Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 October	8 October >

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. Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apidura

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

This recent AfC approve contains only references to niche sources, blogs, and reviews. The writeup in The Guardian is a passing mention and an interview. A look for more reliable references didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NCORP. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirbanzo: You referred to WP:BIO, but this article is about a company, not a person. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self-trout. Cited the wrong notability guideline on accident. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Included few RS, as that of ′UK Govt. Companies House′, ′Company Check UK′, ′Companies London′ having valid company registration info. --Gpkp (u • t • c) 12:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute, of course, that the company does exist. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCOMPANY. FitIndia ^Talk 05:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of the references are from significant sources. Bikeradar is the world's most comprehensive online cycling resource and neither Cyclist or Road.cc are niche publications. There are references from both The Guardian and Evening Standard. Please let me know what type of sources would be helpful in supporting notability. Bemoremike (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bemoremike is the creator of the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, since subject fails WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Path

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

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. The few references to reliable sources discuss the acquisition of the company, which is specifically classified by WP:CORPDEPTH as "trivial coverage". Cited book is not an independent source, because it was written by company co-founders. Sources outside of the article are no better. — Newslinger talk 23:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an article about a subsidiary of a company that does not have an article. The article seems to fail WP:N, WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG by itself although it gets a lot of mentions in articles about its parent (see the news link above). It has had some mentions in partnerships, but these are really just press releases. There are not stories about the company as a subject to date.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 23:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 23:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 23:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 23:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lyapunov family

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

A translation of the Russian page ru:Ляпуновы with only Russian sources, that leaves out the key fact that the Russian page does NOT claim that all the Lyapunov's listed are part of the same family. power~enwiki (π, ν) 13:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, surely, subject to pruning - if the Russian sources confirm this as a genuine Russian noble family, as they seem to, then shouldn't the article stay, minus the individuals that are not confirmed as belonging to it? Eustachiusz (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I don't see references saying anything more than that certain individuals from the 16th century may have been part of a noble family, which is a trivial mention of the topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough sources for a reasonable stub at least, and the individuals can migrate to a the surname page. I don't see the justification for deletion. Eustachiusz (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] My Russian is minimal and it has taken me this long to look more closely at the Russian page but I've now done so, and stand by what I wrote above: the sources given are more than enough to establish the noble family of the name, and I'll import them. However, the translation is not brilliant, and has missed the line in the Russian article which adds that there are [two] other families of Lyapunov, without clarifying which family the more recent L's belong to. I'll clean up accordingly.Eustachiusz (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems a perfectly servicable encyclopaedia entry to me. AGF on the Russian language sources and the dubious list of names has now been removed. SpinningSpark 10:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Outdoor Media

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

Fails WP:NCORP. ∯WBG^converse 14:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 19:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sakaimover (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet notability criteria. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mahesh Murthy. (non-admin closure) So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinstorm

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

No source that devotes significant coverage to the company per WP:NCORP. Bytes by it's founder has made way to reliable sources but nothing yet for a standalone article.

Might be redirected to Mahesh Murthy.

This did not feature any significant coverage. ∯WBG^converse 14:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Mahesh Murthy in lieu of deletion as suggested by the nominator. No prejudice against undoing the redirect if significant coverage in reliable sources is found.
Cunard (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 11:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arifa Sayeda Zehra

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

Unelected MP, and an interim cabinet minister in a country where we've a unique system of interim government - both at the centre and in the provinces.

I don't think interim cabinet minister are something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia, unless pass GNG.

Subject also lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources and therefore does not appear to meet basic GNG as well. Saqib (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of description in independent sources. Orientls (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whoever is filling the office of cabinet minister is notable, regardless of the peculiarity of the official title. (I gather that by "unique" in this case it is likely to be for more than a short time, regardless of the word "interim" ) DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Caretaker_cabinet_members. --Saqib (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Knightrises10 (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, changing my vote as I think the reasoning provided by Thsmi002 is more sound. The subject has been part of a number of news sources. Thanks, Knightrises10 talk 10:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I don't think being part of a 20 person temporary cabinet guarantees notability and my search didn't turn up enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. If someone can turn up additional significant coverage from Pakistani sources I'm willing to reconsider my vote. Papaursa (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that the additional sources found below by Thsmi002 and Originalmess are more than enough to show that WP:GNG is met. I thought the article had one good source when I originally voted, but now I think more have been found. Papaursa (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A professor, college principal and politician would seem to indicate the person has some notability. But there seems precious little information available in reliable sources. W C M_email 13:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#6 as the principal of the Lahore College for Women University. I agree with WCM that sourcing is sparse. Also, based on sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] I think the article should be renamed to Arfa Sayeda Zehra. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure if WP:PROF #6 applies; someone with more knowledge of the Pakistani university system should know if principal is ever the highest position - principal could've been the highest post at that point, but it currently is not. However, here's more sources: 1 2 3 (smaller mention/her opening remarks at a forum she ran) 4 5 6. I'm too tired to check how well they apply to GNG with the other sources, but they (and one of the other sources found by Thsmi002) might make a case for WP:PROF #1. She seems to be highly respected in the Urdu language field, which is her country's national language. If they don't support GNG or PROF#1, I'll change my vote. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 06:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet with regards to either of WP:GNG and WP:PROF.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sallam SK

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

This looks like a case of WP:NOTINHERITED and there is no evidence of satisfying either WP:BIO or general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 10:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG due to coverage in GNews etc. James500 (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment James500, but the sources on GNews are not independent of the subject and provide nothing beyond passing mention which is insufficient to establish independent notability and being a Manager of a notable person does not automatically make him notable. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands, fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. No prejudice on recreation. SportingFlyer talk 20:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly satisfies WP:GNG.[5][6] Wikipedia does have articles on managers of other notable people. Excelse (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, ghafla.com seems to be an unreliable source and a link to pulselive.co.ke is insufficient to establish independent notability. Also, if other stuff exists, then they can be dealt with in the appropriate venue(s) as well. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, needs independent reliable sources for this to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. FitIndia ^Talk 05:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:ANYBIO; sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete, therefore default keep. Tone 08:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tropy

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

Quite entirely lacking in independent coverage; all sources are in-house or directly connected with the project. Considering the thing was released just a year ago, it's not that surprising. I suggest this falls at the WP:TOOSOON hurdle until and unless there is some wider uptake and/or coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the organization that is developing the software, Center for History and New Media. _signed,Rosguill^talk 17:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a categorized {{R from subtopic}} to Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media where I have added a mention. Subject currently does not meet the inclusion criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (software) or the general notability guideline. Sam Sailor 07:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC) (Amended. Sam Sailor 08:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep after reviewing the sources added by David Tornheim. Sam Sailor 08:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I see multiple independent articles on it: [7],[8],[9]. Hence, meets WP:GNG. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the links provided by David Tornheim show that this tool meets WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge, I'm not persuaded by the refs noted here however it isn't a delete. Szzuk (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A little bit more opinions on the sources provided by David Tornheim would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Adults

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

Film does not appear to be notable. I could not find coverage in independent sources in Russian or English, and the claim that it is "one of the best films in the film career of Lev Durov and Margarita Sergeyecheva" appears to come from IMDB's trivia section for the film; the film is not included as a notable work in the article for Lev Durov. Fails WP:GNG, WP:FILM. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How much were you able to look at Russian-language sources? Do we need to ask someone involved in Russia-related topics to look in such sources? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fluent speaker but I can read Russian well enough to search the internet. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable in English-language sources as far as I can tell; I trust that Rosguill did their best checking Russian-language sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional sources have been added, establishing that the film won a prize from the Union of Cinematographers of the USSR, and the Grand Prize of the Golden Prague (Zlata Praha) International Television Film Festival. However, these awards do not appear to be notable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the criticism section seems to show that the film has received attention in Russian reliable sources such as literary magazine Yunost and film magazine Soviet Screen, following AGF as the links are erroneous, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Won awards. James500 (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's some coverage in Russian [10], plus the Grand Prix at a festival; satisfies WP:NFILM. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On account of award it received and Russian coverage. Finnishela (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valencia mine

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

There is no evidence that there is, was or will be an actual mine on this site. It has only been an exploration target http://www.uranium-network.org/index.php/africalink/namibia/173-valencia-mine/378-valencia-mine-in-namibia Scott Davis ^Talk 04:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more suitable to be included information at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_Namibia#Valencia - there is nothing apart from a 2011 report - JarrahTree 04:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This reports the project laying off workers and this from the Namibian Uranium Association gives the details of its history. Maybe the article should be renamed, but there is really no case for deletion. SpinningSpark 13:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. It seems to be an exploratory mine that once employed 30 people. May be notable in the future if the price of uranium rebounds and the mine actually begins to operate. Sources above are one report of reducing the number of workers and another PR-type piece in a non-independent organization. Fails to meet GNG. MB 02:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG (e.g., please see [11], which provides a lot of references to The Namibian, Allgemeine Zeitung and Die Republikein). However, I propose to merge this article and Namibplaas mine and rename the merged article Norasa uranium project as these two projects are merged. Beagel (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this source as adding any independent coverage. WISE is an organization whose stated mission is "a world without Nuclear Power" and they seem to track everything going on in the uranium industry. Isn't this more of a blog than independent journalism. MB 03:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WISE's site provides references to The Namibian, Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Republikein etc. It is not important what WISE says, it is important that a number of Namibian newspapers have wrote about that mine. If these newspapers have published these articles about this mine, that is enough for WP:GNG. The fact that WISE is biased or how they select their sources does not disqualify these newspapers per se. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support Beagel's rename and merge suggestion. SpinningSpark 13:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets GNG per sources already present in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage from The Namibian and The Globe and Mail. — Newslinger talk 04:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. The only reference from the Globe and Mail is [12] in 2011 which is about a possible takeover of Forsys Metals and mentions the Valencia deposit once, in paragraph 9 of 15 (Namibia is also in paragraph 3). --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While the word "Valencia" only appears in the article once, the entire article discusses the uranium deposit in Namibia, which is the basis of the Valencia project. — Newslinger talk 14:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Patel

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

This guy certainly has got loads of money and that's undoubted given that he has got some trivial mentions as a (5 crore INR) bidder of a suite worn by Narendra Modi.

Has got some trivial mentions in his role as to the Patidar agitation by Hardik Patel.

Some coverage in unreliable sites like <www.gujaratheadline.com>, <patelsamaj.co.in>, <National Herald> are located.

Overall, there is a complete dearth of any significant coverage on him that would make him pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG.

Do not confuse with other Mukesh Patel-s. ∯WBG^converse 08:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Article should be in the Wikipedia as we can easily find So many Reliable Sources in it. Each and every Tex and Paragraph is written on the basis of Highly Regional and National Reliable Sources, Like Divya Bhaskar, ABP Asmita, VTV-Gujarati, The Indian Express, The Financial Express, National Herald (India), The Pioneer and many more.

This Article is also reviewed by many Users and Administrators.

Moreover, 5 crore INR bidder of Narendra Modi's Suite and Role in Patidar agitation by Hardik Patel, He is also a Social Worker, Trustee at Ashadeep Group of Schools and a Big Business Magnate which you can verify it from the Source like Divya Bhaskar which is Biggest Gujarati News Paper at this time

So, by considering all these things, He should be on Wikipedia

Radadiyageet (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Radadiyageet, National Herald is as reliable as Fox-news is.anything that can be reasonably exploited to generate an anti-Modi-image and they latch onto it.Sort of a competitor of RepublicTV.As to rest, utter rubbish. ∯WBG^converse 11:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 10:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think The time has come to remove Deletion Template from the Article Mukesh Patel as It is found as a notable from the reliable sources. Radadiyageet (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Radadiyageet I am not entirely convinced if this subject merits an article. can you provide the actual links of the above sources that you are using to claim notability, that will probably help your cause. regards. --DBig Xrayᗙ 20:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DBig Xrayᗙ, Please find the bolow links as required

Divya Bhaskar (Biggest Gujarati newspaper showing Biography of Mukesh Patel)

Link 1: https://www.divyabhaskar.co.in/news/DGUJ-SUR-c-99-surati-industrialist-mukesh-patel-birth-day-know-story-of-successful-person-NOR.html?seq=1

Link 2:

https://www.divyabhaskar.co.in/news/DGUJ-SUR-HMU-MAT-latest-surat-news-033003-1398089-NOR.html

ABP Asmita

Link: https://abpasmita.abplive.in/surat/it-raid-at-surats-businessman-mukesh-patel-home-102919#image1

VTV-Gujarati

Link: https://www.vtvgujarati.com/news-details/news_detail-22070

The Indian Express

Link: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/narendra-modis-suit-sold-for-rs-4-31-crore/

The Financial Express

Link: https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/pm-narendra-modis-controversial-pinstripe-bandhgala-suit-up-for-auction-today/44261/

National Herald (India)

Link: https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/gujarat-assembly-elections-2017/bjp-its-pawn-mukesh-patel-tried-every-trick-to-bring-hardik-down-only-to-see-his-popularity-rise

The Pioneer (newspaper)

Link: https://www.dailypioneer.com/2015/page1/modis-suit-raises-rs431-cr-for-ganga-mission.html

The Telegraph (Calcutta)

Link: https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/threat-to-patel-bjp-meet/cid/1517492

India News

Link: https://www.inkhabar.com/national/23862-video-hardik-patel-cousin-brother-caught-sting-operation-while-taking-money

India TV

Link: https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india-hardik-patel-in-soup-after-video-shows-cousin-taking-rs-30-lakh-bribe-347178

BBC Gujarati

Link: https://www.bbc.com/gujarati/india-43903146

The Times of India

Link: http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31805&articlexml=SURATS-TOP-REAL-ESTATE-GROUP-BAGS-AN-AWARD-27052015103005

Ahmedabad Mirror

Link: https://ahmedabadmirror.indiatimes.com/ahmedabad/others/articleshow/46305073.cms

After reading all these above News Articles, you will get to know about everything written on Wikipedia article Mukesh Patel is based on the reliable sources.

So now Please remove deletion template from the Top in Article Mukesh Patel as it follows notability guidelines of the Wikipedia completely. Radadiyageet (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: advertorially-toned BLP, with sources that are in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO; too promotional to consider keeping in the first place. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination this strictly promotional article on a subject that distinctly lacks Wikinotability. -The Gnome (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Space Launcher System

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

This stub has been totally unsourced since its inception in 2011. I performed a WP:BEFORE search looking for books written in the 20th century, as any significant 1960s project should be covered in that scope of publications.[13] I found nothing about this project, only a few mentions of a generic "space launcher system" that could be developed in Europe or Russia in the future. Consequently, given the high probability of confusion with the current Space Launch System, this article should be removed. Apparently there is some real history of discussions about the Titan I potential upgrades, but there is no indication that an actual project plan called "Space Launcher System" ever existed, and if it did it would not meet WP:GNG until ample coverage in WP:RS can be exhibited. — JFG ^talk 12:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We can confirm its existence – it gets a passing mention in Historical Guide to NASA and the Space Program, but only to say that it is a USAF project from the 1960s and nothing to do with the NASA program. SpinningSpark 09:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 04:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The creator of the article is too pissed with you all to come here himself, but tells me that the source was Heppenheimer. He cannot remember the name of the book, but it may have been The Space Shuttle Decision: Nasa's Search for a Reusable Space Vehicle. On the basis of that, I think we should AGF that this actually is reliably sourced, even if the source is currently uncertain. I have put in a request for verification of this source at WP:LIB. SpinningSpark 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The Space Shuttle Decision is available at the Internet Archive. It does not contain the search term, but does describe a USAF launcher with boosters which may be the same thing. Heppenheimer's Countdown : A History of Space Flight, which I have on loan, also does not contain the term. SpinningSpark 15:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: Many thanks for the background information. I don't think Wikipedia should keep an article based on a made-up term, especially as it can easily be confused with the Space Launch System. Certainly this project could be mentioned in articles about Titan I, Titan III, USAF, or the Space Shuttle. There's not enough material to salvage for a dedicated article. — JFG ^talk 10:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: It's not a made-up term. The NASA source I linked in my first comment uses this exact name (capitalised as a proper noun and identified as a USAF 1960s project). SpinningSpark 10:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was only referring to the Heppenheimer books, which apparently discuss the USAF project without naming it that. The "Historical Guide" source only mentions "Space Launcher System" in a short note in its "Space Launch System" entry, to warn readers against confusion. We can't hang our article title on this only. Irrespective of the name, we are far from demonstrating WP:GNG yet. I have downloaded the 1999 book from Internet Archive and looked for passages discussing boosters: they mostly debate the pros and cons of reusability and refer to possible evolutions of Titan III. What is the exact passage you referred to when saying the book describes "a USAF launcher with boosters which may be the same thing"? I'd like to see which concept we are talking about. Note on page 353 the authors state: This diversity of boosters meant that there now was no clear reason to choose any of them. The wide range of alternatives recalled the era of the late 1960s, when a hundred flowers had bloomed and when neither NASA nor the Air Force had yet developed a convincing idea of how a shuttle should look. If this USAF concept was indeed one of those "hundred flowers", why should it be elevated above others? Engineers from various contractors discussed plenty of variants, but it does not look like this one got any substantial-enough traction to become encyclopedic. — JFG ^talk 10:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now you've challenged me, I'm not quite sure what I was looking at when I said that. It was probably the drawing on page 87. But on a closer look, that is the Titan IIIM for which we already have an article. EDIT: There is also a discussion of USAF design research on the preceding pages, but it is far from clear whether any of it has to do the subject here. I'm ok with a merge and redirect or dab page to a suitable article. SpinningSpark 11:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article creator could shed some light on the naming? @Maury Markowitz: You wrote: It was from one of Heppenheimer's books, perhaps The Space Shuttle Decision. But it was over 7 years ago, I really can't say. Looking at those books, we have not seen the term "Space Launcher System", but we have seen discussion of various engineering options by the USAF, NASA and industry contractors. Do you have first-hand knowledge besides what you remember reading in such books? The contents of the article as it stands could be folded into Titan I, Titan IIIC, Titan IIIM, Space Shuttle and X-20 Dyna Soar. However the assertions made must be sourced, and the article title must go if we can't find well-sourced corroboration. Any help appreciated. — JFG ^talk 13:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so others can say something, and the current two participants can continue to "debate".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never mind the rocket science minutiae above, an article with zero sources in the actual article even after three weeks of AfD will realistically never get any and therefore needs to go per WP:V. Sandstein 18:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is Space Launching System. While I have found a couple of usage as Launcher, I think Launching is the correct word. Of course the overused same TLA of SLS for similar systems makes it difficult to find the right sources. The article Aerojet M-1 mentions Launcher which is probably this article, but no inline sources so it is hard to know which source to use. This article should be Moved/Renamed if sources agree. StrayBolt (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Munzihirwa Centre, Kinshasa

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 11:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough substantial independent sources to satisfy GNG turn up with searches on French name. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a total of 38 hits on Google, 1 on Google News and 0 (zero) at Google scholar. The Banner talk 18:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Counting the g-hits is less likely to be fruitful than considering the relevance and reliability of the sources they reveal (a doctoral thesis, a report by an international body, a Cambridge University Press reference work, and so forth). If you're not comfortable with French, just take our word for it. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am comfortable enough with my French, but I am also comfortable with WP:RS, independent sourcing and dead links. The Banner talk 22:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable French book sources coverage, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mind to show that? The Banner talk 18:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glenview Capital Management

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable hedge fund. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is routine notices, passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP. Created by Special:Contributions/OnceaMetro currently indef blocked as a spam-only account. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The usual level where we have an article for investment companies is$ 1billion capital under management. It could reasonably be argued that due to the expansion of this sector of the economy, that's no longer a sufficiently notable level, but this firm;; has $16 billion, whichis enough to presume notability . DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: I don't think that's quite right. For me, a good rule of thumb is $1bln for venture capital firms that are investing in new companies, in relatively small amounts. Hedge funds are just investing in stocks, etc., and for them $16blm "under management" is rather routine. In any case, I've not seen significant coverage in my WP:BEFORE searches. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm undecided; there do seem to be some mentions but they're largely about people affiliated with the company rather than the company itself; the SeekingAlpha portfolio summary also isn't quite what I'd want to see. A redirect to Larry Robbins would probably be preferable to deletion. Regardless, a lot of the current content is bad and should be removed; to start with I doubt any of the awards listed are relevant. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This firm is a big deal and widely reported on. Certainly the most interesting stories in RS focus on the founder, but the firm itself is independently notable with plenty of in-depth coverage of its activities above and beyond what would be considered "routine coverage". See for example its history with Cigna[1][2][3], DowDupont[4][5] and Tenet[6][7][8]. Needs improvement, but definitely not a delete. Pegnawl (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've begun editing the entry to address concerns cited above; there's plenty more that can still be introduced to the entry or expanded upon based on the refs available, which are plentiful. Pegnawl (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Larry Robbins. I understand where DGG is coming from but nothing in the guidelines assigns a monetary value to notability. Instead, the notability criteria for companies and organizations requires two references that provide significant in-depth intellectually-independent coverage on the company. The WP:NCORP guidelines further clarifies that articles that are substantially based on company announcements or run-of-the-mill listings fail the criteria. Also, notability isn't inherited - therefore the articles profiling the CEO or commenting on their involvement with various business transactions, no matter how contentious, likewise fails the criteria. From my reading, not a single one of the references provided here or in the article, nor any references I could locate myself, meet the criteria. Also, from WP:ORGIND
Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
The references provided above by Pegnawl fail the criteria when measured against these requirements. Topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument for merge would have to apply to George Soros and Soros Fund Management too, so I disagree. For WP:NCORP the first bullet under examples of substantial coverage is a news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger. This article also has been changed substantially since the proposed deletion and should be voted on what is there right now.--FrankTursetta (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But Glenview wasn't the subject of a prolonged corporate merger (the point being made in NCORP) so that isn't relevant to this AfD? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: comparing the founder to George Soros is very close to WP:EINSTEIN and WP:OSE; none are valid arguments in a deletion discussion. In any case, no sources to meet WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND have been offered in this debate, and I don't believe that they exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Posted above are six refs for your consideration, and a few more added directly to entry. To HighKing's comment about these refs being based on company announcements, therefore trivial, ignores the nine examples of trivial coverage that NCORP lists under this bullet - none of which apply to these refs. It also fails to acknowledge the very first bullet under examples of substantial coverage, and yes, one would think that being the catalyst of or a major player in contentious multinational merger discussions applies when the firm name appears throughout an article. Each are in an independent source (and not churnalism far as I can tell), so I'm not sure why ORGIND is relevant, and only half of them include mention of Robbins (in all cases the primary focus is the firm). Pegnawl (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Using arguments such as "other stuff exists", e.g. about the article on George Soros (even if correct about that) leads nowhere. Subject simply fails WP:NCORP. The efforts of fellow editors, especially members of related task forces, are welcome and quite admirable, at least by me, but the contested article is well presented puffery. -The Gnome (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : There seems to be a blooming of Wikipedia text promoting financial and investment sector corporations, of late. Could be a sign of the US economy moving further up. Or maybe down. Or that we have too many worker bees around. -The Gnome (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wizzo

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. No indication of awards or charted songs. The sources cited either don't mention this person, or mention only his name. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No reliable sources that extensively cover this individual. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ANYBIO. MX (✉ • ✎) 13:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pwer nomination. Better luck next time. -The Gnome (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karma.Bloody.Karma

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

There is an AllMusic review but no rating, which is odd. I searched for additional sources but could find none. Seems to fail WP:NALBUM and definitely fails WP:GNG. Not sure the "reviews" meet RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the reviews cited in the article (Exclaim! and Alternative Press, which are both established music magazines and reliable sources, as well as AllMusic) are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and by extension the first point of WP:NALBUM. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Cattle Decapitation. Further coverage here, but I'm not sure there's enough to justify a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blink Digital

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

Fails WP:NCORP. ∯WBG^converse 14:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertorial, and some of it (at least) is copy-pasted straight out of the sources. Might even qualify for speedy deletion. SpinningSpark 22:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a publicity company will need to pass a high threshold of coverage for wP:SIGCOV also fails WP:NCORP--DBig Xrayᗙ 18:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Italia Rugby Football League

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

Not the official Italian Rugby league (the real is the FIRL - Federation Italia Rugby league - affiliated members of the RLIF) this is a rebel organisation that isn't recognised by the Rugby league International Federation. C0c0nutzg (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you implying this fails WP:GNG? SportingFlyer talk 21:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a "rebel" league isn't grounds for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being a "rebel organization" isn't a valid ground for deletion. But failure to meet the GNG IS one. No refs that aren't primary here, where are the sources? Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We are not here to establish the legitimacy of an organisation, but whether it is notable. Given that there are coverage of the league [14][15][16][17][18], it should qualify under WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lu Yu-hsiu

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

Fails WP:GNG, with the only sources on Google being this page, a mirror thereof, a WikiData item of this page, the NTNU website (not independent), two tracks[19][20] cited (trivial mention) to her, and a passing mention here about one of her works. Also fails WP:ACADEMIC as I have found nothing of her works on Google Scholar or any citation thereof other than those previously mentioned. FWIW, her Chinese Wikipedia entry, as translated by Google, also doesn't cite any sources. John M Wolfson (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be an unsourced BLP. My own searches in Google Scholar and on the internet at large fail to turn up any significant independent coverage or papers. Therefore, unless other sources come to light, I'd say she fails to meet both WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Papaursa (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There were no more objections after Lonehexagon's improvements. Sandstein 18:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Galway

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

Biography of a flutist created by a now-blocked undisclosed paid editor. Only one source[21] provides any significant coverage of the person's marriage to a knighted man but zero coverage of her as a flutist; the rest are directory profiles or interviews or trivial mentions, not actual coverage of the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 17:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 17:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. There are a lot of sources in GNews saying things like "internationally renowned" [22] etc, and being internationally renowned is certainly notable. James500 (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That source is about her husband, and gives her a trivial mention. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anachronist, it sure is brief but does say Ms. Galway is "internationally renowned" so may count towards something. The article was on a concert given together but since James is the local dude, it concentrated on him. Since then, Lonehexagon worked hard on referencing the article. All these sources were out there and relevant also before his hard work per WP:NEXIST. How about commenting on what is important to passing the WP:GNG or not? Every comment to the core counts. Or maybe withdraw this nomination altogether? gidonb (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, product of UPE. Plus, if she really is "internationally renowned", why aren't there more sources about her specifically rather than mentions in articles about her husband? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PMC, given the thorough referencing of this article by Lonehexagon, do you still hold this opinion? gidonb (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article doesn't make a sufficient claim to significance, it looks a mixture of inherited and promotional, tagged paid. Refs aren't worth much, google showing nothing i can see. Szzuk (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Szzuk, given the thorough referencing of this article by Lonehexagon, do you still hold this opinion? gidonb (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found more sources and fixed up the article greatly. It now satisfies WP:GNG for significant discussion in independent secondary sources. Some examples of significant discussion about her: [23][24][25] (additional sources in the article) Lonehexagon (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NMUSICIAN criterion #1 and WP:NEXIST. Kudos to Lonehexagon for finding the sources that should resolve the concerns of the delete sayers. Lonehexagon, did you rewrite the article to the degree that the "undisclosed paid" warning is no longer needed? gidonb (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe so. Lonehexagon (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lonehexagon! I have removed the warning accordingly. gidonb (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need a little bit more consensus that the newly added sources are satisfactory.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Three legit sources showing in the footnotes: Newsday, Flute View, and Teen Ink. Don't overthink this, simple GNG pass as the subject of multiple independently published pieces of coverage in sources of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Olson

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

Not sure he meets WP:NAUTHOR. I ran his name plus his book names through Newspapers.com looking for reviews and came up with fairly little - one from Iowa, one from Wisconson, and this one from his home town inMinnesota. I'm not sure the first two are enough to hang an article on, and the third is absolutely a prime example of a purely local interest story. I wasn't able to find much else. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as probable PROMO, but, in any event, as a writer for whom sufficient independent, cannot be found, fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:AUTHOR. Feel free to ping me to revisit if someone sources it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
deleteAlso have not been able to find reference to supportWP:SIGCOV, WP:AUTHOR. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Clowry

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

not notable Mccapra (talk) 19:28, 7 October 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 October 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Sakaimover (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC) Changing to Keep in light of additions by Duffbeerforme. Sakaimover (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he does pass WP:NBASKETBALL by appearing in the National Basketball League (Australia) for 10 games in 1995. There is not much about him on Google but since he played over 20 years ago thats maybe not unexpected. There might possibly be something about him in the printed media. But if these 10 games where the entirety of his career, then I highly doubt it. Dammit_steve (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NBASKETBALL by playing in the National Basketball League (Australia).Rlendog (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NBASKETBALL, not just one game, multiple games. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following duffbeerforme's additions. I found a number of similar references to duffbeerforme that could be used, see here. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NBASKETBALL, plus the article is no longer a substub. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't find the coverage that convinces me that WP:GNG is met, but considering when he played I'm willing to defer to the fact that he meets WP:NHOOPS. Papaursa (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NBASKETBALL as a former player in the National Basketball League (Australia). Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of railway stations in Kent

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

Half finished page with little relevance. 59abcd (talk) 19:57, 7 October 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 October 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination provides no deletion rationale. --Doncram (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, and with well-defined inclusion criteria. Requires cleanup and improvement, not deletion. Lowercaserho (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:LISTN, numerous books that discuss kentish railways and stations ie. Railways of Kent, Kent Railways Remembered, Holding the Line: Preserving the Kent and East Sussex Railway, Kent Railways: The Age of Steam. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needing improvement is never a reason to delete. Have put my thoughts re inclusion criteria on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Clowry

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

not notable Mccapra (talk) 19:28, 7 October 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 October 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Sakaimover (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC) Changing to Keep in light of additions by Duffbeerforme. Sakaimover (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he does pass WP:NBASKETBALL by appearing in the National Basketball League (Australia) for 10 games in 1995. There is not much about him on Google but since he played over 20 years ago thats maybe not unexpected. There might possibly be something about him in the printed media. But if these 10 games where the entirety of his career, then I highly doubt it. Dammit_steve (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NBASKETBALL by playing in the National Basketball League (Australia).Rlendog (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NBASKETBALL, not just one game, multiple games. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following duffbeerforme's additions. I found a number of similar references to duffbeerforme that could be used, see here. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NBASKETBALL, plus the article is no longer a substub. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't find the coverage that convinces me that WP:GNG is met, but considering when he played I'm willing to defer to the fact that he meets WP:NHOOPS. Papaursa (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NBASKETBALL as a former player in the National Basketball League (Australia). Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With news coverage from all over the globe, this is never going to fail our notability guidelines. Obviously, comments regarding the NTSB investigation and possible further legal issues are WP:CRYSTAL at this stage, however it is clear that we do tend to keep articles about road transportation accidents that are out of the ordinary. Therefore, I do not see the point in keeping this AFD open any longer. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Schoharie New York traffic accident

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

There are hundreds of car accidents in any country in the world everyday. How is this notable? ASF23 (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is the number of deaths that makes this notable, I suggest that you do a quick google news search with keywords "bus+gorge". --ASF23 (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This involved a stretch limo, not a bus, and it didn't go into a gorge, just a small ravine (the area is on the Schoharie Creek's flood plain). Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunate traffic accident involving private vehicles. No long term signifiance. --19:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated, crashes on the roads are hardly a rare occurrence, and while the death toll here is high, nom is right to point out crashes with a large number of casualties are also unfortunately fairly common. The World Health Organization reports that more than 3,400 people die every single day on the roads. Wikipedia is not a news source. AusLondonder (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LASTING. Long term significance seems highly doubtful. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a significant death toll, particularly for a developed country. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While tragic, an accident is not notable. I think we should wait for the investigation, see if this leads to any policy changes, and then decide whether an article is necessary or not. --regentspark (comment) 20:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A specific statement of no prejudice against recreation would be reasonable, although cause/effect incidents are always tenuous as to providing separate articles. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral - I have to agree that, while high, the death toll is not sufficiently unique - even in the USA (only biggest since 2009) - to make it warrant its own article. While there's no hard and fast point at which this would change (and within USA comparisons only would certainly be reasonable) I feel on this timescale this is a reasonable judgement. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A demonstration of precedents that indicate that largest incident in a decade is sufficiently unique (if that phrase makes sense) to justify it. I personally am unsure, but my viewpoint would contradict established precedent, without sufficiently clear policy to support me, I'm reticent to stand against it at this point. Nosebagbear (talk) 6:18 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Delete - Unspeakably tragic, but otherwise not notable outside of the high death count, which does not justify this article's existence. Spengouli (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only thing that stands out is the high death toll, it is nothing more than a common cause of a common accident caused by simple human error. Tragic, but nothing unique. Kirliator (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:LASTING, similar to most small-scale shootings in the US, as others above have noted, the only real thing that stands out is the unusually high death toll. SamaranEmerald (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question while I understand WP:OTHERSTUFF, and this article is clearly doomed, can someone please tell me why the 2018_Hong_Kong_bus_accident is notable, but the 2018 Schoharie New York traffic accident isn't? You can leave a note on my talk page if you have an opinion, it's not my intention to hijack this discussion. Thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is notable due to the significant loss of life—highest in the U.S. in a decade. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...And? What else makes it significant? Hornetzilla78 (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tavix. Notable as the deadliest US traffic accident in a decade. -Zanhe (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...And? What else makes it significant? Hornetzilla78 (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete other than the “significant loss of life", this is nothing more than a standard, everyday car accident. No long-term impact. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...And? How do you know there is no long-term impact? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like both of you are turning into TRM. SamaranEmerald (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 20 people died, that's not common for a car crash. Deadliest transport accident in the USA in almost 10 years. 1779Days (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the arguments that the nature of the accident (two-car collision) make the article inherently non-notable are absurd, and quite frankly, border on disrespectful. Would their death be deemed more notable if they had died in a plane, or in a boat? There are DOZENS of other crashes with similar or less amounts of media coverage which have found no objection here - 2018 Hong Kong bus accident, 1999 Deutschlandsberg bus crash, 2017 Verona bus crash, Måbødalen bus accident, Grafton bus crash, 2009 Taconic State Parkway crash, Kalamazoo bicycle crash, I could go on. If this article is deleted, it sets a precedent that all or many the articles preceding - which received similar amounts of media coverage, and which each had distinct lasting impacts on how the respective industries involved are regulated - should all be deleted. To be clear, none of these articles should be deleted simply because they involved automobiles. If they have significant media coverage (this article does), and can be found to have a lasting impact on the social consciousness of the region it occurred in, or on the industries involved (limo industry), then it should clearly be notable just as an airline accident would be. We can't know if the latter qualifier is true, because mere hours have passed since the incident! However, the NTSB is investigating and all indicators seem to tell us that there is a high probability some meaningful change will be enacted following this tragic incident. For all these reasons, strong keep. Flip^and Flopped ツ 00:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - I disagree with the above user, the NTSB has said that with MANY incidents in the past, yet little to nothing ever happens. As AusLondoner states, accidents like these happen frequently and are far more common than anyone thinks, the “keeps” are not convincing and are just repeating the the same rationale each time. Python Dan (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So we should delete the article based on your subjective opinion that NTSB investigations and recommendations are ineffective? The other part of your statement is just patently false - this is the most lethal transportation accident to have occurred in the USA for nearly ten years, and the extensive media coverage reflects that. By mere virtue of that, this accident is not reflective of a 'common occurrence'! In fact, accidents this devastating, which have received this amount of coverage, have almost always received an article in the past because they ARE particularly notable, as I did mention. Flip^and Flopped ツ 01:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents like these get widespread coverage initially, but fall out of the public eye several days later, and become forgotten soon afterwards as well. If you take a look at several articles of disasters in similar and lesser scales, there is considerable activity once these disasters occur, but eventually cease regular contributions once no further information pops up. SamaranEmerald (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is the most deadly vehicle accident of any kind in the US for the past 9 years, receiving national and international news coverage (currently the most read BBC News article). Articles about vehicle accidents with this many deaths are common on Wikipedia --LtNOWIS (talk)
Keep per LaserLegs and Flipandflopped. Lepricavark (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, also per LaserLegs and Flipandflopped. The fact that this is the deadliest vehicle accident in the United States in nine years is also significant; it's unusual for a road accident to hold such a distinction. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two-digit death tolls from road accidents in the U.S. are notable because they're so rare. This has dominated the national news all day—no small feat given yesterday's events.
Fewer (not less) people died in the Table Rock Lake duck boat accident barely two months ago; no one even nominated that for deletion. What makes this one different because it didn't happen in water? Nothing. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: By death toll alone this would merit inclusion on List of disasters in the United States by death toll as the cutoff for inclusion there is 15. There are 26 entries with fewer deaths than this. Two of them—World Wide Tours bus crash and Sherman, Texas bus accident—were also MVAs. They both happened more than 5 years ago; no one has suggested either article be deleted.

I would also add, as my wife and I realized just now, discussing this as she came back from work, that this accident, unlike most other entries on "deadly U.S. road accidents" is unusual for involving neither a bus nor a grade crossing; I think it may wind up being the deadliest stretch-limo accident ever (but I'll wait for a reliable source to say that). Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - By sources as far away as the South China Morning Post and the Times of Israel, this is reported as the "worst US transport accident in a decade."[26][27] The nom's "comment" above indicates this is more of a troll AfD rather than a serious concern of the improvement of this project. --Oakshade (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there should be a SNOW/Speedy criteria for news stories like this. (I wouldn't recommend a speedy keep for "no reason for deletion", but How is this notable? isn't really a rationale) It seems very likely there will be continuing coverage of this over the next week; there's nothing reasonable to do at this point other than to keep the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Question to anyone in favour of keep - why is the fact this accident happened in the U.S. make it uniquely notable? India regularly has crashes which kill dozens and dozens of people. Keeping this article opens the floodgates to a massive number of articles about tragic incidents with little lasting significance. AusLondonder (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If articles about those bus accidents were created, I would not oppose them. Just because we don't have them doesn't mean we couldn't. Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Widespread international news coverage. Wjfox2005 (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List_of_traffic_collisions_(2000–present) seems to imply it's the deadliest single-car crash worldwide in at least the last 5 years and possibly much longer (although this could of course be thanks to the success of deletionists in keeping us all in the dark), and a lot deadlier than many other items on that list (including many non-US items). It is also the deadliest single-car accident that I can ever remember hearing about in my 64 years on this planet (altho this could of course be down to my faulty memory and/or to faulty news sources). So it is unsurprizing that it has received worldwide news coverage. Incidentally, it is seemingly also the worst transport accident of any kind in the US for about the last 10 years. As for all the WP:Lasting objections, they seem to be little more than WP:Crystal-violating claims that they can know that this will have no lasting impact - seemingly the delusional claim that they can know that it will not result in any significant regulatory change. (Incidentally, the original nomination's wording seems grotesquely inadequate, but has ensured that an editor with just 30 edits has single-handedly got a seemingly basically very reasonable (tho poorly worded and poorly defended) and good-faith ITN-nomination closed, a matter that may perhaps require lasting change to Wikipedia procedures ).Tlhslobus (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the top stories on the BBC News this morning, with the reporter saying it was the worst road crash anywhere in the US for a decade or so, IIRC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Worst transportation accident in U.S. for a long time; issues/implications for regulation of after-market converted limousines (e.g. per this NJ.COM coverage; obvious Keep. It is predictable that Wikipedians will automatically trash any article on event in the news with silly negative tags, as if to make ourselves look stupid in front of readers who arrive for the news. What is most important is to convey to the broad public is our divisiveness and silly bureaucracy, right? --Doncram (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The accident has both a significant death toll of 20 victims and is the second most serious traffic accident in New York State. It also received major international media coverage, eg. report from Global Times, a major Chinese state-runned newspaper. I therefore believe that the accident is notable enough for a Wikipedia article.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unusual and newsworthy. Seems a bit too soon to delete this.--WaltCip (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's too soon to be having this discussion because we can't know now how notable this event will ultimately be. It can always be deleted later. PrimaPrime (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this some kind of sick POINTY joke? I once put up an AFD for a cat who was notable because it's owner made a joke about it being the mayor of the local town. It was roundly rejected. Get some perspective, people. ghost 15:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – Worst accident in ten years, by death toll. Notable. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I know that this is speculative ... but I am quite sure that this incident will galvanize legislation and a call for change in safety standards of stretch limos. Something that has been brewing for many years. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question can we get closure on this? It looks like keep has emerged and it would be nice to feature this on the main page like the nearly identical 2018 Hong Kong bus accident. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was actually leaning delete early on but the amount of coverage this event has received plus the existence of similar articles on related incidents, some of which actually had lower desto tolls, had convinced me to change by !vote. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the death toll here is much larger than normal, and its notability based on international press coverage and political attention is on par with that of a bus accident. --Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable death toll for its category, since it is the largest from ground based transport in the US in almost 10 years. Also, there are somewhat unusual circumstances in that it was a limousine made by modifying a standard vehicle frame, and it has the potential to influence new regulations for these types of vehicles. --Bobc1113 19:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per arguments by Tavix, Flipandflopped, and others. The crash is likely to affect the regulation of stretch limousines, and should affect the particular stretch of "T"-road that has been very crash-prone in the past. -Mardus /talk 19:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep I think this AFD has run its course and will not be deleted. Support closing the AFD. Acebulf (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While "long-term effects" is a crystal ball argument, saying a tremendous loss of a life is no grounds for an article is incorrect, as well. I would surmise that twenty deaths from a single automobile accident constitutes something notable and unheard of in itself. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 22:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Evking22 (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manlio d'Agostino Panebianco

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

Zero effective sources. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV scope_creep (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 17:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 17:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable economist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Kagan

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

This is just a resume of an unremarkable entrepreneur who has gotten a few passing mentions in the press. Affiliated with one blue-linked entity, AppSumo, which is only marginally notable itself. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP, or not independent of the company. Not notable as a podcaster either. Created by Special:Contributions/Theo_Buckley currently indef-blocked for abusing multiple accounts.

@K.e.coffman: nominated this for AFD in March of this year which resulted in a soft deleted and refund -> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah Kagan. Toddst1 (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 17:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 17:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unremarkable businessperson. Sam Sailor 17:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Zielinski

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

unsourced, not notable Mccapra (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Isn't this a WP:BLP? So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nishu Jha

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP article doesn't have notable references and the person is not notable enough to be on wikipedia. TheRedBox (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of secondary state highways in Virginia. Tone 08:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia State Route 772 (Loudoun County)

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

May be a non-notable secondary road. The only source given in the article mentions it in passing, and it is very unlikely that there are any reliable sources making any siginifcant mention of it. Phil roc (c) 13:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate idea: Merge content into List of secondary state highways in Virginia and create redirect. V C 02:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Phil roc (c) 00:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I've ignored the blathery, fawning walls of text. Sandstein 18:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avetik Chalabyan

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

A page about a non-notable business consultant and activist. The sources cited are either not reliable or are not independent of the subject (e.g. the Kommersant article is written by the subject himself; the Armeniapedia page too appears to have been written by the subject; furthermore, many of the "sources" are the subject's employers' websites) or do not provide a significant coverage of the subject (e.g. the Sberbank article mentions the subject trivially). Also, clearly, a WP:PROMOTION. The information on this page belongs in LinkedIn. Vahagn Petrosyan (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avetik Chalabyan is a respected figure, who has always been involved in public life of Armenia. He constantly leads discussions on political modernization, economic development, national defense and security of Armenia. Some of his interviews are available at the following links.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0uG1kAEdqU&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6dcsW3WxMc&feature=youtu.behttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3smPlELhZLA&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRdaZBZYPWo&feature=youtu.behttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl3X3f1rew0&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddq5qaEXYrM&feature=youtu.behttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx_rIkj3VLA&feature=youtu.be

It is weird to see the demand for the deletion of Avetik Chalabyan's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arag51 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that the above user account was created on October 6, 2018 and its only contribution to wikiprojects is the above comment. --Vahagn Petrosyan (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avetik Chalabyan is one of the most notable, non-political public figures in the Armenian society. His articles and interview appear regularly in most respected media and gain wide acceptance, his work for increasing servicemen security in the army has received the highest public attention recently. This comes on top of his prolific professional career - as a senior partner of McKinsey, he leads the global Metallurgical practice of the leading management consulting firm of the world, regularly publishes on cutting-edge business development topics, speaks on most prestigious global conferences. Below are some of the most recent appearances of Avetik Chalabyan

https://mediamax.am/en/column/12849/ https://mediamax.am/am/column/12827/ https://mediamax.am/am/column/12710/ https://mediamax.am/am/news/interviews/17014/ https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/metals-and-mining/our-insights/the-current-capacity-shake-up-in-steel-and-how-the-industry-is-adapting?cid=soc-web https://www.forumspb.com/programme/56957/#broadcast https://www.tert.am/am/news/2018/09/17/chalabyan/2793473 watch http://barev.today/news/avetchalabyan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice Ananian (talk • contribs) 06:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple interviews and speeches on Youtube https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=avetik+chalabyan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVTSqir8q44&feature=share

I believe that the deletion discussion is completely inappropriate, and potentially has an aim to hurt publicly Avetik Chalabyan, whose rising visibility in post-revolution Armenian society creates anxiety in certain circles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice Ananian (talk • contribs) 06:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The person commenting above appears to be affiliated with the foundation coestablished by the subject of the article, and her only contribution has been to the Avetik Chalabyan page. This and above comment show that the Wikipedia page is maintained by persons affiliated to the subject and is meant as a PR tool for a minor business consultant. As for the interviews and the columns published by the subject himself, they are not independent of the subject. If Avetis Chalabyan is a notable businessman, where are articles about him and his business in Armenian and Russian business publications? --Vahagn Petrosyan (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avetik Chalabyan is not a businessman, he is a public figure. The sheer number of interviews he gives to various media, the interest to his figure is a good indicator alone that he is anything but minor. This footage shows Avetik Chalabyan leading an Artificial Intelligence technology panel at St Petersburg International Economic forum https://www.forumspb.com/programme/56957/#broadcast This footage is taken from Armenia-Diaspora forum, where Avetik Chalabyan was a keynote speaker at Nation-Army panel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVTSqir8q44&feature=share These articles are about Arar foundation and Avetik Chalabyan, fully independent of the subject https://mediamax.am/am/news/special-report/24862 https://mediamax.am/am/news/special-report/26640/ https://mediamax.am/am/news/special-report/24216

As for myself, I have left Repat Armenia Foundation, where Avetik Chalabyan was one of the trustees, three years ago, and have not had any business affiliation with him since then. In Repat Armenia, my exposure to him was very limited too, as trustees were not involved in the daily management of the Foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice Ananian (talk • contribs) 09:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more !votes from experienced editors , this only has comments from a SPA
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support continuing discussion at least temporarily. I suggested to a (previously unknown to me) editor who requested my help as a general experienced WP editor:

...the best way is to find references to Chalabyan in other "reliable sources", such as books, news articles, journals, etc., possibly in relation to the Arar Foundation or other things he is involved in. These could be in non-English languages. I did find this article on Horizon Armenian weekly's Canadian website.

The Arar Foundation Arar Foundation's website (English version) lists Chalabyan as "Chairman of the Board of Trustees" and mentions "Previously, he has served as Head of the WTO Affairs Department at the Ministry of Economic Development of Armenia." Regards, Facts707 (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avetik Chalabyan is a public figure, our compatriot who lives outside of Armenia, but is doing his best in contributing to his homeland's development. For years he has been a co-founder and active supporter of a number of important private initiatives that are focused on Armenia's socio-economic development, education and repatriation. He has been permanently giving interviews to online media and TV channels on a wide spectrum of Armenia's development agenda, strategic issues and opportunities. He has also been an active participant and official speaker of almost all! (17) "Imagine Armenia" forums (here is the link to the forum in Boston in 2017, where Avetik was one of the plenary session speakers and moderator) that were organized by RepatArmenia during the last five years in key Armenian diasporan communities to promote and introduce Diaspora's engagement opportunities for a wider audience. Over 90 speakers took part in them, over 4.000 Diasporan Armenians attended those events and over 150.000 people were following the events online.

Here is the link on one of the interviews with Avetik Chalabyan (starting form page #50) related to Armenian Diaspora's engagement in theRegionalPost Magazine's special edition dedicated to Repatriation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monte1975 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Facts707, you're not the only one whose help the article creator has requested; she has canvassed a whole bunch of experienced editors and pleaded for "your vote as an experienced editor on Wiki" to "make sure it's not deleted". See her recent contributions. Alice Ananian, I'm sure you meant no harm, but we're not supposed to do that, as it can skew a deletion discussion. Please see WP:CANVASS. The plethora of references looks impressive at first sight. But a few references that were actually reliable, independent of the subject, not user-generated (like for instance Armeniapedia, a wiki) and not press releases would have been much better. This just looks like somebody has listed all the Google hits they could find, with no regard to our sourcing policy. I agree with the OP that the article is more like a promotional LinkedIn page than a biography in an encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 21:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Although "a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject", the article seems to be interesting to read and sufficiently neutral to be useful after some improvements. I propose to keep and improve it instead of deleting it and then start from scratch. The subject is certainly notable enougn, to have an article. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I too have been canvassed by Alice Ananian - don't know why. I can't tell if this article warrants deletion or not, but if it stays it needs to be severely trimmed back. It is a massive puff piece as it stands, with a lot of citing of sources that do not look reliable and/or independent. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like typical self-promotion to me. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again fellow Wikipedians,

Thank you all for the feedback on the article so far. At this point, I'd like to ask what changes would help to improve the article? Editing for neutrality and reliable sources has been duly noted. Any other contributions would be much appreciated. (No harm was intended in canvassing WP editors.) Regards, Alice Ananian (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguous violation of policy (see WP:NOTPROMO), aggravated by apparent COI and clear disregard for volunteer editor time and attention (see WP:PAYTALK). Bakazaka (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Adrian Ward (artist). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signwave

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

No references. Not obviously notable. Rathfelder (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adrian Ward (artist): An article on an arts project which appears to have been active in the first few years of this century. I don't see enough coverage distinctive from that of Ward to merit an separate article. AllyD (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adrian Ward (artist) - couldn't locate sufficient coverage, sources seemed to fail reliable/independent or WP:ROUTINE. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adrian Ward (artist) - was thinking of a merge but that is not really possible. Rzvas (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Akita Northern Happinets. Sandstein 18:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happinets Cheer Dance Team

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

Although I cannot read Japanese and establish whether this group has substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, my instincts tell me that a cheer dance team does not belong in Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment maybe it should redirect to Akita Northern Happinets; with similar caveats as nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Akita Northern Happinets or the baseball team they cheer for. SportingFlyer talk 07:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple independent sources. The current lone source in the article is to the team website. Perhaps there are more sources in Japanese, but they have not been identified. There is not enough text currently here for me to be compelled to decide to merge content in this AfD; no problem if someone decides it is notable enough to add to it outside of this discussion. And it doesnt take much research to find the company website again, so WP:PRESERVE is not a concern.—Bagumba (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly created in error SpinningSpark 14:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Canadian federal budget

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

After doing a bit of research, I came to the conclusion that there was no Canadian federal budget presented in 2002. The federal budget archives doesn't list one, going straight from 2001 to 2003. This would make sense, because the 2001 budget was presented in december, and the 2003 budget was presented in february. To make sure, I searched "federal budget" in all La Presse articles from 2002 on www.eureka.cc, and didn't find anything relevant. Emass100 (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator is correct on this, as witness the fact that this article got created much later than either 2001's or 2003's, by a user who neither had much prior edit history nor stuck around much longer afterward rather than by the creator of the others, and is a much shorter stub because nobody's been able to add any information about a thing that didn't exist — and even the one cited source here doesn't support a 2002 budget, but was just an uncorrected copy-paste from 2004. I'll grant good faith user error rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead, but either way there was no new federal budget presented in 2002. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Badpuppy

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable adult website. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:WEB. I've located a few mentions in relations to a controversy around a potential SCOTUS pick, but that's insufficient for notability. Awards are not significant / well known. Created by Special:Contributions/Brycethomason with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 08:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No significant, in-depth coverage aside from brief mentioning in insignificant magazines, including "press releases".Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Compendium of Muslim Texts

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

Dead website, fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG in that no substantial information can be found anywhere; just some passing mentions in reference lists. HyperGaruda (talk) 06:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not dead, just moved here. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Back in 2012 it may have been as the article says "the most known online hadith database, ranking highest in the Google search engine". Now the same search does not come up with the website in the first four pages. There are many Islamic text sites online now, and this university site doesn't seem to be well-known. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri. Sandstein 18:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim ibn Shihab

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

Unsourced stub for almost 9 years. Unable to find any detailed source about him. Each time his name pops up in a Google search, it is because his name is part of his more famous son's name. Supporting and being father of someone notable does not automatically make oneself notable. HyperGaruda (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri - his son and, it seems, main source of coverage. NOTINHERITED. Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Siiiiiiiiilver Surffffeeeeer Intermission

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

Completing nomination on behalf of IP user 64.26.97.61 (talk). Rationale is: "Does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart. Can be incorporated into The Life of Pablo" ~~"Contains unreliable source(s), does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart. Content can incorporated into The College Dropout article, where the song is barely mentioned."~~ Mz7 (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: do you mean The Life of Pablo rather than The College Dropout? Richard3120 (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: Oops! Yes, I must have accidentally copied the wrong rationale. Fixed now. Mz7 (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there's not enough secondary coverage to support a standalone article, then redirect the page instead of deleting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Can be incorporated into The Life of Pablo" is a merge rationale, so this should never have come to AfD. --Michig (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Life of Pablo. This "Background" section of this article is pertinent to both The Life of Pablo and "Waves". — Newslinger talk 04:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge not notable, simply a small intermission. As others said, could be easily incorporated in TLOP article. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 18:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nickelodeon Animated Shorts Program. Sandstein 18:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Panic (Animated Short)

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

Not notable. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 00:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nickelodeon Animated Shorts Program – content should never be deleted for notability alone if a redirect is an option, but in this case it should also be kept behind a redirect in case a full series does come out. Modernponderer (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Vladislav Druso

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX PRehse (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NBOX and there's no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Winning 3 out of 34 professional fights doesn't make a very good case for notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

James Mulheron

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not meet WP:NMMA PRehse (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable MMA fighter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had his first top tier fight in July and lost. It requires WP:CRYSTALBALL to say he'll be notable, especially since he just signed with Bellator (which is not top tier). He also lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Rakim Cleveland

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not meet WP:NMMA. PRehse (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable MMA fighter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has no top tier MMA fights so he fails WP:NMMA. All coverage is routine sports reporting so he also fails WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per Djm-leighpark's help. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Component Library for Cross Platform

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

Non notable subject that clearly fails WP:GNG as I was not able to find any significant coverage from reliable sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The article has been vandalised and attacked by anon IP's, survive a good faith but albeit invalid removal by an administrator and now dragged three minutes after that to AfD in what seems to be a red-mist haze by a nom. given the article summary already indicated google scholar cites and further a check on google books yields quite a handful of results. I question if part of the reason the nom. has brought this here due to my work on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AUFS. Admittedly the article was in a poor reference state, but at some disruption to myself have added some references and cites which should do the needful. I really question WP:BEFORE on his one given the google books that Template:Find sources AFD is giving me. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World Parliament Experiment

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

not notable. Despite the grand name it was a short-lived online student forum with voting buttons Mccapra (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't find any independent Sig Cov sources under either name. No evident redirect target, afaict. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Lego Group. Tone 08:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Interactive

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

Although the company published some notable titles, the company itself is not notable, and notability is not inherited (WP:INHERIT). Generally fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Best approach would be deleting the article (so the history is gone and IP users don't keep restoring it) and then create a redirect to List of Lego video games. Lordtobi (✉) 09:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ironically I had entertained the idea of CSD-G11 or CSD-A7 tagging for this article before settling on simply reverting the article to its redirect. I guess great minds really do think alike, huh? :) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Redirect to The Lego Group, I really don't understand the rationale, Lego Interactive was a division of Lego Group, so you're basically saying Lego isn't notable!! Govvy (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading it backwards. Just because Lego/Lego Group is notable, does not make Lego Interactive notable. -- ferret (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see specifically WP:INHERIT, which works in neither direction. E.g., Apple Inc. is notable, but the Apple Store in Zimbabwe isn't, neither is the garage the company was founded in. Lordtobi (✉) 13:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect to the list per nom, or The Lego Group per Govvy, either works. Fails NCORP. -- ferret (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, then redirect to The Lego Group as per above editors. Notability is not inherited, fails wp:ncorp. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Unicorn Writers' Conference

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

This does not seem to be a notable conference. Aside from being written promotionally, the article contains only the conference's own website as a source and my own searches don't turn up anything substantial elsewhere. Reyk _YO! 08:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looked through the article and I agree with all points made by nom Sakaimover (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, I looked and couldn't find anything to show that this would be notable. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Amit Bhadana

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

~~Fails WP:GNG since the subject is non-notable, and has no proper coverage from independent sources. Knightrises10 (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has bee n included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has 9 million subscribers and 500 million views so is one of the very most popular YouTube personalities in India, also searches show press coverage passing WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, provide them.And, likes/subscribers does not contribute an iota to wiki-notability.∯WBG^converse 08:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft - even though Bhadana is a known personality, the Reference list on the page leads to his own site and general blogs, except for the publication by Hindustan Times. The page says he won a "National Academy Award" - couldn't find any source to verify this except for a Tweet by Bhadana holding 2 awards. The person is popular but not notable as per Wikipedia terms. I vote to move the page to Drafts where it can be worked up at a later date. Csgir (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just confirm two things: He claimed to "won" an unverifiable award. His tweet is not reliable here, this is clear.
You agree he *doesn't meet notability guidelines*. Please see this. It's meaningless moving non notable article to draft, otherwise AfD should fold up and any non notable article just be moved to draft.
This is simple issue. Does he have multiple, independent coverage from reliable sources?; if yes, bring them here, if no, then he's not better than all other deleted articles and should be deleted. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drafity I agree with Csgir. Being a "known" personality isn't encyclopedic, in depth coverage is. If searches show coverage, please provide them. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what Ammarpad already stated above, There is no indication that this person will become notable in the near future, in such a case, Dratify is not justified. this subject has to be judged on notability and either deleted or kept. --DBig Xrayᗙ 14:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 08:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Nothing resemblant to SIGCOV other than this promotional tabloid-journalism.Mere name-mentions are located.∯WBG^converse 08:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have been watching this article for sometime but fail to understand how it's encyclopedic. Lacks SIGCOV from reliable sources and fails GNG completely. Entirely promotional stuff built upon total unreliable sources such as this fan's blog and back reference to Youtube and his own self promotion blog. For those saying move to draft, it was once moved but immediately moved back to mainspace as is to be expected from generally non notable promotional stuffs. So moving it is worthless. If it's notable, just shows us multiple independent RS discussing him directly and in detail. If no such sources exist then it's meaningless moving it to draft.–Ammarpad (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't think that SocialBlade is an entirely fan made website but is not completely acceptable. Aggarwala2727 (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I had withdrawn the nomination and therefore as it has been reverted, would vote keep. The subject is surely a notable ones with millions of subscribers. Passes GNG. My initial nomination was a mistake, since I had not done WP:BEFORE - Knightrises10 (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not sure this should have been reopened as there were no delete votes except draftify votes and a keep vote so it is a bit of a grey area. One of Indias most popular youtubers and there is nothing wrong with the Hindustan Times article which is significant coverage in a reliable source and is not a press release as his YouTube channel is his own and not affiliated to a TV channel or other media enterprise so sticking with my earlier keep vote, but at wost draftify, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, page views of this article average circa. 1000 a day so he is obviously high profile Atlantic306 (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having so many subscribers does not of itself make notability. Only one ref talks about the subject and that appears to be an interview. The rest are statistical reports which provide facts but are not independent. This fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added some more sources to the article. Also, he has been mentioned by the Indian actor Varun Dhawan, which surely shows he is a very notable and well known Youtuber in India. Knightrises10 talk 18:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So just because he "mentioned" his name, then that made him automatically notable? How you arrived at this conclusion is is beyond me. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ammarpad: Calm down. Haven't you ever read WP:CIVIL? :-) Xfds are for discussing politely and reaching a consensus, not being rude to those who don't agree with you :-) Knightrises10 talk 14:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not irked at the slightest and my comment doesn't show so either. Probably you have not understand what I said, else how my comment is uncivil? please explain. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Knightrises10 Telling someone to be WP:CIVIL and alleging them of incivility When all they ask is a perfectly civil question, is actually an UNCIVIL behavior, and you should apologize and strike off this allegation. --DBig Xrayᗙ 14:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly lack of WP:SIGCOV for dedicating a stand alone article. Capitals00 (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and subscribers count is not relevant much. Sdmarathe (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject does not have a WP:SIGCOV required for a WP:BIO also fails WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST--DBig Xrayᗙ 18:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added more Hindi sources and will like others to take a look :-) I think even WP:BEFORE is enough to confirm the notability of this Youtuber. Knightrises10 talk 18:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knightrises10, I have reviewed all the hindi language sources, Passing mentions and one para introduction does not count as WP:SIGCOV --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[28] is not a passing mention. Same goes for one of the other two Hindi language sources. Knightrises10 talk 19:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

haribhoomi.com is not a WP:RS by any stretch of imagination. You should in fact explain what exactly caused the sudden and surprising change of your heart, I am curious to see which source did that for you, that may help this discussion. --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise the talentindia and socialblade.com fan blogs. They're anything but reliable. Better read WP:AMOUNT and stop unfruitful attempt of creating what isn't there. –Ammarpad (talk)

Delete fails WP:SIGCOV and also WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft I think this personality has some popularity and this article must be kept for improving this encyclopaedia. But, I think that the present article for this personality doesn't support the ideas of Wikipedia's Policy of Style of Writing and has some kind of promotional content.Aggarwala2727 (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aggarwala2727 if you believe this article is notable, please provide sources or facts, that led you to believe that. At AfD we judge the WP:NOTABILITY of the article based on WP:RS, the Notability, is not established. We cannot assume that once it is moved to draft , in WP:FUTURE the subject will gain some notability and then he can be moved into the mainspace. --DBig Xrayᗙ 17:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Rats

(Find video game sources: "Bad Rats" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Poorly received game with little to no coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Lordtobi (✉) 07:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The game is notorious/infamous for being bad. And 2 sources is technically multiple for WP:GNG. Here's a couple more for content: [29][30]. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as creator. This is one of the things notable for being bad, as the coverage attests. Sandstein 10:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. A quick search on the WV:VG/RS search engine definitely brings up some results. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G12 by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony N. Moore

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

I can't find good sources for this artist. The wiki page is a match for the biography page on his web site. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete as a copyright violation per WP:G12. It does not matter that User:Anthonynmoore created the article about Anthony N. Moore by copying the text from http://www.anthonymoorepaintings.com/biography/ as long as that content is not properly licensed.

I was not sure in which direction the text was copied. Are you certain?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first version of the article was created on 2010-07-15T18:26:14 by User:Anthonynmoore and contains the text: info courtesy of www.anthonymoorepaintings and www.anthonymooreonline.com. The earliest archived version of http://www.anthonymoorepaintings.com/biography/ is from 2010-09-03 at https://web.archive.org/web/20100903043912/http://www.anthonymoorepaintings.com/biography/. So yeah, we have an article that was created two months prior to the first archived version of the source. I still think it's reasonable to assume that http://www.anthonymoorepaintings.com/biography/ is the source, not wikipedia. --Vexations (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for that. I will also ping User:Diannaa as she is terrific in such copyright issues, and as an admin she can also delete now if necessary. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This tool shows the source webpage was created on February 18, 2009, which pre-dates the creation of the Wikipedia article, so it looks to me like G12 applies. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Whenever there is a copyright issue, I know you will have the exactly correct answer.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Komito

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

Notability fail. The only source I found on her was not about her artwork. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for notability are "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. Please note that in the world of Tibetan art there are very few women thangka artists. This would make Kayla Komito both "remarkable" and rather "unusual". Though you may not find references to her in a scan of publications, it is also worthy of note that she paints on commission. If the quality of the person giving the commission to create a thangka is of any significance, than Kayla having received two commissions for thangkas from the eminent Tibetologist and translator Robert AF Thurman of Columbia University should be taken into account. As he has stated, regarding a commission, "You have created a masterpiece. It is stunning. I salute you with all sincere gratitude." Moreover, HH The Dalai Lama is aware of her work and appreciative. As he has stated (from her website http://komito.com/gallery/tibet/index.htm) "You indeed have an artistic gift and talent, which is clearly evident from the beautiful thangkas you have painted." On the basis of this I don't believe her biography should be deleted. LqNj2Zx (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Blatteis

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

Non-notable political consultant and CEO, is quoted in multiple sources, but no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable political consultant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 808s & Heartbreak. Tone 08:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bad News (Kanye West song)

AfDs for this article:

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

Completing nomination on behalf of IP user 64.26.97.61 (talk). Rationale was: "Contains original research, does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart. Refer to comments made on User talk page." I have no opinion on this matter at this time. Mz7 (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Kanye West. Vorbee (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 808s & Heartbreak – TheGridExe (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete. Someone please explain to editor that songs not reaching Top 100 are not notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 808s & Heartbreak Aoba47 (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Additional source searches have provided adequate coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Y. Barlow

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

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches are only providing passing mentions and name checks. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United American Committee

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

This was almost certainly an advertisement for the group, created by WP:SPA user:DrdPirate. I have searched for sources to expand this article, specifically in order to make it WP:NPOV (the self-sourced claims of its mission are at odds with the general view that it was an anti-Muslim rabble rousing effort). As it turns out, apart from a few blogs and the press coverage of the one time they tried to generate media controversy, there is nothing at all. There's no substantive coverage of the group, its aims, its ideology or anything else, just a couple of interviews with Petrilla (as far as I can tell the only person associated with the group who has ever been quoted in RS) whihc namecheck this group. It does not seem to have been a 501(c) anything, it rose without trace and disappeared also without trace. Possible redirect to the Orwellian-sounding American Congress for Truth. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: You do not have to share the organization's mindset to understand its significance. The article is short enough and does not meander on unnecessary stuff that may be branded as propaganda. Deleting it would erase a valid piece of history from our records, expose the limitations of our views, and even make future research on the topic a bit harder (and who knows what else). Besides blogs and plenty of low-quality publications, there are some reliable sources that have mentioned the group (see Books). One captured my attention: Keeping the Promise, published by the highly aclaimed academic press Lang. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 14:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage I can find is not substantive, including the trivial mention in the book mentioned above. In spite of a couple results on Google Books, many in the books in the list are fringe and simply republish a report the group created, and none cover the group substantially. Clear WP:GNG fail. SportingFlyer talk 12:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NORG] (and probably GNG). Very little coverage of this organization out there. Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pusuke

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

Non-notable dog. There is no policy about the oldest thing being notable. Sources are just WP:ROUTINE coverage about the dog's death. » Shadowowl | talk 10:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 12:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The oldest sources covering Pusuke come from 2010 , around the time the dog was entered into the Guinness Book of World Records (see Mixed-breed mutt may be world's oldest living dog; 25-year-old canine survived being hit by car. (2010, Jun 01). The Vancouver Sun. Available at Proquest). Pusuke then got a ton of international coverage in 2011 around its date of death. These two years are when Pusuke received the most substantial coverage. The dog later received some coverage a year later when the next oldest dog died and from this 2014 book. However, this later coverage simply stated that the dog was once the oldest living dog before its death at the age of 26. Honestly, this AfD could go either way: there’s enough information to write a decent article, but it largely comes from a rather narrow span of time. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After some more thought I believe that this article should be kept since there is enough information to write a decent article and because the sources covering Pusuke range over several years. Further, while dogs routinely die, it is incredibly unusual for a dog's death to receive international news coverage. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is met; there's no reason that WP:ROUTINE coverage can't meet WP:GNG here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ngangkung

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

Non-notable film. Fandi89 (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Mythdon 03:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As one of the highest grossing Malay films (it was the highest grossing film but has since been overtaken by a number of other films) [31][32], it is obviously notable. The box office taking is small fry compared to Hollywood films, but there can be no doubting that it is a significant film in Malaysia. There is enough coverage in Malaysia [33][34][35][36] to qualify under WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Hzh (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified above that show significant coverage and the passing of WP:GNG and also the major claim of significance of being one of the most successful Malay feature films, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Madoff

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

Absolutely terrible set of references not showing any significant coverage for WP:GNG; nor have I been able to find any references Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jumped the Afc queue and promotional. scope_creep (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NAUTHOR failure do to a lack of in-depth and (especially) independent coverage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Indian general election, 2019. Sandstein 18:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Progressive Alliance candidates in the Indian general election, 2019

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

To early to create article without sources -- naveenpf (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Indian general election, 2019 for the time being. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SpinningSpark 14:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

European Second Language Association

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

No coverage in independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG, and certainly does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. Internet searches did not return anything more substantial than what is already cited in the article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have listed five scholarly articles or book chapters at Talk:European Second Language Association that discuss the organization or its conferences. (To be clear: They discuss the organization qua organization, not merely scholarly work done by its members. Two of the five, however, are co-authored by a former president of the organization.) There are dozens more in the organization's own conference proceedings, but these of course are not independent of the organization. Cnilep (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination, provided sources establish notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SS-Oberabschnitt Weichsel. Sandstein 18:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

119th SS-Standarte

AfDs for this article:

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

An unremarkable SS formation that did not see combat. Significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/OberRanks currently site-banned for fabricating content and sources. For more info, please see ANI:OberRanks_and_fabricated_sources. 1st AfD closed as "keep" in 2010, but the article has not seen improvement in either sourcing or in demonstrating notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the author is untrustworthy and the article may well be highly inaccurate, I say delete per WP:TNT regardless of whether notable or not. For instance, the article says Otto Böttcher was the only commander of the unit, but this book names Herbert Packebusch as a commander. SpinningSpark 14:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Spinningspark: not a word of the article can be trusted, and there's no evidence that this unit meets WP:ORG Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (delete content) to SS-Oberabschnitt Weichsel ' WP:deletion is not cleanup, but WP:TNT looks like the best course of action here, given the unreliability of the article creator and doubts that the subject meets WP:ORG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my !vote to Redirect, per IceWhiz. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (delete content) to SS-Oberabschnitt Weichsel (the parent formation of this unit). Per TNT (concerns regarding trustworthiness of content), furthermore it seems this unit does not meet GNG. Furthermore, I will note that an administrative unit (for payroll purposes, no soldiers other than a HQ staff) commanded by a Obersturmbannführer (roughly a lt. Col) passing WP:MILUNIT is dubious (even if it is a titular regiment). Icewhiz (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Spinningspark. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 12:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 one (or two) keeps don't make any sense in terms of our policies or guidelines. Sandstein 18:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

De Suarez d'Aulan

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

Seems very essay-like and unreferenced in a way that would be quite difficult and time-consuming to correct. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are two articles about the same subject. Created on 2018-09-15T22:38:37 is De Suarez d’Aulan, created on 2018-09-28T22:42:35 is De Suarez d'Aulan (the only difference is the punctuation mark, one uses a quotation mark, the other an apostrophe. Vexations (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because the text is virtually identical:

Hello everyone,

I understand that there are two of the same article except for minor vocabulary changes, this was an accident, however my sources and information are valid and authentic. I have noted the online sources in the reference section and the only other source is a lone recently discovered ‘members list’ of the “Jockey Club of Paris” from 1973. Inside of this list/information booklet is the entire collection of all the club’s members and the history of the families. I plan on writing more articles about more of these families in the future as I am a Historian studying European Nobility and I wish to share information on these many families who are unknown on the worlds web and who’s story should be know.

I believe it to be a shame to delete the smaller parts of our history and only keep the large important parts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry.Ewood (talk • contribs) 22:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely what an encyclopedia does: winnow the field. --Bejnar (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But needs a lot of re-writing. EricPfromTustin (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles (same text). One book by François d'Aulan as a source, and two listings. This lineage article fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This heap of sentences and words thrown together does not pass WP:AFC, and as the OP stated, it would take a lot to elevate it to WP standards. But more dammening, the info is simply inaccurate as it stands. The history of the family name, as claimed here, is not actual, cohesive, and thus, it is amateurship. The weak sources, or lack of reliable ones, explain it (WP:RS). I understand and also appreciate the argument for inclusion. However, with this type of subjective topic, which requires a careful hand for stitching facts and dates together, we should not simply accept any type of attempt at writing an article. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 01:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Christopher Bathgate

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

I did quite an extensive search and could not find good sources to support this article. The only good I found was this Baltimore Sun review; everything else was trivial, passing mentions or interviews. The WaPo source mentioned in the article is a small paragraph. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. He is popular as a craft artist, but not in terms of in-depth coverage of his work. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It appears to be a bit too soon, but there's also http://www.bmoreart.com/2014/09/full-time-sculptor-in-the-studio-with-chris-bathgate.html. Exhibitions at the Museum of Arts and Design, the Baltimore Museum of Art or was that the Baltimore Museum of Industry and the Craftsmanship Museum might demonstrate that Bathgate has been the subject of critical attention. There is a book about his work, but it appears to be self-published. --Vexations (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are either the bmoreart.com or the creators.vice.com websites considered reliable sources? I am also concerned that the article has mainly been edited by 4 SPAs at least two of which have obvious COI problems. Papaursa (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I posted this I did some additional research on the sources I asked about and it appears neither of them are reliable sources. The vice site doesn't appear to have sufficient editorial oversight and bmoreart is a social media site that started as a blog. I don't see the sufficient coverage required by WP:GNG or evidence he meets any of the criteria at WP:NARTIST. Therefore, I vote to Delete this article. Papaursa (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Good Friday (Kanye West song)

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

Completing nomination for an IP. Their rationale was "Contains unreliable source(s), does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart. Can be incorporated into the GOOD Fridays program article." I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, as all the sources provided are either trivial mentions, announcements or listings, or as part of GOOD Fridays releases. No in-depth coverage found. Hzh (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pegida. Tone 08:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pegida Ireland

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

There was one attempted rally that didn't happen. This should be redirected to the main Pegida article I think. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to main article. Spleodrach (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main article. I believe that an article on the actual attack could be justified, but as it is, this would be an unjustified CONTENTFORK.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Watch the Throne. (non-admin closure) Flooded with them hundreds 08:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primetime (Jay-Z and Kanye West song)

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

Completing nomination for an IP. Their rationale was "Contains unreliable source(s), does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart. Can be incorporated into the Watch the Throne program article." I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 01:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per WP:NSONGS - all coverage is in the context of album coverage like album reviews. Very little context presented, and what is there, should just be sentences mixed into the album article, if it’s not already there. Sergecross73 msg me 03:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ticker tape. Sandstein 18:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ticker Tape

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

Non-notable vanity label that was used only for a single longplay (The King of Limbs) and related EPs and singles. Radiohead seems to use a new label name with every record: In Rainbows had Xurbia Xendless, A Moon Shaped Pool had LLLP, LLP, and we don't have articles on them. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, I'm not sure whether to radiohead or their discography though. Szzuk (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts I think this should redirect to Ticker tape, the tape, it must be very confusing for readers to be looking for the tape and land on this article. So this'd be delete and redirect. Szzuk (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this to Ticker tape per Szzuk. However, another redirect should be created, Ticker Tape (label), which should probably redirect to Radiohead. There is no notability regarding this label independent of Radiohead. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think that is a better idea. I'd probably use something like Ticker Tape (record label) as tape and label are both pieces of stationery. Szzuk (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good to me. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made a disambiguation page for Ticker tape. See Ticker tape (disambiguation). AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to wherever makes sense - just get rid of the article). Not notable. Popcornduff (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ticker tape. Not notable. This is a simple capital off from the main definition of Ticker tape. Make another redirect like 78.26 suggested. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete, therefore default keep. A merge is an option, as always. Tone 08:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neuralink

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

Article eers on the side of irrelevant. All source either heavily focus on Musk over the company, and the only noise the company made was when it was reported. No further sources or available coverage detailing anything further detailing the company's plans or progress. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 22:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of sustained coverage since March 2017, I think it would be fine to merge into Elon Musk, the subject with whom this topic is best associated. Honestly, I don't think anyone would have objected if you would have tried that before coming to AfD. czar 22:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per User:Czar. --John M Wolfson (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is well-written, neutral, properly sourced and this company is frequently mentioned in articles concerning Elon Musk's companies. While being a new company still hiring employees, Musk has recently made a statement in an interview that Neuralink would present some of their latest developments in the coming months, so I would argue that a deletion of the article for the reasons presented here would be premature. There is also plenty of room for expansion based on the extensive article Musk tasked Tim Urban to do about the company including interviews with the founding members of the company. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is much more recent coverage than March 2017, and a lot of it [37][38][39][40][41][42]. I'm not following the argument that sources talk a lot about Musk. Yes, notability of a company is not inherited from its founder, but neither is it disinherited by him. The sources are talking about what Musk has to say about the company, not about Musk himself. SpinningSpark 13:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty straightforward that the sources currently in the article talk about and through Musk. Can say the same of the articles you just listed, though I wouldn't give much credence to packtpub.com, interestingengineering.com, teslarati.com anyway, as they're not reliable sources. If the company is covered mainly for its relation through Musk and there is very little to say about the company's operations apart from Musk's involvement in it, the usual (and uncontroversial) means of handling the info is summary style expansion within a section of the parent, as is currently at Elon_Musk#Neuralink. czar 17:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was my train of thought as well. Since most of the coverage is centered around Musk rather than the company independently, it would be better suited as a merge to his main article. There's simply not enough coverage relating to the company itself. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 15:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

just a comment. This is a medical device company, which is different from Musk's other companies. I have been keeping a close eye on it since it was created, keeping out the typical Musk WP:CRYSTALBALL hype. We do not include speculative, hyping content about anything medical in Wikipedia. I see little chance of this AfD succeeding given Musk's fanbase in Wikipedia. I would not oppose a merge to Musk and had suggested it in spring 2017, but it didn't succeed (see discussions here and here (yes, it happened in two places). This article is not going to expand much until the company actually does some things; business content can be sourced per RS but anything medical will need to be sourced per WP:MEDRS. I imagine that this article will be short for a long time, as medical stuff takes a long time. Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this type of research takes a long time, but it shouldn't be kept because it has a "chance" to expand when there isn't sufficient coverage to begin with. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 15:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've been mulling this one over for a few days but I'm decided against a merge. I don't know whether Jytdog has me in mind when referring to "keeping out the typical Musk WP:CRYSTALBALL hype" and "Musk's fanbase in Wikipedia" but it should be noted that despite a strong personal dislike of Musk, I stand by my position in a lengthy argument I had with Jytdog in April 2017, as the commentary about the timeframes Musk claims (which included criticism) fall under CRYSTALBALL's "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced". This content would make the article a bit more substantial if included. SpinningSpark also notes the presence of sources around Neuralink which are sufficient for GNG (even discounting the examples of theirs which are unreliable). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A stub at the moment due to the lack of a product but will be expanded once they release one. Λυδ α cιτγ 10:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete. References have no detail on the company other than rumour and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Other articles rely on hearsay, rumour, gossip, tweets and quotations from connected people. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. I would like any Keep !voters to provide links to specific articles they believe meet WP:NCORP guidelines as I'm having trouble locating any. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly satisfies WP:GNG. I understand the nomination is based on the assumption that after the launch, there were "No further sources or available coverage detailing anything further detailing [sic] the company's plans or progress", but that is simply wrong - I just expanded the article based on the in-depth Gizmodo report from 2018. PS: While I appreciate the effort to keep speculative medical claims out of the article, let's not go overboard with MEDRS, and pay attention to Wikipedia:Biomedical_information#What_is_not_biomedical_information?. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additions! Λυδ α cιτγ 04:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response Having read the Gizmodo report, if fails WP:ORGIND since all of the information in the article is based on company announcements except possible for the statement But Neuralink is likely conducting animal research which is the only original "research" in the entire article. Please note from WP:ORGIND - Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 K.T.S.E.. Tone 08:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hurry (Teyana Taylor song)

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

Completing nomination for an IP. Their rationale was "Contains unreliable source(s), does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart." I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I'm leaning towards redirecting this to K.T.S.E. for now as most of the coverage seems to refer to the song in the context of the album. Ss112 18:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to K.T.S.E. per Ss112. — Newslinger talk 04:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 08:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Hahn

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

A small number of sources of varying reliability about the hiring (WP:BLP1E) and nothing since. It's hard to find anything that's better than what we already have, which is, frankly not much. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage of her White House roles extends from January to November 2017. It's gone quiet since, but coverage was not just of her appointment, and notability doesn't expire.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hahn has received a lot of independent coverage -- and not side-mentions: 1,2,3,4,5,6 Clearly meets WP:GNG and should be kept. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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