviews: of Old Masters, Impressionists, and Moderns: French Masterworks from the State Pushkin Museum, Moscow in Nineteenth-Century French Studies - "This weighty tome on classic French painting from the seventeenth to the twentieth centuries, which includes examples from Impressionism and Cubism, gathers a large number of rare paintings and masterpieces from the greatest French painters.", and in The Burlington Magazine: looks like a short review from the thumb view - 380 libraries, exhibition reviews: LA Times Blog review of Artistic Evolution - "On the mezzanine of the rotunda between the museum's Hall of Dinosaurs and its Hall of Mammals, "Artistic Evolution" looks sideways at creationism -- not the kind undertaken by science-deniers armed with sacred texts but by artists equipped with paintbrushes and curiosity.", Courbet and the Modern Landscape - reviews by Newington-Cropsey Cultural Studies Center - ""Courbet and the Modern Landscape" which ended recently a year-long tour at the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore, is a tight show with a solid thesis.", Institute of Art History Czech Academy of Sciences review of Cubisti Cubismo - "The curator, Charlotte N. Eyerman, an art historian from Los Angeles, planned it as a wide-ranging survey of Cubists and Cubism, from Picasso, through Russian artists, to figures from the USA (Max Weber) and Great Britain (Wyndham Lewis).", received Chevalier Ordre des Arts et des Lettres (up to 200 per year) - "for her promotion of French culture and heritage as a scholar, curator, and museum professional over the past 20 years.", Monterey County Weekly - Monterey County Now "Charlotte Eyerman ushers in a new era at the Monterey Museum of Art." - background piece. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:47, 23 March 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. There is no need to denigrate contributors or subcontinents at AfD. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smart government

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

Wikipedia is not a repository for essays. Believe it or not, not a copyright violation. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 19:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 19:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 19:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: These kind of articles created by Indian editors seem to pop up once or twice a day. This one is unique in that it sounds like a essay, rather than a advert. --★Gooseflesh12★ (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete this WP:ESSAY. Mangoe (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nomination and contributions so far seem to be relying rather too much on a view that essays of any type have no place in Wikipedia mainspace. But WP:NOTESSAY does not talk about essays in general - it talks about personal essays, essays in which an editor puts forward their own unbacked personal opinion. In this case, when I do a GBooks search, I find quite a few sources (particularly ones over about four years old) which show only a verbal connection with the article subject - but I also find a number of recent sources that, at least at first sight, not only appear to be about this subject but to be usable sources for undercited parts of the article almost as they stand. On the whole, the article could do with a rewrite to make it more encyclopedic in style but does mostly seem to be presenting consensus (or at least common) positions on the subject. Having said that, I am not entirely convinced of the notability of the subject - it exists, seems to be getting written about to some extent, but also looks like something so totally of the moment that it could be completely forgotten in ten years. But we should be looking at that rather than the style in which the article is written. PWilkinson (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delet Delet it, per above rational. 💵Money emoji💵^Talk 15:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Waddie96 (talk) 14:16, 24 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Start Desenhos Animados

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

Written by a COI/SPA, there are no sources to support notability and corpdepth. MT Train^Talk 12:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, the current name for this company is Start Anima or "StartAnima" according to its own website so searches for sources are likely to be more productive under that name. Accoding to the company website they have been winning national and international awards since 1972. That's a long time to have been around. At least two of their films have Wikipedia articles. Their latest feature film (Lino, the Film or Lino 3D) is getting a lot of attention both in Portuguese (Revide, Estadão) and English (Variety[Screen Daily). The translation of the Estadão article says "by raising more than $4 million in box office, Lino is the biggest animation in the history of Brazilian cinema". I think that must count as notable. SpinningSpark 01:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 19:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. In addition, this is a highly promotional article for which no effort has been taken to add any sources at all. We should expect better from our articles espcecially in areas prone to COI and promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants the article userfied, let me now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wunder Audio

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

Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The links in the "External Links" section of the article alone are enough for it to pass WP:GNG. Especially given that there are two from the renowned Tape Op magazine. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP:CORPDEPTH is much stricter than WP:GNG. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that, but even if so it doesn't matter. Passing the GNG is presumptively sufficient for an article to be kept. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~It has an extra section for making sure the coverage is substantial, and that's even before the new guidelines become the rule. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. This isn't true. In any case, no matter how many sections it has, meeting GNG is sufficient for an article to be kept unless there's some extraordinary consensus not to keep it. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~I disagree. The additional guidelines for companies are there for a reason. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're there for the same reason all those specific notability guidelines are there. To allow articles to be kept which don't meet the GNG. It says quite explicitly that 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 or list. It doesn't say anything about if there's a single-subject notability guideline then meeting the GNG isn't sufficient for it to be kept. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~So why then, is CORPDEPTH harder to pass than GNG ? Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. You're just imagining that part. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Look, going back and forth isn't going to help, I am going to get clarification from someone more experienced. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~I contacted Renata3 to get clarification. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I understand it CORPDEPTH is now the accepted interpretation of the GNG guideline for this sort of article. The provisions of GNG for "reliable" , "substantial", and "independent" are very general statements, and need interpretation. In practice, the effective guideline is what we actually do here. This evolves--When I joined 11 years ago we much more erratic but generally less demanding. One of the responses to promotional articles in this area has been, very reasonably, to insist on high standards. (the interpretation of the relationship between the general and special notability standards differs for each standard, and the general relationship remains disputed.) DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 19:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly promotional, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 25 March 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, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laantamaxanka

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

Another nonexistent Somali "town". The source lists it as a "locality", which means people don't necessarily live there. The given coordinates are a featureless patch of desert in satellite imagery. No sources to satisfy WP:V. Hut 8.5 19:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Unverifiable blank spot. Mangoe (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not quite featureless - zoom in far enough in satellite imagery, and there seems to be some kind of irregular patterning which I can't identify but which only seems to exist in a few square kilometres roughly centred on this position. That suggests to me that GeoNames may not be being entirely random in attaching this name (as two words rather than one) to this locality - but if we can't find anything that tells us why, that doesn't give the basis for an article

- Not sure I see which feature you're pointing to but it is entirely possible that "Laantamaxanka" is the name given to something in this area. There is some sort of track nearby and what looks like a river bed. However it obviously isn't a town and as you say we can't have an article about it without better sourcing. Hut 8.5 07:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a legit town or place. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:34, 20 March 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) 01:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Galdhurbale

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

Another nonexistent Somali "town". The source lists it as a "locality", which means people don't necessarily live there. The given coordinates are a featureless patch of desert next to a road in satellite imagery. No sources to satisfy WP:V. Hut 8.5 19:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V. PhilKnight (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails V and eveyrthing else, Not There. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E. David Ellington

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

Claims to notability rest on appearing in an advert, founding a non-notable group, the Silicon Valley Blockchain Society, and a non-notable company GridSpeak Corporation. Ellington doesn't meet any of the notability thresholds. Cabayi (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E. David Ellington is a notable entrepreneur in the SF Bay Area, and well known in the technology community.

Notability is not claimed based on SVBS or GridSpeak, but rather, the creation of one of the precursors to social networks and first African-American centered social network, NetNoir. A simple search for NetNoir on Google affirms that the entrepreneur meets the notability threshold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipagecreator1 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipagecreator1, NetNoir may be notable and worthy of an article, but Ellington doesn't WP:INHERIT notability from the website. Cabayi (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, Ellington inherits notability from all of his other accomplishments, including NetNoir, Serving on the San Fransisco Employees Retirement System (Pension Fund) Board, and other awards and recognition and well-read publications such as Forbes and Black Enterprise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipagecreator1 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Ellington is notable because of his status as one of the first African-American internet entrepreneurs, confirmed by various independent, notable sources such as:

https://techcrunch.com/2014/10/20/credit-suisse-launches-entrepreneurs-circle-to-support-african-american-entrepreneurs/ https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/casselle-malcolm-and-ellington-e-david http://ew.com/article/1995/06/16/aol-launches-netnoir/ https://books.google.com/books?id=d1wEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=E+david+ellington&source=bl&ots=pSVCzVrg8b&sig=FTryr92tI8LOpqyeX_rS9liRj1U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSxvH5n_TZAhWFfrwKHSmgBig4FBDoAQhBMAU#v=onepage&q=E%20david%20ellington&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=kcCmwSxBHhoC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=E+david+ellington&source=bl&ots=6NJiohlvJ7&sig=C3fQH4M5bVLjX1xg1JYTMC8Kds4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSxvH5n_TZAhWFfrwKHSmgBig4FBDoAQhDMAY#v=onepage&q=E%20david%20ellington&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipagecreator1 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi –– thank you for the clarification. Argument on notability rests on the fact that Ellington is one of the first successful African-American entrepreneurs in the internet 1.0 era. Wikipagecreator1 (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi–– any update on your end? Wikipagecreator1 (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is the closest thing I can find to a source that is not a passing mention, and does not seem to satisfy the notability requirements. Just being an African American involved with some early internet businesses does not automatically convey notability. Page also seems self promotional. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - plenty of passing mentions, but little in the way of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:50, 25 March 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) 00:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sentience quotient

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

Article is substantially based on a single primary source - labeled as problematic for such for ten years with no improvement. Two sections are original research. The neologism appears almost unused. There's a list of passing mentions at the end, but it's entirely unclear these are even about Freitas' notion. News search shows no hits, general Google search shows Freitas' usage. I PRODed this previously, but it was objected to; however, nothing more in the way of sourcing has come up since. David Gerard (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete feels like WP:FRINGE and/or WP:OR. Insufficient referencing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in Google Scholar that I would consider WP:RS. The closest is "Stellivore Extraterrestrials? Binary Stars as Living Systems" (2016) (4 cites), which speculates that binary stars may be alive and weirdly takes the time to explain the concept of the sentience quotient on page 5, but then forgets to ever mention it or use the concept in any way in the rest of the paper. Not all peer-reviewed journals are created equal. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:07, 19 March 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 Predictive analytics. Sandstein 18:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Predictive Intelligence

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

An essay Legacypac (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Quite literally! The topic is notable, valid and currently covered on wikipedia under the title Predictive analytics, this could be a redirect. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to predictive analytics (which needs cleanup). XOR'easter (talk) 01:29, 20 March 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 18:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrashekhar (TV series)

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

Based on only one references, that is also not reliable source .Not notable for Television article. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 18:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw. Before deleting this page, note that it was originally hijacked from Talk:Chandrashekhar (TV series) and thus contains that talk page's edit history. Crow^Caw 20:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G5, confirmed by CU. ADMIN don't delete the article but move it back to its original location at Talk:Chandra (disambiguation) without leaving a redirect. Or just HistMerge this back into the Talk page. Crow^Caw 21:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

restore the talk page history by all means but the article text should not be returned to the talk page.PRehse (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern was preserving the pre-hijack history, such as it is, but there's actually only a single bot edit from 2008, the rest are sock edits. So deleting the whole thing may be fine as well. The sock copied the contents back to the talk page anyway... Crow^Caw 13:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. per G5 by Bbb23 (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 16:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chakradhari Ajay Krishna (TV series)

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

Based on only one references, that is also not reliable source .Not notable for Television article. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 18:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hello, sir I can added More source in the article you can removed your RDF Tag in the article thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.29.109.51 (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"If you want any information about the article please quickly search on Google, please see the before delegation who can request me to the create is added more source in the article

Also I tell you that iam going to added more source in the article thank you. Area 1108 (talk)

Done I am added more source in the article so iam requesting you can please removed Rdf notice. Than you.Area 1108 (talk)

Just noting that the article creator is currently named in an SPI investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw so the outcome of that case may affect the outcome here. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt in my mind that this is a sockpuppet creation so it will be eligible for speedy deletion once the SPI is done. But even if that were not the case, there's no sign of notability. The sources are press releases (two of them were copies of the same PR so I deleted one of them), and a local-interest article (the Hindi source, which incidentally freezes my browser) about the casting of a local kid for the series. Not even close to meeting notability criteria - delete. --bonadea contributions talk 12:19, 18 March 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 18:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tober Brandt

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable performer. Significant RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. Award category is not significant; "GayVN award for Best Fetish Performer" does not qualify. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, hasnt won any significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Acnetj (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a far too long list of non-notable pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 21 March 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 18:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of archives in Canada

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

List pages are supposed to show the same notability requirements as an article. This page has a mere 60 good links in a sea of red links (625 lines in total) Ronhjones ^(Talk) 17:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer If the consensus is to delete, please could it moved to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada to be an editor resource rather than an article. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. If the consensus for that page is not to include archives that do not merit articles, then remove those nonnotable entries. Problem solved. 60 articles is more than enough to justify a standalone list, as an index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and as a complement to Category:Archives in Canada per WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not only is 60 articles enough to merit a list, just because there is no article does not mean the archives are not notable. I cannot ascertain to the notability of the archives, but many lists have large amounts of redlinks. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But the entire article needs to be cleaned up, the whole Website column needs to be removed WP:NOTLINKFARM and removal of all the red-linked entries. Ajf773 (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing in NOTLINKFARM that prohibits the website column. We'd have a problem if the list was nothing but those websites, or if the general article on archive had an external inks section with 60 entries... Here it's up to editor consensus on that list as to whether it's appropriate. Same thing with the redlinks, there is no prohibition against having them in lists. postdlf (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. The list contains valid, notable blue-links, and has a clear inclusion criteria. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per those above. What the list needs is a clear inclusion criteria to allow for cleanup. At a glance, it doesn't seem correct to say that 60 links=60 relevant articles. Some link to related articles that aren't about archives. Regardless, there are certainly enough for a list and the criteria can be developed outside of AfD. I also tend to agree it should not have an external links column, but again, don't think that's something that needs to be argued in AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. This was created in 2014 as a valid split out from world-wide List of archives. Archives are things which sometimes have wikipedia articles, and list-articles can cover black-link (no article intended) and red-link items in addition to blue-link items. Please see wp:CLT about the complementarity of having list-articles, categories, and navigation templates covering sets like here, in different ways. --Doncram (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note I got here via an unrelated OTRS ticket, but just as a note I've removed the elinks from the article. Primefac (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the on the equivalent page Archiverdict wiki (sign in and change to Monobook view if a WP like layout is preferred). I am correcting the websites as I go along.

This list needs to be put into alphabetical order, and possibly some entries on the list amalgamated - the various 'Anglican Church Diocese archives' being a particular example (with the actual page having the various dioceses as subheadings etc).

Some of the entries could probably be deleted for a variety of reasons. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But remove all red links. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 60 blue links is more than enough to justify a list. Certainly some of the redlinks can and should be pruned, and list policy does allow us to impose a restriction that the article must already exist before a new entry can be added if a list is too prone to collecting "directory" entries for non-notables (see e.g. List of bands from Canada, where such a restriction has been applied so that the list doesn't collect every high school band in North Battleford SK that have never played a single show outside the guitarist's dad's garage) — but some of them may indeed also be notable enough for articles that just don't actually exist yet, so pruning would have to be done with some caution. But if there are enough bluelinks to justify a list, which there are, then any discussion about whether we should strip the redlinks or not is a content matter which should be addressed through discussion on the talk page, not an AFD issue. `Bearcat (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sharka Blue

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable performer. Significant RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. Award category is not significant; "FICEB Ninfa Award winner - Best Supporting Actress" does not qualify. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, hasnt won any significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a long line of non-notable pornographic film actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- fails WP:PORNBIO--Rusf10 (talk) 18:19, 24 March 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 18:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of animals by common name

AfDs for this article:

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

Re-creation of article deleted as a result of AfD MensanDeltiologist (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as explained in the last AfD, hundreds upon thousands of entries could be put into this list, this is a prime example of a good idea that is not practical. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Lists of animals; ridiculously indiscriminate and duplicates shorter, more manageable lists. As this has existed since 2015 and changed significantly since then, not a CSD G4 candidate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the perfect example of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate, and potentially unmanageably vast. Kill it before it kills us :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect I think the article should be deleted. but I think it would be useful for searches to redirect the article to the Lists of animals article that is a similar topic 72.73.117.105 (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~That would be Lists of animals. -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:15, 23 March 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 18:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Oxby

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

Subject does not clear the notability guidelines for actors. Orphan article created 14 years ago without ever getting a single reliable source. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. No refs. Very few non bot edits since 2004 and those that aren't bot edits revolve around humour. Szzuk (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that this article has existed since 2004 is a blot on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 21 March 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 18:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ubiq

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

~~Promotional article created by SPA, sourced mainly to primary unreliable sources, with no indication of notability. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, none of the refs are independent. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the page. As mentioned on Talk:Ubiq, I am working on sourcing reliable third-party sources to add to this page and to conform to WP:NPOV, to address possible issues with the sources. I would appreciate direct responses as to which refs are most problematic, as opposed to blanket statements about which sources are most problematic with WP:IS. In addition, as cryptocurrency is an emerging field, WP:GNG criteria may not be completely in concordance with degree of mainstream coverage - and would appreciate further guidance on which specific cryptocurrencies you have in mind that satify or fail WP:GNG criteria. Thanks, awaiting further response. Jimhsu774792 (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimhsu774792:, this is not a review, this is a debate to delete the article, if you feel this article could be improved at a later date, take a copy of the source code now for your future reference. All the sources are a problem. As to the matter of which cryptocurrencies are notable, please note my list, all the articles marked with crosses will be nominated in due course, the ones with ticks may well be nominated by other people with higher standards than me. I will examine the sources in detail below. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sources examined

(pasted from article reflist, my comments in green, with the reason the source does not count towards notability.).

Fusion Wallet". Ubiqsmart.com. Retrieved 17 June 2017. Primary source.

^ Stökkva upp til: a b "Releases · ubiq/go-ubiq · GitHub". GitHub. Retrieved 17 June 2017. user-generated therefore unreliable.

^ Stökkva upp til: a b c "Ubiq in one page - The Ubiq Report". Medium. Retrieved 17 June 2017. blog therefore unreliable.

Stökkva upp ^ "Ubiq Quarterly Report May 10th, 2017 - The Ubiq Report". Medium. Retrieved 17 June 2017. blog.

Stökkva upp ^ "jyap808 (Julian Y)". Github. Retrieved 17 June 2017. user-generated therefore unreliable.

Stökkva upp ^ "KryptoTech Blockchain Technologies". kryptotech.io. Retrieved 20 June 2017. closely related unreliable source.

Stökkva upp ^ "Luke Williams - Fintech & AI Nigeria". Fintech Nigeria. Retrieved 17 June 2017. unreliable

Stökkva upp ^ "iquidus/explorer - An open source block explorer maintained by Krypto Tech". Github. Retrieved 17 June 2017. unreliable.

Stökkva upp ^ "kris-hansen (Kris Hansen)". Github. Retrieved 17 June 2017. user-generated therefore unreliable.

Stökkva upp ^ "Portag3 Ventures". Retrieved 17 June 2017. closely related unreliable source.

Stökkva upp ^ "#Blocktalk - Youtube". Youtube. Retrieved 17 June 2017. Youtube not reliable in this instance.

Stökkva upp ^ "ALEX STERK - Co-founder of Ubiq". Fintech 2017. Retrieved 17 June 2017. unrelaible.

Stökkva upp ^ "Ubiq - AI Toronto Presentation". Youtube. Retrieved 20 June 2017. Primary source.

Stökkva upp ^ "ALDO BORRERO - Ubiq Developer". Medium. Retrieved 5 December 2017. blog.

Stökkva upp ^ "Introducing Pyrus - Open-Source & Client-Side Ubiq Wallet". Medium. Retrieved 17 June 2017. blog.

Stökkva upp ^ "Ledger Hardware Wallet". Retrieved 5 December 2017. closely related unreliable source.

^ Stökkva upp til: a b "FinTech Awards - 3rd Annual Canadian FinTech & AI Awards". Canadian Fintech Awards. Retrieved 28 January 2018. not mentioned in source

Stökkva upp ^ "Einstein Exchange". Retrieved 28 January 2018. Primary source.

Stökkva upp ^ "Einstein Capital Partners Ltd. announces strategic Blockchain partnership with Ubiq Technologies Inc". Cision. Retrieved 28 January 2018. Primary source.

Stökkva upp ^ "Cryptopia Tokens". Ubiqsmart.com. Retrieved 10 Dec 2017. Primary source.

Stökkva upp ^ "DOT Swap Instructions". Cryptopia. Retrieved 28 January 2018. closely related unreliable source.

Stökkva upp ^ "Supported coins". CoinPayments Inc. Retrieved 28 January 2018. closely related unreliable source.

^ Stökkva upp til: a b "Introducing expanded cryptocurrency support in TREZOR firmware 1.6.0". Trezor Blog (Medium). Retrieved 23 December 2017. blog.

^ Stökkva upp til: a b "How to install and use Ubiq (UBQ) ?". Ledger Wallet. Retrieved 23 December 2017. primary source.

Stökkva upp ^ "Crypto010.nl". Crypto010 - Beer and Talk Crypto. Retrieved 28 January 2018. closely related unreliable source.

Stökkva upp ^ "Crypto010 - February 2018 Edition". Crypto010 Meetup. Retrieved 28 January 2018. closely related unreliable source.

^ Stökkva upp til: a b "Bittrex.com - Bittrex, The Next Generation Digital Currency Exchange". Bittrex.com. Retrieved 17 June 2017. closely related unreliable source.

^ Stökkva upp til: a b "Cryptopia - Home". Cryptopia.com. Retrieved 17 June 2017. closely related unreliable source.

Stökkva upp ^ "#Blocktalk - Ubiq w/ Julian Yap & Luke Williams". Youtube. #Blocktalk. Retrieved 16 June 2017. unreliable

Stökkva upp ^ "Ubiq Quarterly Report — February 2018 – The Ubiq Report". The Ubiq Report. 2018-03-01. Retrieved 2018-03-12. Primary source.

Stökkva upp ^ "Ubiq High Performance Mining Pool". Minerpool.net. Retrieved 28 January 2018. Primary source.

Stökkva upp ^ "HODLPOOL: UBIQ Mining Pool". HODLpool.com. Retrieved 28 January 2018. Primary source.

Stökkva upp ^ "MaxHash - mine Ubiq - Expanse - Musicoin". ubiqpool.maxhash.org. Retrieved 30 October 2017. Primary source.

Stökkva upp ^ "Ubiq Mining Pool". Ubiqpool.io. Retrieved 28 January 2018. Primary source.

^ Stökkva upp til: a b "Ubiq (UBQ) price, charts, market cap, and other metrics :: CryptoCurrency Market Capitalizations". coinmarketcap.com. Retrieved 5 December 2017. Primary source.

Stökkva upp ^ "Ubiq Explorer - Ubiqscan.io". Ubiqscan.io. Retrieved 17 June 2017. Primary source.

Stökkva upp ^ "UBIQ.CC - Block Chain Explorer". UBIQ.CC. Retrieved 17 June 2017. Primary source.

Stökkva upp ^ "UBIQ EXPLORER". UBIQEXPLORER.COM. Retrieved 5 December 2017. Primary source.

Stökkva upp ^ "APX Ventures". apxv.org. Retrieved 17 June 2017.

Stökkva upp ^ "Qwark :: Next Generation Cryptocurrency". qwark.io. Retrieved 17 June 2017. Primary source.

Stökkva upp ^ "Support for the GeoCoin [GEO] blockchain upgrade". Bittrex. Retrieved 26 Jan 2018.

Stökkva upp ^ "Cryptopia Tokens". Ubiqsmart.com. Retrieved 10 Dec 2017. Primary source.

Stökkva upp ^ "Pyrus - Open-Source & Client-Side Ubiq Wallet". Ubiqsmart.com. Retrieved 17 June 2017. Primary source.

Stökkva upp ^ "Pyrus CX - Chrome Web Store". Chrome Web Store. Retrieved 7 July 2017. Primary source.

Stökkva upp ^ "ubiq/sparrow-plugin: sparrow chrome extension". GitHub. Retrieved 28 January 2018. user-generated therefore unreliable.

Stökkva upp ^ "LiteBit - buy Ubiq". LiteBit.eu. Retrieved 27 July 2017. Primary source/advertising.

Stökkva upp ^ "Upbit - buy Ubiq". upbit.com. Retrieved 5 December 2017. Primary source/advertising.

Delete fails GNG per many/all primarynews or non-3rd party. If anyone can show me two indi RS, then I'll reconsider. Widefox; talk 01:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any coverage in reliable sources. Not notable. Retimuko (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I just took out a load of doubtful "sources" and don't have much confidence in the rest of the article. Deb (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has received little if any coverage in RS. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annex Press

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

No evidence of notability. Appears to be written by the organization / person themself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete regardless of who wrote it, this fails WP:GNG and is nowhere close to the point of passing it. The article describes it as some kind of experimental art project rather than an actual publishing house, but that does not help. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete without prejudice if someone can find the references to recreate in the future. I can't find much of anything on the open web, or in One Search, but looking at the list of poets and artists the press has worked with, I think it is likely that this press is actually historically important. But the references aren't there at present. I would push back on the idea that this is an art project, rather than a press. For the poets and artists of the 70s those lines were exceedingly blurry. I do think the article on Kabza is not as viable as this one; if this one sticks or is recreated later, we can have a few sentences about him here. --Theredproject (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Checked other wiki articles on small presses of period. Subject of this article publishes many same authors as This magazine, which appears to be defunct, and had published fewer books / magazines. Jenbenamoud (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC) — Jenbenamoud (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

My standard response to that is to make lists and delete them. You need to show how it meets the guidelines, not look at other sub-standard articles. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete big pile of conflicted, promotional editing for this page as well as Julian Kabza, clearly wanting to use WP to gain visibility for a subject who fails WP:BIO criteria and his associated company which fails NCORP. Jytdog (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article are not WP:RS evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. A search turned up nothing else which might be. Narky Blert (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Kabza

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

Not seeing any evidence of notability. Uses Wikipedia articles and blogs posts as refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annex Press, I think that the press is more likely to pass notability, thought at present it doesn't. Neither have WP:RS to be found online or in databases.--Theredproject (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deelte. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE as for now. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Notability guidelines Felicia (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of critical coverage is found in a web search. I removed a half dozen blogspost articles used as refs. Fails GNG.104.163.147.121 (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete big pile of conflicted, promotional editing for this page as well as Annex Press, clearly wanting to use WP to gain visibility for a subject who fails WP:BIO criteria and his associated company which fails NCORP. Jytdog (talk) 07:43, 22 March 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 18:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omni Layer

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

Non-notable article about a cryptocurrency startup. The article is supported largely by original research and unreliable sources. The articles which are reliable are passing mentions and not about this company. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability guidelines and most certainly does not have significant in-depth coverage. Please note I have not found much other than promotional hype in my pre-nomination search for sources, but I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in-depth coverage in reputable sources. Not notable. Retimuko (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needs in-depth coverage. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:50, 20 March 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 18:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zclassic

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

Non-notable article about a new cryptocurrency. This is too soon at best, with the article supported largely by original research, primary sources and advertising and unreliable sources. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability guidelines and most certainly does not have significant in-depth coverage. Please note I have not found much other than promotional hype in my pre-nomination search for sources, but I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, none of the refs are independent. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails CORP and the GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are primarynews or non-indi failing GNG. Widefox; talk 01:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find sufficient coverage in RS. TOOSOON. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:07, 20 March 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 18:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lisk

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable article about a new cryptocurrency. The article is supported largely by original research and unreliable sources. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability guidelines and most certainly does not have significant in-depth coverage. Please note I have not found much other than promotional hype in my pre-nomination search for additional sources, but I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Liskula Cohen has absolutely nothing to do with this, and it was listed there by automated means. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is a lot of material here, but all of it looks like OR or promotion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not enouhg indepth to satsify the GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no in-depth coverage in reputable sources, therefore not notable. Retimuko (talk) 07:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not received SIGCOV in RS. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:09, 20 March 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 18:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elguriasamo

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

Another Somali "town" without sources to verify existence and which doesn't appear on satellite imagery at the location where it's supposed to be. "Guriasamo" does appear as a label on a few maps but that's all I've been able to find. Hut 8.5 14:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Two sources, both in Italian, both referring to the place as El Guriasamo and both apparently originating in the 1950s. Unfortunately, I can't see enough of either to get an indication of how good they might be. PWilkinson (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The mentions in the first one translate (according to Google) as something being "East of El Guriasamo", "We took two days for the descent from El Guriasamo to...", "We set the camp just above El Guriasamo, at about 1700m...". None of these suggests that it is a town as claimed, it could easily be a hill or some other natural feature. That would fit in much better with the satellite imagery. Hut 8.5 07:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Usual crit failure. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:57, 20 March 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 18:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darerta Bur Qabale

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

My last Somali "locality" of the morning, pointing into an exceptionally blank spot, and no GHits or anything else talking about the place except the usual placename clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources discussing the subject aside from the database used to create the article, no settlements on satellite imagery anywhere near where it's supposed to be and it's down in the source database as a "locality", which means that people don't necessarily live there. At best it's a name for a patch of desert. Hut 8.5 15:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomL3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:31, 20 March 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 18:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beerti Cali Canshuur

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

This one the article at least admits to being just a "locality", and as usual there's no "there" there.Mangoe (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is an article about a random patch of desert next to a road, it doesn't even claim to be anything else. Nothing there and no sources other than one database record. Hut 8.5 15:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How big does a patch have to be in order to be notable.L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:40, 20 March 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 18:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ravinddra khare

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I cannot find any significant coverage of him in reliable independent sources, only articles that mention him while talking about the film. ... discospinster _talk 13:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability at all, Fails all relevant notability criteria. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't pass WP:ENT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:34, 20 March 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 18:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaanadhicaddeeye

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

Another Somali "town" which doesn't appear to exist. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the source cited for the town's existence, lists it under Jaan Adhicaddeeye as a "locality", a category which includes non-populated places. The coordinates given for the town are in the sea, so clearly nobody lives there. There is a settlement a bit to the north here, however this is listed in various places as Dhariinbaar (e.g. [10], p. 23). I can't find any other sources to support the existence of a populated place here, so this fails WP:V. Hut 8.5 13:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I see the same: a name without a town, imprecisely "located" by geonames. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buuro Magacleh

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

Yet another Somali "locality" which maps to a blank space. No GHits other than the usual mapping clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources to verify existence, the source database says that this is a "locality" which means people don't necessarily live there. Clearly there's no settlement at the place the coordinates point to or anywhere nearby. At best it's a name for a patch of desert and it certainly isn't a town. Hut 8.5 15:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and above editor. Searches turned up nothing to show it passes WP:GEOLAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails V. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:32, 20 March 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 18:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iaroslav Boiko

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

An agriculture scientist working in industry, PhD 2009. Has a consulting company (AgriLab), citability in GoogleScholar is minimal and not much else to indicate passing WP:PROF. Too little coverage for passing WP:GNG/WP:BIO either. A PROD was declined by the article's creator. Nsk92 (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article rises to the level of notability and his citation record is also too meager for notability through WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 18 March 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) 01:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Noah Edward Book Series

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

No evidence of coverage in independent, reliable sources; the series fails WP:GNG. Further, the authors don't appear to be notable, which is another strike against it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of independent reliable sources provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 19:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK (series:)) or WP:GNG, zero useable reviews found, these super short (each 7 pages) books appear to be self-published thru Amazon, authored by a couple of young fellas, very admirable what they have done but WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:52, 19 March 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. @Narky Blert: You can go ahead with the suggested follow-up. Sandstein 18:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Royden

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

A WP:BEFORE search turned up only a link to hxxp://dyingscene.com/bands/royden/ (live link blocked by the Wiki spam filter) and an AllMusic biography. I am prepared to give some weight to professional AllMusic reviews, but the one linked here is by a freelancer, and I give it no weight at all. Fails WP:NBAND. Narky Blert (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page Best Friends Our Worst Enemies, because it is an album by Royden, and I can find no sign of notability for it either.

Note to closer. If the article about the band Royden is deleted then:

Royden (disambiguation) will need to be moved into the empty space, keeping the redirect.
The lead of Royden (disambiguation) will need editing to delete the no-longer WP:PTOPIC. Narky Blert (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no WP:RS to indicate notability nor claims in the article that would indicate it. Nom's due diligence seems sound. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 04:26, 24 March 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 18:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Todd

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

Non notable fictional character. _{Vermont | reply here} 11:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability. Already speedied once. Deb (talk) 15:21, 19 March 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) 01:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Bixby

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

The key markers that might establish notability are either unverifiable, or misleading at best. The two key items are the claim of a "Professional Development Grant from Creative Capital" and the KW show. Neither was verifiable. To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a PDG from CC. They give out major grants, and then they have professional development workshops, for which they may offer scholarships; these are not CC grants! And he shows up nowwhere on their website. The KW exhibition, appears to only have been a talk [11] which I had to find via an obscure archive of berlin art events. Bixby does not appear on the KW website. Plus there are signs of COI editing, and clear Promo tone. Theredproject (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources showing that the artist meets WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. I have removed some of the art jargon/promotion from the article - some of that was copyright violating text as well. --bonadea contributions talk 11:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of sources to estbalish notability. I found one mention through Gale: "SOUNDWAVES." Santa Fe New Mexican [Santa Fe, NM], 18 Sept. 2009, p. A-74. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A208101541/GPS?u=wikipedia&sid=GPS&xid=95dc1959. Accessed 17 Mar. 2018. All it has is "… a one-night-only exhibit titled Noise, featuring work by New Mexico artists Martin Back, Brian Bixby, Geoff White, and David Leigh, Maryland artist Mark Brown, and Spanish artist Blanca Rego Constela". Mduvekot (talk) 21:19, 17 March 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 18:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Bregeda

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

None of the "International Art Photo Contest" prizes are verifiable, so there is no way to assess whether they would establish WP:Artist. The article history shows that it has been pruned down from waves of COI Promo cruft. The only real claim to notability is an exhibition at Museum of Biblical Art (Dallas). That is the decision to be made: does that establish notability. I don't think so, but I wonder what you all think. Theredproject (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete it's very clear that this is promotional junk that is not encyclopedic in nature. Sources do not exist to support an article.104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, aaaarrrgghhh! why doesnt he have an article in the russianwp - "Create a Page «Victor Bregeda» (pages starting with this title | link to this title)", could it be dubious notability? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ayush mittal

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable assistant professor / Ph.D. student. No GS profile, but a search turns up only a few hits that are likely to be him and they are not highly cited. Can't see any other path to meeting WP:PROF. EricEnfermero (Talk) 11:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google scholar search for his name turned up mostly papers from other people (subject or affiliation did not match this article), but even in the unlikely event that they are all his, they aren't cited well enough for WP:PROF, and there seems nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:52, 18 March 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. Looks like the discussion run out of steam and everyone got tired. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Shrawan

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

I don't see how she manages to pass our notability guideline.Near rubbish-sourcing.Probable paid-spam.Nothing resembling non-trivial coverage in RS can be discovered. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources indicate that Shrawan has had numerous major (notable) roles. It suffers the problem of nearly all of our articles on Marathi-language pop culture in that the English-language sources about it are dreadful, but the solution to that (when the subject is notable) is a cleanup tag and attention from a Marathi-language speaker. This nomination is part of a mass-nomination of Marathi-language actresses with the same copied and pasted explanation - although a couple of them seem to have been actually non-notable, most of them had obvious claims to significance that had been lazily skimmed over. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources matter rather than vague hand-waves.~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources already in the article indicate, with a bit of research, that she has had numerous notable roles. I don't speak Marathi, and the English-language sources about the whole area are universally-poor so the article needs someone who speaks the language. We don't delete articles on notable people just because their English-language coverage is poor - we fix the problem. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed reply may be viewed over here.In short, I don't buy your assumptions.I'm quasi-proficient (~Babel 2/3) in Marathi and did not manage to scrape anything non-substantial, barring non-reliable interviews and trivial name mentions.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A vote often carries more weight than other votes. I concede that the vote by Winged Blades of Godric weighs more than mine. -The Gnome (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR as has prominent roles in film and television as evidenced in sources such as Times of India Atlantic306 (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has had significant roles in "multiple notable" films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions and I can't find a single reliable source that support her role in any film or tv serials listed in the article except What About Savarkar? which is not notable and nothing found to help her pass general notability guideline either. I'm open to change my vote if anyone can provide some independent reliable sources to support any notability criteria. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is not enough to pass GNG, and facebook is not a source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article completely lacks sources, in English or any other language, about the biography of the subject, from which we'd be able to gauge whether the notability criteria are met. Mentions-in-passing in newspaper columns about new movies hardly does it. -The Gnome (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Marathi Google results (e.g. [12], [13], [14]) suggest she has had enough significant roles in popular films and TV series to satisfy WP:NACTOR. --Michig (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And, you've given the keyword of non-trivial and standing coverage for a toss.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what you're on about. --Michig (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 17 March 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 18:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lonely Girl (film)

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

A non-notable short film with absolutely no coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per nominator. FITINDIA 01:32, 24 March 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 Maxima Group. Sandstein 18:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maxima LT

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

Claims of the biggest means it claims notability, but there is not enough for a stand alone here. Merge with parent article. Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Maxima per nom. Vorbee (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Brolley

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

Fails WP:NPOL and sources are not strong enough to show he meets WP:GNG looks like a soapbox article created to support an election bid Dom from Paris (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither being village president in a small town nor being a non-winning candidate in a still-upcoming congressional election is an WP:NPOL pass in and of itself, but there's not nearly enough proper reliable sourcing here to suggest that he passes WP:GNG in lieu. Almost half of the 11 footnotes are to primary sources, such as his own campaign website and the self-published websites of organizations he's been directly affiliated with, which are not notability-supporting sources — and while the other half is real media coverage, it's all local media coverage of the volume and range and depth that's merely expected to exist for all smalltown mayors and all aspiring House of Representatives candidates anywhere. So they do not constitute credible evidence that he's a special case over and above everybody else who's done the same things without getting a Wikipedia article for them: at these levels of significance, a person has to be demonstrably more notable than most other people at the same level, such as by having a significantly nationalized coverage profile. Obviously he'll qualify to have the article recreated if he wins the congressional seat in November, but nothing here already gets him over the notability bar today. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a candidate in a congressional election is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons given above. And update: he lost in the primary. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:33, 21 March 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 18:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam

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

Having an article about the political party that was established on March 15, 2018 is a clear WP:TOOSOON Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it's possible to do much better than single-sourcing a one-sentence stub which just states that it exists, the end. It's possible in any country for anybody to simply declare that they've started a new political party — what makes a party notable is not just the fact that it exists, but actually competing in elections which actually get it coverage with which we can extract content about its ideology and its impact. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete much too soon. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:53, 22 March 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 Planets of the Hainish Cycle. Sandstein 18:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Werel (Voe Deo)

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

Entirely plot summary with no indication of real-world notability. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Planets of the Hainish Cycle. Unclear if that article is notable either, but that seems like the best current option._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Planets of the Hainish Cycle, which is clearly notable and is a more appropriate place to treat this topic. Newimpartial (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and redirect to maintain the edit history) per above. Create a Werel redirect too. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. There is enough encyclopedic content about this planet that it needs to be covered somewhere; but there isn't enough that a standalone article is really necessary. The number of Hainish Cycle planets which have any coverage in secondary sources is small. All the necessary information can be covered at Planets of the Hainish Cycle; the only exception is Gethen. Vanamonde (talk) 11:02, 24 March 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 Planets of the Hainish Cycle. Sandstein 18:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Werel (Alterra)

AfDs for this article:

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

Not much has changed since the last nomination in 2014. This is still a hodgepodge of plot summary and OR. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 07:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The planet needs an entry. Why not improve rather than destroying?--GwydionM (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Planets of the Hainish Cycle. Unclear if that article is notable either, but that seems like the best current option._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and redirect to maintain the edit history) to Planets of the Hainish Cycle. Create a Werel redirect too. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Planets of the Hainish Cycle, as the relevant notable topic. Newimpartial (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. @GwydionM: There is enough encyclopedic content about this planet that it needs to be covered somewhere; but there isn't enough that a standalone article is really necessary. The number of Hainish Cycle planets which have any coverage in secondary sources is small. All the necessary information can be covered at Planets of the Hainish Cycle; the only exception is Gethen. Vanamonde (talk) 10:59, 24 March 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 Alliance–Union universe. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 08:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Downbelow (fictional planet)

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

Yet another article that is entirely plot summary with no indication of real-world notability. This one also has tangential, OR comparisons to real life. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Alliance–Union universe. A plausible search term, but not enough independent/out-of-universe coverage for a stand-alone article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely fiction-cruft, nothing to merge that is notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Alliance–Union universe. The planet, also known as Pell's World, is the backbone of Cherryh's Alliance–Union universe, and features in a number of her A-U novels, most notably Downbelow Station (Hugo winner) and Finity's End. While inherited notability may not apply here, I believe that the novels, and the universe, are sufficiently notable to warrant, at the very least, a merge. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alliance–Union universe. Merge "it was the discovery of sentient life that sent shock waves back to Earth, sparking off moral, religious, philosophical and policy debates. Then, to aggravate an already delicate situation, Pell Station became a source of agricultural goods and other luxuries, hitherto only available from Earth. This economic advantage disrupted the whole balance of power in the Alliance–Union universe, and became one of the main contributing factors to the outbreak of the Company Wars in 2300." The rest is in-universe plot details. Also redirect and merge Downbelow to Down Below (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge and Redirect to Alliance-Union universe, which is the notable topic in this case. Newimpartial (talk) 23:11, 22 March 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 18:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Auldrant

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

Unreferenced plot summary, no indication of real-world notability. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Tales of the Abyss. Entirely unreferenced. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect To Tales of the Abyss._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Nothing worth saving. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:59, 19 March 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. Not sure why you AfD'd and speedied, but, regardless, speedy deleted by RHaworth under A2 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abdoubelazzoug

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

Another reason we need WP:ACREQ. Page deleted 3 times on Frence wikipedia [15] and than dumped here by a new account. Legacypac (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A page by a WP:SPA account, dumping what is presumably the content from the deleted and protected French Wikipedia page, without even a basic attempt to render into English, and sourced to the subject's Facebook, making claims only of social media popularity. Presumably this is his YouTube page. No evidence of attained notability. See also another spawned page at Abdou belazzoug. The protection applied after multiple deletions on the French WP may also be needed for the variously-named articles here? AllyD (talk) 07:38, 17 March 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.

changed my mind and I was seeing speedy tags being removed on other pages quickly Legacypac (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bismoll

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

All plot summary and OR, no indication of real-world notability. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Matter-Eater Lad. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never going to be notable. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Matter-Eater Lad. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 19 March 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 18:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019 FIA Formula 3 Championship

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

WP:TOOSOON we don't have any information about the season. Calendar, teams, even car is not yet announced. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:20, 18 March 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 18:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Lee (ice hockey)

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ephemeral and undistinguished minor league career, no evidence the subject passes the GNG. Ravenswing 18:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 21 March 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 18:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barberland

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

The article fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Little in the way of WP:RS turned up in a WP:BEFORE search (none). Article's only listed "sources" are IMDb and Amazon.com. TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The referencing is inadequate to show notability or to support the content. The Google hits are enough to show that the documentary exists but it is hard to find even a passing mention to it in RS. I think this and this are about as good as it gets and that is clearly not good enough as they are very passing mentions in articles about other subjects. IMDB lists no awards. It got no reviews in newspapers that I can see. Nobody even gave it a score on Rotten Tomatoes. I don't see any scope to rescue this. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shave it all off. The DVDTalk review is not enough to satisfy NFILM, and there's nothing else. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Orlando. Sandstein 18:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orando

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

Unreferenced plot summary, no indication of real-world notability. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Orlando as potential typo._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Princess Projectra. Redirects are cheap. It's unlikely that it would be mistaken for Orlando, but if that's a concern, some sort of hatnote in the Princess's article would take care of it. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Orlando per Zxcvbnm. (as a side note, as I typed out his user name, I finally figured out where it came from). Argento Surfer (talk) 20:43, 19 March 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 18:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zuun

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

Plot summary with no indication of RW notability. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable comicbook cruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked for a suitable redirect target, but couldn't find one. Not sure it'd be worth it anyway. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:30, 19 March 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 18:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Troas (fictional planet)

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

Unreferenced plot summary without indication of real-world notability. Fairly short. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, fictional cruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable, massively so. The planet appears in multiple notable stories/novels by Isaac Asimov, Poul Anderson and others. This topic clearly passes criteria 5 of NBOOK. It also satisfies GNG (search for troas+planet, and for the stories and authors, etc in GBooks and elsewhere). Furthermore, this topic is not just a planet. It can be regarded as a 'series' of stories. This nomination is a classic example of 'salami tactics' whereby a nominator seeks to treat a single topic (a series of stories) as multiple topics (refusing to acknowledge the stories are a group) in a bid to try to make each of the alleged multiple topics look less notable. This approach cannot be tolerated because it would eventually result in the deletion of every single article in the encyclopedia. Even if this topic was not notable, it would still be ineligible for deletion on grounds of ATD and PRESERVE because it could be merged with the stories. There is no way we should even be thinking about deleting this. James500 (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd be more convinced by James500's statement if he actually linked (or named) what the references are. Based on [16], I don't think it's notable. NBOOK#5 is clearly not met; this is a fictional setting, not a work of literature (and the two works it is used in have separate pages). power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:15, 24 March 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 18:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Prime (Sliders)

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

Unreferenced plot summary without indication of real-world notability. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total fiction cruft. This belongs in a Wikia rather than Wikipedia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and send it to Wikia.--Theredproject (talk) 00:56, 18 March 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 18:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kromagg Prime

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

Short plot summary without indication of real-world notability. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fiction-cruft that belongs in Wikia, not Wikipedia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:30, 17 March 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 18:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Sigston

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking the necessary qualifications as an artist. -The Gnome (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
~~Keep~~ won ABC Young Performers Award (1961), performed with a symphony orchestra at an open air concert which was recorded and broadcast by the national broadcaster (1962). Gained first Master of Music degree at University of Melbourne (1964).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've reconsidered my decision, after further searching for substantial mentions of the subject, I now agree with duffbeerforme.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm willing to change to Keep if evidence can be provided that he has won any prominent award (as claimed). Alternatively, I haven't been able to find anything to meet WP:GNG. London Hall (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The article already has references for his winning Young Performers Award, which is a prominent one in Australia for classical musicians. Is this the award you're referring to? –shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Up and coming Young Performers Awards is not a major award. Finishing a degree is extremely commonplace. Sourcing is entirely unconvincing, especially the vanity addition sourced to personal recollections. That performance is a good start but there is simply not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:10, 21 March 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. Without prejudice to somebody creating an article about the short story if that is deemed notable. Sandstein 18:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Placet (fictional planet)

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

Short plot summary without indication of real-world notability, nor for the short story in which it appears. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nom is I think right that this is a non-notable detail from a minor work. The reasoning is however incorrect - notability is a product of what exists in the world, not what is written in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the story isn't notable enough for an article, a planet in the story definitely isn't._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnotable location in a minor short story. Wikipedia would be a crazy place too if this article was kept. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looking at the discussion above, I rather suspect that the previous contributors are talking from ignorance, at least so far as Placet is a crazy place is concerned. A minor short story? At the time it was written, short stories were still the main form of science fiction, and Placet is a crazy place was repeatedly included in science fiction anthologies for over a generation after it was written. And Fredric Brown's characterisation of Placet itself is one of the main reasons for this - remove the setting, and a short comic masterpiece would turn into an even shorter (and not particularly convincing) romantic farce. (And this is probably one reason why the story title redirects here rather than vice versa.) I am not particularly arguing for notability here, at least in Wikipedia terms - Wikipedia is indeed a crazy place, and one of the things that makes it that is the unfortunate but probability unavoidable necessity of using performance indicators to provide a relatively objective definition of notability. It therefore does not help that short stories tend only to get discussed very briefly (such as here, here and here), that it was published before any of the major science fiction awards existed, and that the nature of the story itself did not lend it to later expansion or inclusion into a novel. But if anyone can argue for a plausible alternative to deletion, I would certainly support it. PWilkinson (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance? I'm a science-fiction fan from way back and have read my share of Fredric Brown stories. It's not up there with "Arena" or even "Knock". The story itself doesn't have an article, yet you want the setting to? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. PWilkinson (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a good merge target for this, and I agree a standalone article for a fictional element from one short story is weird. Brown's article has no section into which this could be merged, and nor is there any substantial coverage in the Bibliography of his works. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and rename to Placet is a Crazy Place and expand the coverage to encompass the entire short story, which I see enough secondary sourcing to support in the above find sources template Books section. Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 21 March 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 18:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Jeffries

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable performer. Significant RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. Award category is not significant; "Grabby Awards — Wall of Fame" does not qualify. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable awards ,fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 14:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a long line of articles on non-notable pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 21 March 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 18:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kuch

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

Unsure if this article is notable or not. Very PR. --RickiNickiEdits (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While Kush has certainly been in the news and is a public advocate as well as he has some sources from Stuff and One News, I don't think there is enough there to pass WP:GNG, WP:BIO as he has received significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources. While he was up for Young New Zealander award, the article [17] is just his name in the list of nominees. NZFC^(talk) 04:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is more than 50 per cent dependent on primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things — and while there are certainly a few pieces of reliable source coverage about him shown as well, there aren't enough of those to get him over WP:GNG, because none of them say anything about him that would make him "inherently" notable. If a person doesn't pass any subject-specific inclusion criterion, but instead you're going for "notable just because some media coverage exists", then it takes more media coverage than this to get him over the bar. And yes, nominator is correct that there's a definite "public relations profile" skew to the writing, suggestive of a possible conflict of interest even if we can't definitively verify that. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 18 March 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. A redirect can be created (and contested) separately. Sandstein 18:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plan 9 (startup incubator)

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

There was a previous AfD closed nonconsensus at an earlier article name Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plan 9 Startup Incubator.

Clear promotionaoism, borderline notability at best, and created just before he was banned as one of the socks of a very prolific paid editor. The sources are essentially PR, either for the organization or its projects,and such sources are no longer considered as independent enough to justify an article. At the time of the previous AfD, the extensive nature of this and the related socks was not realized. Almost all of their other creations have been deleted, mostly by G5.. As there is some question whether G5 applies in this case, and there is still just a little remaining doubt over whether the violation of the TOU means that the article should never have been here and thus be suitable for speedy deletion, I'm being conservative and bringing it here. I would support any other admin who wants to use G5. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. General Ization ^Talk 02:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem notable, but its hard for these pages to exist independently with such titles. I would say that it should probably be redirected to either Startup incubator or Arfa Software Technology Park. M A A Z T A L K 13:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be wholly wrong to redirect individual companies to a general article on the industry, or individual companies at a particular location to the location. If we did this, we would become a directory. DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage as noted by Kashmiri in previous AfD, it is govt organization to promote startup culture in Pakistan so, nothing wrong with it. Passes WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The intrinsic merits of the organization are irrelevant to notability ; so is whether it is a private or government organization. Possibly it shouldn't be that way , and I am very open to an argument for changing our rules to be less dependent on coverage by independent sourcing and more on the actual nature and size (& perhaps even quality) of the organization, but that is just not our guideline for notability of organizations. In some special fields we do do this--competition in the Olympics for example--wbut these are ones where quality has an objective standard. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although may believe it is not perfect, the current criteria for establishing notability which requires quality sources is the best criteria we have. This topic does not meet the criteria. References are either based on company announcements or rely on company personnel for quotations, etc. References fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:56, 22 March 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 18:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Riley

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable performer. Significant RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. Award category is not significant; GayVN Awards for "Best Newcomer of the Year" does not qualify. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable awards ,fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 14:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of our clear overabundance of articles on pornographic performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 21 March 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 18:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Pantera

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable performer. Significant RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. Award is not significant; "Grabby Awards" does not qualify. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable awards ,fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 14:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a long line of non-notable pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 21 March 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! 07:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PH-1 (rapper)

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

Very content-poor article on a rapper. I can't quite assess this one - is the reported charting sufficient to claim notability? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NMG point 2. Abdotorg (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Failing this may I request that the article be drafted so I can work on it until the individual passes notability. Abdotorg (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "may be notable" is not the same as "is notable", that meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. As you have started many articles on artists on Korean charts, perhaps you should consider adding more sources to show that these subjects meet WP:GNG. A chart entry or two, particularly in low positions, should not be considered to be sufficient. Note also that these sources suggest he may actually be an American from New York - [18][19], the biographical details given are therefore doubtful as they are poorly sourced, which is unacceptable for a biographical article per WP:BLPSOURCES. Hzh (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and at least some of the bio details are evidently incorrect. He may be American not South Korean. Legacypac (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added 2 major newspaper citations and a profile image. One article says the artist is currently residing in Long Island, but he is definitely South Korean, but maybe we're lacking a citation for the birthplace in Seoul. The Korea Herald article references a new EP release in January and I have asked page creator Abdotorg if they have time to update that information as I am traveling. I will continue to look for citations and add bio. information, as time allows me.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC) I have added Arirang radio interview for citation of Korean birth and move to U.S. at age 12 or 13.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 06:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be noted that place of birth does not equate nationality, for example Bob Hope was born in England but he is generally considered American. If he has acquired American citizenship and considered himself American, then he should be described as Korean American. There is no source for his citizenship given, and I'm not sure what source it is that you gave, but it could be just my browser as something pops up but there is no sound when I clicked on AOD (therefore a short transcript could be useful). Hzh (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hzh for persisting on accuracy of nationality. I have now added the bio from his recent appearance at SXSW which states he is Korean American. About Arirang Radio (and ArirangTV), they are popular English language sources for Korean news and culture. I'm sorry your browser could not open the Arirang interview citation with him...another URL link for the transcript I had found was deadlinked. I will continue looking for a transcript to add. I use the Chrome browser and it opened immediately for me.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Also, Re categories listing him as a Korean rapper, etc. - due to his work being done in South Korea; his rap combining Korean and English languages, and the possiblity that he has dual citizenship where he could be labeled American or Korean - I did not delete those categories. Of course, a new category for Korean-American male rappers could be added.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has reliable source coverage such as the Korean Herald and has charted as per criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC Atlantic306 (talk) 15:59, 21 March 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) 01:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Ivanovski

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

Fails WP:NTRACK and WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 06:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has competed in the 1500 metres at the 2018 IAAF World Indoor Championships which makes him notable per point 1. Pietaster (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A contestant at the 2018 IAAF but didn't reach the final. His 1500m pb is a long way from notable. There are 2 refs in the article one a blog and one to a news article about a race win. The article itself claims he ran a marathon in 1 hour 6 minutes, which is almost an hour faster than the world record! Szzuk (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I misread ntrack. Szzuk (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is poorly worded - clearly that was his half marathon time. I will correct. RonSigPi (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NTRACK No. 1 by competing at world championships. Also has two decent half marathon wins that have some references provided. Also found these - [20] (about a race he won at Novi Sad listed on IAAF profile, but unable to translate) and this [21] albeit not independent, it does state he set a national record. Also considering WP:Bias as finding sources on non-English language and non-Latin languages is harder, so presumption should carry more weight. RonSigPi (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes criteria 1 of WP:NTRACK 17:43, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic.ly

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable tech startup. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP, or routine corporate notices. The company is defunct, so no future opportunity for increased notability. It was not notable while in business, and is still non-notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing meaningful to add since sufficent reason given by nom. Xaxing (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: K.e.coffman, bit confused about your remark that "what comes up is passing mentions". It seems like it is the actual subject of a number of reliable sources. E.g., Financial Times (Comic fans flock to Graphicly"), Publishers Weekly (Graphicly Acquires Digital Comics Reader, Double Feature"), Forbes (Graphicly's Micah Baldwin: Why Storytelling Matters") and TechCrunch (Digital Comic Startup Graphic.ly Draws Up $3 Million To Take 2011 "Beyond The Page"). --Usernameunique (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: note blocked sock gets no weight so more input needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 17 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blood in the Snow Canadian Film Festival

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

Highly advertorialized article about a small film festival, not properly referenced as clearing WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. The referencing here is parked almost entirely on blogs and the festival's own primary source content about itself, which are not sources that can carry notability -- and the only two sources here that count as reliable ones at all are both in the same city's local media rather than evincing the wider coverage that an organization has to have to clear ORGDEPTH. In addition, there's a possible conflict of interest here, as about two weeks ago a newly-registered editor with no prior history named themself as "the new page moderator" who will be "monitoring" it from now on. But that's not how Wikipedia works: the article belongs to Wikipedia, not to the festival or to any individual editor who appoints themself as the "owner", and it has to follow Wikipedia's sourcing and content rules. There's simply not enough quality sourcing here, and far too much advertorialized text. Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bearcat spells it out; just would add that the self-appointed "moderator" should be warned on their talk page about why their conduct is inappropriate. Madg2011 (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not notable at all. All the references mentioned therein and those I could find online via indepedent search do not render this notable at all. In addition, the editor who claims as moderator doesn't understand how wiki works let alone understanding what notability means. Xaxing (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick google search finds this, this and this published in different years which should allow to pass WP:GNG and make a small article. The referencing is also similar to other articles in Category:Film festivals in Toronto, if this is not deemed notable merging them all should be considered. I don't think the article should be deleted, regardless of it's flaws, because people don't like a new editor (note, they did not create the article). SpaceInnovader (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ORGDEPTH, something like this does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just because it's gotten some local coverage in its own local market — its media coverage has to expand beyond local. So just being able to show a couple of Toronto Star and Now links is not enough to get a Toronto-based event over the notability bar. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To points addressed earlier, I will no longer be a moderator or owner of this page going forward. I was never owner of the page and was simply moderating to ensure false hoods were not reported. The entry is meant to inform interested parties about the festival in general and the work that has been done in the past. It was never intended that others in the wiki community could not contribute to the article going forward. You are correct in assuming that I am just learning how to edit and use Wikipedia, and would welcome feedback on how to improve. As for sources, you are correct obviously in stating most of the coverage is local as it is a Canadian Film Festival, but the festival does have some coverage from the United States as well in websites footnoted like Cinema Crazed and Cryptic Rock. Iwould also note that even though Toronto Based, Screen Anarchy is a worldwide recognized leader in film coverage that also employ people in markets like the UK and Japan in their editorial staff. I will also attempt to add more coverage in if I can. Hopefully, this addresses the concerns going forward, but if not I am willing to leave the Wikipedia community entirely if it is deemed necessary to do so. The article is meant as an educational piece, not an advertorial, as Bearcat previous edits to the page have made me realize the page may have come off too much as. This was never the intention. To restate, I will no longer be moderating this page and I am not the owner. We welcome all members of the Wiki community to participate. I may add to the article going forward - but I am stating here I will not remove any edits going forward. MovieJunkieTO —Preceding undated comment added 13:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not counting the blocked sock so a little bit more input is required to resolve this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 17 March 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 18:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bahram Akradi

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

Not notable businessman Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Another failure of WP:BEFORE. There are two RS cited in the article already, which are enough to meet WP:GNG. Additionally one might add [22], [23], [24], [25], and so on. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- just a person with a job; the sources offered above are WP:SPIP, routine notices and / or not independent of the subject, as in "...seeks board seat..."; "...has big plans..."; "...exclusive Q&A..."; etc. This does not show WP:SIGCOV focused on the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's one really good RS I was able to find that's on him directly here: [26] The other article which is about him that isn't in reference to the company is in reference to his misdemeanor plea deal, which is trivial in a completely different way. SportingFlyer talk 02:49, 17 March 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 18:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iqua

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

Does not meet notability guidelines(WP:ORG). All the sources offered are press releases, product announcements, or directory listings of this business; WP:ORGDEPTH specifically calls out these sort of sources as not acceptable for establishing notability. No sources with in depth coverage of this business are offered. My search could only find sources like the ones offered. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:ORGDEPTH. Manelolo (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have tried and did my best to find a series of pretty independent and reliable resources mentioning Iqua in passing at least:

1.CNET put,"Though Iqua is quite an unknown brand in the U.S., it's popular in Europe and is known for making stylish, well-made Bluetooth products"[27].
2.Realdeals.eu.com put,"……Finland-based Iqua designs headsets and hands-free devices for the mobile communications market"[28] .And Iqua was introduced by this source deeply and minutely.
3.Iqua was deeply and minutely introduced by the Chinese channel of Deutsche Welle[29].And it is not press release.
4.Iqua was deeply and minutely introduced by the callcenterinfo.tmcnet.com [30].And it is not press release.
5.Korea JoongAng Daily put,"……Iqua, a Finland-based maker of headsets and hands-free devices……"[31].
6.Iqua does meet notability guidelines,because its product,Iqua SUN is World's First Solar-Powered Bluetooth Headset[32](Gizmodo)[33](The Register).And more importantly,TechCrunch'article introduced Iqua SUN to enter the US market especially[34].
7.Twice put,"……Iqua is perhaps best known for its solar-powered Bluetooth headset, the Iqua Sun"[35].
07989Didyoueatanything (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 07989Didyoueatanything (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

None of those sources are acceptable either. The first is a product review for one of this company's products and not about the company itself. Most of the rest are similar or are brief mentions of this company or reviews of its products(again, not the company itself). 331dot (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources offered above are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. There's nothing in the article that's not promotional, so WP:NOTSPAM applies as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References all fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Shields RFC

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability#Clubs Cabayi (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm unwilling to vote delete unless you explain which criteria of RU notability clubs you think this club fails. For example, how do you know the club has never played in a national competition? I'm uncertain you have at hand the necessary information to fully conduct wp:before, although I accept the one ref in the article isn't worth much. Szzuk (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 17 March 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. Sandstein 18:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blyth RFC

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability#Clubs Cabayi (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 17 March 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. Sandstein 18:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ponteland RFC

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability#Clubs Cabayi (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seghill RFC

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability#Clubs Cabayi (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Their club website says they provided a player to the British Lions in the 1920s called William Wallace, so it passes Notability Clubs. Szzuk (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As above, qualifies under the Rugby part of the clubs notability rules. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it appears to meet the notability standards by providing a player to the British Lions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would take the claim that they supplied a lions player with a pinch of salt as there was only one William Wallace that played on the 1924 British Lions tour to South Africa and this club Percy Park RFC claims that he was their player at the time. William Wallace is a common name or he may have played for both teams. And please don't forget that project guidelines do not trump NORG or GNG and neither seem to be met. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Park is 7 miles from Seghill, likely he played for both teams. Szzuk (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Szzuk, are there any reliable, independent sources for the claim. If so I'd happily withdraw the nomination. Cabayi (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 17 March 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. Sandstein 18:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashington JW RFC

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability#Clubs Cabayi (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 17 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional spectrum

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

Seems to be pure WP:FANCRUFT, entirely primary sourced. More suitable for Wikia but there is already an article on it there. The name is also dubious as any searches go to articles talking about real life emotional spectrums. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm torn on this one. I think there's enough coverage within the comic news niche to support an article, especially if some of the various [color] lantern corps are merged into it. It's also referenced by numerous articles, and it makes sense (to me) to have a fan-crufty article with all the information in one place rather than explaining it in 50 or 100 plot summaries. That said, I'm not interested in putting any effort to actually making this article decent. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's quite a big deal in the GL universe and its storyline and so there are obvious alternatives to deletion which we should preserve per our editing policy. It seems easy enough to find sources for the topic such as Superheroes: The Best of Philosophy and Pop Culture which has a chapter on "The Rainbow of Emotions..." Also WP:FANCRUFT is an essay, not policy, and Wikia is an advertising vehicle which we should not step aside for. Andrew D. (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing that the concept is notable. In that case, it can be put in Green Lantern Corps or Power ring (DC Comics), there is no need for an entirely separate article with this much fancruft. If it is notable, it can be split off once that section is sufficiently large and referenced._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This much" fancruft? If there's an acceptable level of fancruft, why not prune out the excess instead of deleting all of it? You don't seem to deny that reliable sources exist. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reality is this is an integral part of the GL mythos, and frankly if something THIS important to the story gets deleted then delete the whole thing. That's like removing all mention of the Force when it's literally the central driving force of every Star Wars movie. Yes there is a "real" emotional spectrum, but this one is real in that it's an integral part of a huge, decades old comics series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18-Till-I-Die (talk • contribs) 01:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not much for notability, but at the very least it needs to be moved to Emotional spectrum (comics) to make room about the real emotional spectra mentioned by nom. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Would actually be Emotional spectrum (DC Comics) as (comics) is used for actual comic books rather than concepts or characters._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft, describes fictional concept only in-universe (WP:NOTPLOT). Sandstein 09:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Data Storytelling

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

See Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. This doesn't address how the concept is considered notable by reliable sources.

This article needs heavy copy-editing for grammar and style. That isn't a reason to delete, but notability and tone are. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is why new users need to go through AfC and why WP:ACTRIAL needs to be WP:ACREQ Legacypac (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is nonsense. Natureium (talk) 13:50, 22 March 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 08:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Lorne

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

The references are PR and notices from what i have been able to understand (some of them are in french which i know very little of and i don't trust google translate for large chunks of text). Pascal Lorne seems less notable then the companies that he worked for. The current one Gojob was created by the same editor as Pascal Lorne, User:ABCreator who has been blocked for promotional editing and advertising, and was deleted for failing notability and was at best WP:TOOSOON (see here. the article Pascal Lorne was originally tagged with a WP:PROD notice which was swiftly removed by ABCreator shortly after which can be assumed good faith but given his edit history/block log seems to be a way of advertising requesting further comments. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is there a source that is more unsuitable for an encyclopedia than https://about.me/pascall? Mduvekot (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maqaxdameer

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

It would be nice if we could do a mass deletion of this block of mass creations, but there are some real places mixed in among the blank spots, and hey, if I have to look at each one to verify that it can't be verified as a town, everyone else has to do the same. Anyway, for the last of this morning's Somali not-towns we have another spot that geonames says is a locality, and whose coords drop us in a blank spot. And as is common the article creator seems to have run two words together but it doesn't matter: searching finds nothing but mirrors and clickbait, and no, I don't believe the site that says I can "chat with local people in Maqax Dameer." Mangoe (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Geonames has it as Magax Dameer, and it shows up on OpenStreetMap in an area of clear human activity. I know that's not enough for verification normally, but these are really tough to do. I appreciate the AfD discussion. SportingFlyer talk 04:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found it on geonames, but it's still just a "locality", and it's still just a spot in the middle of nowhere. I'm guessing that OpenStreetMap's "human activity" is just their spin on "locality". Mangoe (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually looked at the satellite imagery on OpenStreetMap; the "human activity" is my own classification. Some of these are plopped down and there's not even a road within four miles; this town is at the intersection of a road and there appears to be cultivation very close by. SportingFlyer talk 18:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need actual sources on the subject to have an article on it. Entries in OpenStreetMap and GeoNames, combined with guesses from an editor that people might be doing something here aren't enough. Hut 8.5 22:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's considered a populated place by several geodatabases and should be notable under WP:GEOLAND. The difficulty is the fact it's in the hardest country in the world to WP:V geographical information. I'm on the side of inclusion for all of these articles, but some simply do not make the cut. I don't think this is one of them. SportingFlyer talk 02:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geonames says that a "locality" is not a populated place, and in any case interpreting WP:GEOLAND as essentially saying that all placenames are notable is silly: it's the same as saying, "there aren't any standards." Mangoe (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect these places are getting their information from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency database, which is a more credible source than OpenStreetMap, and it lists this place as a "locality". It doesn't look like "locality" necessarily means a place where people actually live, certainly "Areas/Localities" includes many things which don't qualify (including fields, forests and mines). WP:GEOLAND says that legally recognised places where people actually live are typically notable, and you do need reliable sources to prove this is met, even in Somalia. We don't have that here. WP:GEOLAND also says that maps do not contribute to demonstrating notability as they don't establish more than the existence of the subject. Hut 8.5 08:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no wiggle room around WP:V. If we can't verify that something exists, then we can't have an article on it. We don't just make stuff up. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 17 March 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 Mount Mihara#Suicide. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoko Matsumoto

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

Fails WP:BIO as she is ONLY known for WP:ONEEVENT: committing suicide by jumping into a volcano. Yes, it triggered an unfortunate trend of copycats, but that doesn't make her notable. There are currently three articles linked to this one (List of suicide sites, Kiyoko, and Suicide methods) all of which repeat the exact same thing as the article says. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the event, and the fact that 900 people followed her into the volcano is notable! Perhaps this should be reworked about the event generally, with her story as part of it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mount Mihara. The existing referencing is atrocious, but there are contemporaneous news sources for most of the claims (including what appears to be a 1935 Time magazine article I can't access). Still a BIO1E. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add this article The Volcano Suicides from Dr Romeo Vitelli which discusses this case in more detail. While it points to the Wiki article, it does have differences, and much more information. Not only does he give her age as 21, he reports that she was a student at Tokyo's Jissan College, it also mentions why she killed herself. Importantly, he says that "Mount Mihara was already a well-known suicide site since an observation post near the top of the volcanic cone allowed visitors to look straight down into the crater. Even as early as the 1920s, people could commit suicide by jumping into the volcano. The problem is that, while he is an academic, this is simply a blog entry with no clear references. Dr Vitelli has, on the other hand written books and articles on suicide and suicide clusters. I am tending towards the belief that it needs to be merged into other articles. There are notable reasons for this, for example, Dr Vitelli mentions that it was seen as a "lesbian suicide". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everlong Day (talk • contribs) 16:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping for more participation...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mount Mihara#Suicide, the logical place to cover this. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Sandstein 18:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jak Hardy

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

This appears to be a vanity page and notability has not not been established Grahame (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Straight out promo piece. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. Almost WP:CSD G11. Also, WP:ENTREPRENEUR. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 21 March 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) 01:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Young Film Festival

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

fails WP:GNG. most of its sources are primary or very local. LibStar (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too small time and niche to be notable, its a kids film production event, not a good use of tax payers money. Szzuk (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Ali Kamboh

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

Non-notable bio with nothing in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. His "well known book" has all of 5 citations on Google scholar; I tried and failed to find published reviews of it. I'm not sure yet whether he might be notable for something else, but I'm pretty sure he isn't notable for this book. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We still have zero evidence for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. FITINDIA 01:41, 24 March 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 18:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARDOR

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

not notable, bad sources, no coverage in reliable sources Retimuko (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1. notability: which of these are RS? 2. WP:NOT#PROMO yet another crypto promo that's to put it mildly WP:TOOSOON. Widefox; talk 20:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we should probably look at WP:CORPDEPTH per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Qtum. Widefox; talk 20:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Widfox and nom. Note that I've removed the ref to a Wikipedia article and a section on "news" where all the links were to the company's own website. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should be kept. Ardor has been covered in Forbes, Mobile World Congress, CoinDesk, CryptoSlate, and a wide number of other secondary sources. I have updated references so that they no longer include the Jelurida website. The only link that must go to their website is for the white paper, which I believe is fair given this is technology and anyone reading this article should be able to verify the technical discussion by looking at the official white paper. The rest of the sources are secondary. shurwitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.147.125 (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, It meets WP:GNG. The article is not Advertising or direct reporting on the product, but an informational source on the unique technology. It is important the the Wikipedia audience has a reference to it. (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't just assert it, but be more specific: how exactly does it meet GNG? Also, editorial opinion on the merits of the technology must not count. Please have a look at WP:ATA. Retimuko (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to GNG, there must be significant and reliable coverage/sourcing. Forbes has discussed Ardor in more than 5 separate articles (not all of them are cited in this Wikipedia page because it is duplicative). Mobile World Congress is the largest event of telecommunications companies and utilities in the world, and Jelurida (developers behind Ardor), were recently the only blockchain finalist at MWC's 4YFN start up event - covered on all of the Mobile World Congress official channels. Ardor has been covered several times in StockNewsGazette. It has been covered on TheNextWeb.com. There are also sources such as Medium where numerous authors have discussed it. It is incredibly easy to come up with verifiable, reliable sourcing around Ardor. This article is plainly informative and includes all necessary citations - it does not advertise a product or make outrageous claims. There is also a section included on the "cons" of the technology showing where competitors may overtake it. This article is written in as neutral a tone, with as notable and reliable sources as any wikipedia article. shurwitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.147.125 (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as another non-notable cryptocurrency that fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP and WP:PROMO because there is a distinct lack of reliable sources. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a little unfair/one sided. I have provided direct citations for reliable sources, as per the requirements of GNG. This is, in fact, a notable cryptocurrency. I explained that in my response above. Why can users simply flag this and say it doesn't meet requirements without providing any details on which aspects of the article fail to meet these requirements? Forbes is a reliable source. Mobile World Congress is a reliable source and major annual global event. I have provided very clear examples of how and why this is notable, and the sources are reliable. Why are we allowing users to simply say "lack of reliable sources." Which sources are not reliable? It would be helpful for you to articulate what the issue is so it can be addressed. As of now, I am just seeing sections cited with no indication of why. Shouldn't wikipedia be erring on the side of those providing clear, detailed, responses instead of just flagging things? shurwitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.147.125 (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes is not a reliable source, Mobile World Congress is an commercial exhibition, not an independent source. All the sources are in some way unusable, and the topic itself is promotional, so it is pointless trying to articulate the issue in any other way than we are. Editors at discussions like this generally expect you to read guidelines like WP:GNG, WP:CORP and WP:PROMO to understand the issue for yourself, since it would be very long winded to quote everything in those pages here. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your bias is showing quite clearly. There is nothing about this article that is promotional, particularly when you compare it to other crypto wikipedia pages. For example, you are allowing projects like Cardano to keep a wikipedia page despite the fact their technology CAN'T DO WHAT IT SAYS. They don't have side chains, and you can't actually stake any coins on Cardano yet. Ardor is the second generation of the 1st OPERATIONAL proof of stake technology. If you think the Cardano wiki qualifies, then surely Ardor qualifies since it can deliver right here, right now everything that is said in the wikipedia article. Furthermore, this article does not take shots at other cryptos - it sticks directly to the subject matter, whereas, for example, the Cardano wikipedia takes direct shots at Ethereum, despite the fact Cardano's functions aren't operational!

This article even includes cons of the project showing how competitors could overcome it. That shows it isn't a promo! I am literally noting the bad stuff about it! Everything else is just technological fact on how this thing works.

Why are you showing bias in favor of theoretical projects instead of live ones that have been invited to present at world competitions? The 4YFN competition at Mobile World Congress requires an invitation from a judge panel. You can't pay to be a part of it. Jelurida's Ardor was the only blockchain project invited to present at this major global telecommunications event. That is notable. Not theoretical, not a promise - that is a notable fact right here, right now.

For sources, I am adding more since they are very easy to come by - including Yahoo News and International Business Times. If the combination of Forbes, CoinCentral, 4YFN, and these additional sources are not considered enough - then I want details because right now you seem to be biased towards non-operational, theoretical crypto projects. This is dangerous to consumers as you are preventing them from understanding live tech - and instead pushing them towards nonexistent, speculative technology that is nothing but promises for tomorrow. This is disappointing for Wikipedia to push consumers towards untested technology instead of allowing operational, secure tech to have a well-researched and cited wikipedia page. These sources are reliable and the technology has been noted on a global stage. This article also addresses pros and cons. This addresses all issues with GNG, CORP, and Promo. [User:shurwitz|shurwitz] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.147.125 (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding further to the above, note even the World Economic Forum considers Ardor a top 10 asset as of 2017, per their report here which directly mentions Ardor. If any other cryptocurrency is allowed to have a wikipedia page and be considered notable - then between directly being noted by the World Economic Forum and 4YFN at Mobile World Congress, this surely is notable enough. There is no place for this directly in the wikipedia article since this is more of a financial analysis, but still - it shows it is notable so I am leaving link here. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Realizing_Potential_Blockchain.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shurwitz (talk • contribs) 08:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Shurwitz: Please note that the other cryptocurrencies you mention are not notable and are on my deletion list to be deleted in due course. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have just waded through the latest batch of "indpendent" and "reliable" sources only to find press releases, an article asking the prescient question "What are Jelurida, Ardor and Nxt?" - good question, and another bloggy piece in investing.com. No - none of this is notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide details on why these same sources are considered valid for cryptocurrencies such as NEM and Cardano? The moderators of the cryptocurrency wikipedia pages are brazenly biased if any of those pages are able to remain while you flag this one for deletion. NEM cloned their technology from NXT in 2014 and simply changed its name. - go ahead and check - all the features were copied from NXT. Cardano has nothing live yet they have a wikipedia page. This is extreme bias against the team that developed the original, operational proof of stake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shurwitz (talk • contribs) 10:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The same sources are not considered valid anywhere on Wikipedia and the only reason those other articles are not being deleted right now is because the deletion process can only cope with a few at a time. Please see this list. Also I am not a moderator, nor is the nominating editor, that position does not even really exist here. -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed Ethereum gets to stay posted even though Vitalik Buterin is developing Plasma network, which copies the architecture of Ardor but won't be ready for another year. Ardor is a live blockchain as a service solution. It works today. I hope to see NEM, Cardano, and many other cryptocurrencies taken down soon if you do not consider Ardor to be worthwhile. Speaking strictly from a technological perspective, it is mind blowing you would delete this given how unique and revolutionary the architecture is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shurwitz (talk • contribs) 10:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your list for deletion shows you allowed NEM to stay after checking. It also shows EOS was allowed to stay after checking. EOS doesn't even have a live mainnet! They are just a testnet built on top of Ethereum! As mentioned above, NEM copied NXT (Ardor's version 1.0) and just changed the name 3-4 years ago. Your bias is clearly showing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shurwitz (talk • contribs) 10:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And look - you even reviewed Titcoin and found it to be worthy of keeping. Seriously, what kind of review standards are you using? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shurwitz (talk • contribs) 10:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental issue is that we are keeping articles based on how much notice they have got in secondary sources that meet our guidelines, not based on any technical ideas or even if they work. If the BBC or NYT (or any national mainstream media outlet) said that it's architecture is unique and revolutionary, then it would be kept, because that would show notability. Generally speaking the guideline to read is WP:CORP, and articles are reviewed mainly according to that. Titcoin seems to gathered attention for its name of all things, which has been covered by reliable sources, although the debate there is ongoing and it may not be kept. EOS.IO has a blockchain used for Everipedia and I am reluctant to nominate it mainly for that reason, although someone else may do so. Ethereum is clearly more notable that most cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin because of the widespread attention paid to it. As far as NEM (cryptocurrency) is concerned, I do not feel certain it would be deleted based on the sources I saw in my research, but again just because I won't nominate it for deletion at this point, does not mean it will not be nominated by another editor. Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is where I am saying there is bias. NEM has many of the same sources - The Merkle, CoinDesk, and even their own website are used as the main points of reference. Also CoinTelegraph, which is primarily paid content from what I know. Point me to how this is more credible than Ardor being mentioned in the World Economic Forum's 2017 report on cryptocurrency assets. The WEF noting something sounds pretty notable... The only additional reference I see on NEM is newsbtc.com and allcoinsnews.com so I added another article for Ardor from each of those sources since they are easy to come across.

Now that we are using the same exact sources, what is your reason for wanting to delete this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shurwitz (talk • contribs) 12:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources here and in the NEM article are unreliable, primary, paid advertising or passing mentions. The WEF noting something is not enough and in my view does not count towards notability, newsbtc.com and allcoinsnews.com are both unreliable. The only reason I won't nominate NEM is because of this BBC article. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better to be hacked for $400 million to make BBC news than develop a unique technology that gains so much value in 1 year that it gets noted by WEF and invited to 4YFN at Mobile World Congress? Odd standard/message to push. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shurwitz (talk • contribs) 13:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not understand what an encyclopedia is? We document things that have happened and been reported on in secondary sources and are settled. "the next big thing" will never have a place here until it has happened. Did you know we once deleted the article on the IPhone? And Mac OS? (several times). There is no secondary sourcing to support this article right now. Period. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Forbes sources are contributor blogs and not staff pieces, which means they are not subject to editorial oversight and are opinion rather than reporting. CoinCentral's piece finishes up with the caveat "CoinCentral's owners, writers, and/or guest post authors may or may not have a vested interest in any of the above projects and businesses." International Business Times looks like a good article, but Yahoo News is a replica of that piece. The CoinSpeaker piece is only a passing mention as is NewsBTC. The VentureBeat piece qualifies for WP:RS. Then there is a slew of sketchy looking blogs or primary sources. The International Business News and VentureBeat pieces are not enough in my opinion to assert notability on their own, and the rest aren't of any value. Isingness (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a TechCrunch mention - which is a notable site in tech and one of the most visited news sites. I removed one section with a "steemit" reference, which I find generally questionable as source (it's a self-publishing site). The World Economic Forum seems to me surely influential, reliable and independent - though it only lists Ardor as important. If push comes to shove I would suggest rather moving the text to the draft stage - as the project is young and will likely gather further sources. So maybe in draft it could get more improvements - specifically I think there are more non-notable sources that could be removed. -Thomas (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not received SIGCOV in RS. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or draftify and AfC) - mentions and coverage in non-reliable sources are not sufficient to establish notability. It seems simply WP:TOOSOON for this topic (and repeated WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are invalid for such discussions). I would support Thomas' alternative suggestion to draftify the article to improve it, when better sources become available with in-depth coverage. The entire article needs an almost complete rewrite though to remove all the trivia, irrelevant tangents, low-quality sources and non-neutral language - most of the current content is not suitable for a dispassionate non-promotional article. It should also go through AfC then to allow reviewing by an unbiased editor. GermanJoe (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP and generally WP:TOOSOON per review of available source. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Weber

AfDs for this article:

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

Weber was borderline notability before, with her coverage being mostly about her candidacy; now that she's announced that she's suspending her campaign for the NJ-7th House seat, she's unlikely to be notable in the future. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a candidate wasn't enough for notability in and of itself the first time, and the debate closed no consensus rather than a clear keep — and there weren't, and still aren't, enough sources here that predate the routine campaign coverage to deem her as having had preexisting notability for her prior work. But if her candidacy's now been withdrawn, and even the person who was most vocal in the first debate that candidacy should be enough is himself the nominator this time around, then that effectively erases every single vote that kept it from being a delete consensus the first time. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this article failed WP:NPOL when it was created, and it fails it now. I find it...odd...that the article's creator is the one nominating it for deletion now, as he vehemently opposed its deletion when I nominated it for deletion a month ago, arguing not only that it met WP:NPOL but that Weber was "notable as a business executive" and "easily meets the general notability guideline." But now that she's no longer a candidate in a race, she's not notable after all? This is the exact reason for WP:NPOL; we need to be building a timeless encyclopedia, not serving as a temporary host for campaign literature. Marquardtika (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I'm not going to attack the nominator, but I just like to point out this is why she wasn't notable the first time. Someone's level of notability doesn't decrease over time. If we're going to create an article on a person, it should be someone who is going to have lasting notability, not just someone who shows up in the current news cycle.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the person who created the article, who then argued 'keep' during the previous AfD discussion, I'd say that at those times, yes, she was notable -- in the NJ-7th, an important hotly-contested congressional district attracting national coverage -- and she had enough coverage to put her into the 'keep' zone although I'd agree it was somewhat of a borderline case before. She met the GNG but didn't meet NPOL. So in March 2018, she drops out of the race -- who can predict that -- stuff happens -- and her act of dropping out, in a real sense, invalidates the previous references and her notability. It is like she lopped off her future potential? Like, if she had stayed the fight, and lost, she would have been still notable in my view. Regardless, I'd like to add that my experience here at Wikipedia has taught me to cultivate detachment, and not get one's eyeballs glued to a particular landscape; fixedness can cripple our minds -- fluidity is good since we live in a world which changes, and we do the best that we can. She was notable, now she's not, stuff happens.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She never met GNG. You just have a flawed understanding of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Candidacy-related coverage does not help a person meet GNG while they're still a candidate, because if it did then every candidate in any election would always pass GNG and thus be exempted from having to pass NPOL. There are exceedingly rare exceptions for candidates on the order of Christine O'Donnell, who got so much nationalized and internationalized coverage that her article is longer than, and cites three times as many distinct sources as, the article about the actual senator that she lost to — but every candidate does not get an automatic GNG pass just because some media coverage exists in the campaign context itself, because some media coverage always exists for all candidates in that context. And there's also no such thing as temporary notability on here, either: either a person stays notable forever, or they were never really notable enough in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Also, WP:NOTTEMPORARY. There's no Wikipedia policy that supports political candidates being notable qua candidates, and then no longer being notable once they are no longer candidates. In fact, our notability guidelines are designed precisely to avoid this. Someone is either notable or they are not, it doesn't depend on whether they are active candidates in a political campaign. Marquardtika (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you people feel so strongly that you're right, then consider rewriting the rules. Rewrite it so that NPOL takes precedence over the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not, and never has been, as simple as "media coverage exists so we have to keep". Lots of people get some media coverage in contexts that don't count as notability claims — as I've pointed out before, if all we had to do to get an article kept was show that two pieces of media coverage exist, and the context of why it existed didn't have to clear a notability standard because its existence was enough in and of itself, then we would have to keep an article about my mother's neighbour who got into a couple of newspapers for finding a pig in her front yard. And by the same token, an otherwise non-notable person doesn't suddenly clear GNG just because her taste in interior design got her a "look at this person's lovely furniture" spread in the Homes section of the local newspaper (a thing which has also been attempted on Wikipedia more than a few times), or because she once wrote a letter to the newspaper's food section asking for a kale recipe (which has also been tried on Wikipedia...by you, in fact.) And again, no candidate in any election would ever fail GNG if candidacy-related coverage were enough — which would mean that NPOL's provision for the non-notability of candidates would be inherently eviscerated, because every single candidate in any election could always claim that the candidacy-related coverage met GNG and thus exempted them from having to pass NPOL. So no, "media coverage exists" is not, in and of itself, an exemption from having to pass an SNG: the context in which that media coverage exists is relevant to whether the person actually passes GNG or not. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the previous keep votes were built around flawed crystal ball arguments to keep the article. The coverage before was allroutine about the candidacy, and not as Tomwsulcer claimed showing that her previous actions rose to the level of notability. He continues to show that he does not in fact understand notability, since it is not temporary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying, I could use the whole "crystal ball" arguments against your "crystal ball" arguments -- that is, supposing Weber stuck in the race, and either won the primary, congressional seat, or even lost one or both -- then she would still be notable, and she would have passed the GNG (not NPOL), and Wikipedia would have voted to keep her in (imo) if another AfD happened in the future. Like it or not, all of us make guesses all the time about whether a subject is likely to be notable in the future. And Weber's decision to quit the race (as opposed to sticking it out and losing, or sticking it out and winning) invalidated her previously notable references. She "de-notable-ized" herself by dropping out.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep or delete articles based on what might become true in the future; we keep or delete articles based on what's already true today, and then permit recreation in the future if and when things have changed. A candidate is not notable during the campaign just because campaign coverage exists — once the election is over she becomes notable if she won it, but the fact that she might win an election that's still in the future does not count as a notability claim in and of itself. We're WP:NOTNEWS, so happening to be present in the current news cycle is not in and of itself grounds for inclusion — a person gets a Wikipedia article only if and when they have a credible claim to have passed the ten year test: which means holders of notable political offices, not candidates for them. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying WP:NPOL trumps WP:GNG. It's established that the GNG takes precedence (even NPOL says so). But if you want to change this, argue that on the NPOL/GNG talk pages.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Also, the WP:10YT is an essay not official policy.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. GNG is not automatically passed the moment a couple of media sources happen to exist in a purely local context, but is rather a complex balancing act between the number of sources, their depth, their geographic range and whether any of them actually verify anything that would even count as a notability claim in the first place — so it is not necessary to deprecate GNG, or pit it in a contest against a subject-specific notability standard, to deem some topics as not passing GNG just because "some media coverage exists". There's no candidate in any election who ever fails to have some media coverage. So to actually make a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article on "fails NPOL but still passes GNG on the strength of her media coverage", it does take substantial evidence that her candidacy is exponentially more notable than most other people's candidacies. By your standards, my mother's neighbour would pass GNG for the pig incident, because media coverage of it exists — but she doesn't, because her sourceability doesn't actually have the volume, the geographic range or the encyclopedic relevance needed to warrant one. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, who's your mother's neighbour -- I'm looking for new article topics. :) Also, as per WP:MOS, in your posting, you're exceeding your limit of italicized words (11). My concern is that your interpretation of the rules lends itself to us overstepping our authority -- the idea should be that the sources determine who is and isn't notable, newspaper editors, journalists, etc, not us, and when we start picking and choosing which sources we like and which we don't, we end up inserting our POV into the encyclopedia. Like, us, trying to gauge which coverage is routine (sheesh -- you've got me doing it) and which isn't, well that's us making editorial decisions, and I don't think the encyclopedia improves that way. I recommend that you consider challenging the rules on NPOL and GNG if you continue to feel as you do; or at least push the rules-writer types to clarify what's what.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes think of notability like a vector, an arrow: it's not just the present, but the present mixed with a bit of the future, as if the term being is linked with the idea of becoming. If we take a snapshot of a person, it's a still photo, but it's linked with the idea that they're alive, smiling, and will keep living in the future, and this forms part of our basis of photographing them in the present; it's the same with BLP Wikipedia articles. To use other words, what a person might do, or might become, informs our idea of what they are now, if that makes any sense. In philosophy there's this notion that there's a benefit of not getting fixated on a particular viewing angle. Intellectual detachment is healthy: fluid thinking, seeing again with new eyes, being flexible, being willing to re-think things. Seeing things in black and white, either-or, notable or non-notable, can be problematic. We live in a world which changes, so we shouldn't knot up the mainsail. We build sandcastles on shifting sands.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Leftovers (film)

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

A non-notable documentary film, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no sign of passing WP:NFILM. PROD-contested by an anonymous IP whom I'm assuming is the article creator. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes to the article. Added some trusted news links to the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigam.kirtimaan (talk • contribs) 18:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigam.kirtimaan: Those interviews with the director are not independent of the subject as required by NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I do have some newspaper cuttings and magazine cutting printed, can they be used? I am facing this same thing with other articles. Nigam.kirtimaan (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nigam.kirtimaan who is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD has been blocked indefinitely for violating WP:PAID. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM. FITINDIA 01:44, 24 March 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. There is a basic disagreement between WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. I'd recommend waiting to see how the news pans out and renominate if necessary. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Vienna stabbing

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

WP is WP:NOTNEWS. Delete it. Störm (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There are is international coverage of this incident. And a double stabbing attack is still exceptional in Vienna.--Greywin (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Need more information. Also WP:NOTNEWS. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 00:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An event like this is quite rare for Austria and has generated international coverage, as another user stated. Alex of Canada (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS, i'd suggest to delete... Gryllida (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expand?BabbaQ (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - rare event for this country. Has recieved plenty of international and natinal coverage. WP:NOTNEW does not applyfor rare incidents for particular nations. WP:CRIME and WP:GNG pretty much covers it.BabbaQ (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS fits perfectly. It might have received international coverage, but I doubt this coverage will be WP:LASTING. As such, fails WP:EVENT. Subject now meets WP:LASTING Acebulf (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you own a crystal ball? In case of a No, then what you have stated above are pure speculations. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply per coverage and rare event.BabbaQ (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Rarity has never equaled notability, nor do I recall a "rarity clause" in our policies so those arguments are useless. The coverage, and the brevity of it, are the exact reasons why this falls under NOTNEWS. As of now--and that is all we are assessing--there is no lasting significance and it does not take a crystal ball to see the coverage is dwindling. Go write for Wikinews or stop creating these articles too soon in the first place.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot deny it meets WP:LASTING now. Would have saved us a lot of time to just wait a few days after the incident, but that usually is too much to ask. Keep.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is still ongoing coverage. [36][37][38]... The Austrian chancellor just commented at the case: [39] So this is simply wrong. And I doubt anyone goes anywhere else as Wikipedia is the right place for well sourced information.--Greywin (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID. Wide international coverage of the event. Lasting impact and coverage hard to assess as the event is new, requiring a BALL.Icewhiz (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC) Withdrawing !vote as seems coverage did not persist past 8 March.Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue, see article.--80.156.232.139 (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7 of 11 sources are past 8 March. And there is still ongoing coverage.--Greywin (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Not only as per WP:RAPID and because of intense international coverage, but because Prime Minister Sebastian Kurz has now weighed in in a manner that makes this crime a significant part of his Party's anti-immigration policy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC) Looks like just another case of an angry migrant who failed to build a life for himself, picked up a knife, got addicted to drugs, went on a deadly stabbing spree (which included a drug dealer he blamed for his addiction and an innocent family of three), but the migrant failed even to attract more than an initial flurry of press attention. Withdraw iVote. No prejudice against re-creating article if, for whatever reason, his trial, his immigration status, or some other aspect of the case attract SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC) see new iVote below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why recreate when significant coverage is ongoing. Not only the Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has weighed in, the country takes the case as a reason to change its asylum policy! If that's not significant, what is significant for you?--Greywin (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING, "rare for this country" is simply an opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At present I think strength of policy/guideline arguments favor deletion but consensus is pretty weak. Relisting in the hopes of getting a more definitive consensus one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a week and a half later, the event is still tragic, but it fails WP:NOTNEWS and doesn't seem to have any lasting impact. SportingFlyer talk 00:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There is ongoing coverage, and a change of the policy of a country is definitely a lasting impact, even if it's disliked by some. People who ignore this obviously want to ignore and delete unwanted information.--Greywin (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF Acebulf (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An excellent case of WP:LASTING: «On 13 March the Austrian Interior Minister Herbert Kickl announced that Austria will change its asylum policy because of this and other incidents». WP:LASTING reads «Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation». Also, the article clearly meets both WP:SIGCOV and WP:GEOSCOPE, with coverage cited in the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom. A clearer case for Keep is rarely seen. XavierItzm (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep changing iVote in light of announced change in government policy regarding asylum seekers, described by cabinet minister as a response to this and other recent criminal acts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks to be notable, especially due to the change in government policy it triggered as mentioned by other commenters. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article now meets WP:LASTING. Changing !vote. Acebulf (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. News-type content. If the significance of the event is a change in government policy, then write an article about that policy and mention the event. Yes, I know, it is more fun to write easily sourced news rehashes about exciting stabbings than boring, intellectual overviews of policy, but that's what distinguishes an encyclopedia from a newspaper. Sandstein 08:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't remember a guideline that demands "boring, intellectual overviews of policy" instead of articles on notable events basing on international, reputable sources.--Greywin (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. All murders are tragic, but not all are notable. Just because this is vaguely tied to "Islamic terror" doesn't make it notable either. I find it non-credible that this and 2018 Vienna embassy stabbing are both notable as a pretext for a minor policy change on asylum (the FPÖ already opposed immigration, etc.) power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A policy change is major and affects international relations, when even the upcoming EU presidency will be used for it.--Greywin (talk) 20:40, 24 March 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 08:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Puccinelli

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

Non-notable TV reporter. I could not find coverage of him in independent reliable sources to clear WP:GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like almost all other local TV reporters, Puccinelli is non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Star Trek regions of space#Galactic quadrants. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 08:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic quadrant (Star Trek)

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

Pure fancruft, only sourced to primary, Star Trek based books/media, but not notable outside of that except as throwaway terms. Belongs in Wikia rather than Wikipedia. Also covered in List of Star Trek regions of space. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically a contradictory mish-mosh of in-universe detail, details which the shows' producers couldn't bother to keep straight and which have no notability/importance outside of that. --Calton | Talk 15:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge It's not difficult to find sources such as Star Trek - The Americanization of Space or The Star Trek Encyclopedia and there are obvious alternatives to deletion. Possible merge targets include Galactic_quadrant#Star_Trek and List of Star Trek regions of space and merge is preferable per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that those sources are basically in-universe, and don't demonstrate that anyone OUTSIDE of unierse-building Star Trek fans knows about or cares about this fancruft. --Calton | Talk 02:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no question that this meets WP:Notable. Time and time again people have tried to attack articles that satisfy WP:Notable by trying to ignore or exclude so-called "in-universe" sources. Well, by that logic, we'll never have a Wikipedia article on the Universe or the Planet Earth as all sources are from within our planet. In any case, if you want a non-universe source, look no further than File:Galactic Quadrant Star Trek.png, which is based on a map produced by the Canadian Galactic Plane Survey, which, for fun, plotted various Star Trek civilizations and the Star Trek Galactic quadrants on their star map. I have seen countless non-Star Trek films/TV shows which may use the term "Alpha quadrant" as a nod to Star Trek in a similar manner. Finally, the simple fact that this article is available in over a dozen different languages demonstrates that it is inherently notable. It would be ridiculous for an article to be available in so many languages but not in English. —CodeHydro 12:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your form of logic is a rather bizarre misuse of the term "in-universe". To help you out:

An in-universe perspective describes the narrative (or a fictional element of the narrative, such as characters, places, groups, and lore) from the vantage of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. Many fan wikis and fan websites (see below) take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles. An in-universe perspective can be misleading to the reader, who may have trouble differentiating between fact and fiction within the article. Furthermore, articles with an in-universe perspective are more likely to include unverifiable original research due to reliance on the primary source. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be[emphasis added].

If the only evidence you're providing for "galactic quadrants" being noticed OUTSIDE of Star Trek fandom is an explicitly "for fun" (your term) reference to Star Trek on a map, then you're making my case for me. --Calton | Talk 17:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really comparing the actual UNIVERSE, REAL LIFE to a fictional concept and using that to negate the very concept of "in-universe sources"? I think you might need to get a reality check._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comment about in-universe was made in jest. In any case, you are choosing to ignoring the single most compelling argument is the fact that the Star Trek Galactic Quadrant has dedicated articles in over a dozen language Wikipedias. This by itself shows notability, and again, it would be absurd for something to appear in so many languages but not English. —CodeHydro 12:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, no it doesn't. In fact that's the very definition of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The other language Wikipedias tend to be far more lenient about fancruft since there are simply less people to patrol them and source them. There is nothing odd about an article being deleted in English as it likely means the others should be deleted but haven't yet._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Star_Trek_regions_of_space#Galactic_quadrants. An unjustified spin-out and a gross failure of WP:WAF. No need to delete the history, it could be useful in selective merging back. Anyone interested in coverage if this in-universe fiction should go to http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/ --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this used to be a cleaner article but at some point, looking at the Talk:Galactic quadrant (Star Trek), another article was merged into it haphazardly which caused it to become cluttered the way it is today. It needs to be cleaned up and re-organized. I think this is too influential a concept in science fiction to be turned into a mere item on a list. —CodeHydro 12:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note I added a new section Galactic_quadrant_(Star_Trek)#Cultural_references. I only spent 20 minutes. I'm sure it can be fleshed out more. —CodeHydro 13:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Your first claim, that it became a meme, has no proof. Just being placed on a shirt does not make something a meme, it has to actually have popularity notable enough to mention in the press, which it very likely doesn't. The second one is a contributor written article, meaning it's not a reliable source. The third isn't even related to quadrants used in Star Trek. The fourth is a single quote from a show, which is pure trivia. None of the added items count towards the article's notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - We are just skimming the surface. I added yet another section Galactic_quadrant_(Star_Trek)#Star-Trek-style_quadrants_in_other_works, which shows the influence on science fiction literature —CodeHydro 17:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fails WP:NOR. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Star_Trek_regions_of_space#Galactic_quadrants. Plausible search term, but no independent notability. PhilKnight (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transport to List_of_Star_Trek_regions_of_space#Galactic_quadrants, leaving an ion trail behind. Energize. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phase modulation with the framistat will mask the ion trail. Sheesh. Did you even go to Starfleet Academy? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carena Roller

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

Non-notable judge. Usually Wikipedia articles about circuit court judges exist only if the judge presided over a notable criminal case or went viral which Judge Roller did neither. Also the article is poorly sourced. Otis the Texan (talk) --Otis the Texan (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Judges at the trial court level of the court system are not inherently notable, per WP:JUDGE. The article has no sources other than the government press release announcing the subject's appointment as a judge. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can actually show much more solid reliable sourcing. Judges are considered notable if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG, but are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie, or an exemption from having to pass GNG, just because the government's press release announcing their appointment to the court technically verifies that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches show only the sort of WP:ROUTINE coverage that we would ordinarily expect of a circuit court judge. No indication that there is anything unusual to this judge's notability under GNG or the applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:12, 19 March 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.

[1] ttps://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/business/.premium-relocation-to-startup-nation-1.5259747

[2] ttp://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Benjamin-Netanyahu/etanyahu-flies-to-Thessaloniki-for-trilateral-summit-with-Greece-Cyprus-496851

[1]

[2]