Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 February	25 February >

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 keep. Clear consensus to keep the article, the sources seem reasonable. (non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Cold Summer

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

Doesn't seem to meet notability criteria for movies. Nerd1a4i (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:GNG. Sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk)
Keep per WP:NF. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the multiple sources having significant coverage about this film. Nerd1a4i, any reason to keep this discussion going? You can withdraw if you agree that there are enough sources after all. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good sources on the article including from the ABC and SBS. Would need the nominating user to explain how these do not meet the GNG in more detail in order to have any other outcome. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep already has full reviws referenced in the article from rs such as Variety, Sydney Morning Herald and ABC Radio (the national radio station in Australia. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copper Pot & Wooden Spoon

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

Non-notable business. Note that the page was recently blanked, but the previous version had little to offer. Derek Andrews (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This business is not notable and the previous version had elements of an attack page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G5. Created by block evading sock: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight/Archive. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ask The Doctor. There appears to be a general consensus that the subject does not pass WP:BASIC but consensus is not as clear on whether or not to delete or redirect. IMO the argument for redirection seems stronger and in the end redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Chand

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

Non-notable individual. I suggest delete and redirect to Ask The Doctor. SmartSE (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user is the founder of Ask The Doctor, and voted top 20 inspiring healthcare entrepreneurs in the world. You can see he runs Ask The Doctor (https://twitter.com/askthedr) which is a verified company. Also is featured prominently in Canadian television:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/canadian-online-health-company-ask-the-doctor-expands-to-china-1.3229461

https://betakit.com/ask-the-doctor-wants-its-tech-to-empower-patients-communicating-with-doctors/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sameersingh100 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Sameersingh100 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - any notability is soley predicated on his position as CEO of a notable copnay. WP:NOTINHERITED clearly indicates that notability is not inherited in this way. Only one ref gets close and that is a rather bare paragraph. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to the company easiest solution in these cases. It is not really possible to disentangle the notability of the two, but one article is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Person is of notability as you can see their interview here: http://www.championshiplifestyle.com/podcasts/2017/5/17/6-prakash-chand-from-athletics-to-business-learning-on-the-job-and-overcoming-injury along with other notable people with wikipedia entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:11A0:102A:FC81:3509:EA2D:EDFB (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Velella. 2001:569:7C07:2600:5512:BBE1:62A8:428B (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ask The Doctor is the best solution in this case. PK T(alk) 14:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete User is a notable figure in Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.226.168.233 (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to company page, the subject is not notetable enough to have separate article, no significant coverage exists. Shellwood (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Augmented Experience (AE)

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

This looks like a WP:NEO to me. None of the references provided seem to confirm that this is a term in common use. I don't see anything of much use in a websearch or a a book search either, apart from the two words being used naturally alongside one another. Derek Andrews (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly referenced essay about a non-notable concept including a lot of original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only four uses of the term found in the Search for Sources link, and appears to be very similar to Augmented Reality. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 11:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bali (cigarette)

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

No earthly significance, save perhaps as the subject of a novice editor's 1st try. Mark^Dask 21:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero notability: The Wikipedia article references one single article printed in Der Speigel in 1960, which only mention that Bali is a brand of Eilebrecht Cigaretten- und Rauchtabak-Fabriken AG. --DexterPointy (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on grounds of lack of notability. –Vami _IV✠ 11:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Stewart (event director)

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

No notability. This is more appropriate for Linked-In Ratel (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. EmyRussell (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article reads as an advertisement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sure it fails the GNG, however, it certainly fails WP:V. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ra.One. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G.One (character)

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

Nothing to show any lasting notability beyond the film. This should be merged and redirected to the main film article. Ravensfire (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect--No standalone notability outside film-scape.Restore the redirect.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect A character in a single movie. MT Train^Talk 13:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect less chances to pass GNG. Lorstaking (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not just a single movie character, but also a video game character. The page doesn't only show it's biography and appearance in the movie, but also highlights it's superpowers and that's all is required for a video game character page. I am aman goyal (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khadija Mushtaq

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

delete it as poor sourced and promotion material about her — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.40.48.206 (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Created for IP using rationale left on talk page. ~ GB fan 19:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Poorly sourced articles do not qualify for deletion, but rather a flag for editing required. Focus on the individual, not the qualities of whoever wrote the article. Pilot333 (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I searched for her name and she's been written about extensively both in Pakistan and internationally. I added additional sources to the article. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not so badly sourced, and I can't find what is too promotional about it. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somedaydream

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

Notability seems below the bar. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just ran a Google search through a few major Philippine newspapers and the subject is clearly notable. Here's results for The Philippine Star, here's an article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, and I'm sure there are sources elsewhere that prove the subject's notability. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do see some sources, but they are not of great depth. A the nom says, it appears to be below the bar for notability.104.163.148.25 (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May Tuckerman

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

Not sure that this particular brothel owner is notable. There is a mention however at "The Past as Prelude: New Orleans, 1718-1968" book (available at Google Books) describing the person as "May Tuckerman, who ran the best known parlor house in the District". Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local level business owner who does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 19:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 19:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 19:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have been a significant figure in a culturally significant neighborhood. XOR'easter (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being significant within a single neighborhood, even a significant one, does not make one notable. Lepricavark (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You can take a guided tour of any old community, and your seasoned guide will show the old drugstore where Doc Perkins handed out cough syrup and tousled kids' hair for 45 years, and the Stephensons' old market where the locals came to gossip and where there was a scandal when it was discovered that Ma Stephenson had monkeyed with the scales, and even the corner brothel. And local historical accounts will name these people and repeat these goings-on that give the neighborhood a little bit of color--and about which there's nothing remarkable, and which have never had any impact or been discussed outside the neighborhood. Further, I didn't find anything myself online, including the cited sources, to indicate that Tuckerman was known outside the community. There were a couple of brothels in the neighborhood. She owned one. That's it.

One cited source mentions her solely in the context of being the landlady of the woman under discussion. The other barely mentions her. I don't know about the off-line sources, but they appear to be no more than the sort of very local histories I've already described. Largoplazo (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 21:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Attre

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

Not notable. Doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO M A A Z T A L K 12:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not cite any reliable source. Failed to establish notability through web search. samee ^talk 14:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article lacks reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There could be offline sources since the artist was active in early 2000's, way before wide usage of internet began in Pakistan. Zamana Nazuk Hai was a hit single that is featured on BBC Music. There's a passing mention in The Herald, Volume 37, Issues 7-9 published in 2006. 39.57.181.30 (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Nothing significant in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Strong consensus that the subject passes GNG which is the basis for determining notability. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dalton Crossan

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

Contested PROD Tag. Subject fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG, in addition the article is largely copied from his Colts Bio with earwig ranking a violation as 94 percent likely. Church ^Talk 19:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. If he actually plays in the NFL, the article can be recreated at that time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete It needs a rewrite but this is in that really tricky grey area where he's on the active roster now - not the reserve roster. He may also be notable: there have been ESPN blogs on him and his lacrosse career [1] along as the subject of some routine news articles [2] These are always tricky, since there's a good chance he'll never play a NFL game, but there's also a decent chance he will. I'd lean keep since he is on the active roster, but possibly best to drafify or just delete entirely for now since it needs a complete rewrite. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The WP:COPYVIO has been removed, and regardless of whether Crossan ever plays in an NFL game, he passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Coverage includes: (1) ESPN profile referenced by SportingFlyer (here); (2) "Dalton Crossan the next Chris Hogan? Or maybe even better?", Pro Football Weekly, 4/10/17, 887 words (appears to be a duplicate of the ESPN profile); (3) "This former UNH star isn’t into Chris Hogan comparisons. He just wants to make the NFL", The Boston Globe, 2/26/17 (full story requires subscription); (4) "Dalton Crossan agrees to sign with Indianapolis Colts after going undrafted", Newsday, 4/29/17; (5) "Could Dalton Crossan be the next Chris Hogan?", Fox Sports, 6/30/17(6) "The Next Julian Edelman? NFL Hopeful Dalton Crossan Sees Himself In Patriots Star", New England Sports Network, 4/7/17; (7) "From multi-sport athlete, Dalton Crossan morphs into all-purpose football star", American Sports Network, 10/14/16; (8) "49ers worked out New Hampshire RB Dalton Crossan", Pro Football Weekly, 4/9/17 (495 words); (9) "Crossan back to lead ground game", New Hampshire Union Leader, 4/27/16; (10) "Playmaker Crossan wants the ball in his hands", Foster's Daily Democrat, 8/14/15 (890 words); (11) "Crossan gives Wildcats another playmaker", Foster's Daily Democrat, 12/11/14 (743 words); (12) "Versatile Crossan comes up big for the Wildcats", Foster's Daily Democrat, 10/25/13; (13) "Versatile Crossan comes up big for the Wildcats", Foster's Daily Democrat, 10/25/13, 771 words; (13) "Sachem's Dalton Crossan To NFL's Colts", Sachem Report, 4/29/17 (significant coverage, but source probably not reliable); and (14) "UNH’s Crossan has eyes on Patriots as draft approaches", Concord Monitor, 4/7/17. Cbl62 (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. Passes GNG. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like more than enough to pass WP:GNG already.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He appears to pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not even played in 1 professional game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the basis for notability here is WP:GNG, not WP:NGRIDIRON. Cbl62 (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large number of players who never saw the field in the NFL that would pass GNG. I'm seeing to see the usual coverage from his college area (NH), places where he works out, and teams he has signed for. People with potential to make NFL, will definitely get coverage during college and around the Draft. NFL signings will always get coverage each time, and he has been signed to two teams now. With cases like these, I think drafts are better until they pass NGRIDIRON. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible for an individual to gain notability based on their college career alone. There is more than one path to notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I don't see any indication of his college career having done that, or I wouldn't have called it the usual coverage for him. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like it passes GNG and WP:BASIC, even if WP:WP:NGRIDIRON does not really apply. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkamal (actor)

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

Non-notable actor, fails WP:NACTOR. Only trivial mentions of the subject in question. This might be WP:TOSOON, for now the subject in question does not warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. FITINDIA 04:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 04:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 04:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep reliable sources confirm he has leading roles in ~~three~~ two feature films so he has claims for WP:NACTOR. On the negative side one is not completed and released and the other is released but does not yet have an article here, but both do have reliable sources coverage. Atlantic306 (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306, Sorry but he fails WP:NACTOR, In the first film Saroja (2008 film) he plays a special appearance the other film dose not look like it had a theatrical release and the 3rd film is under production. FITINDIA 13:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Am getting a bit confused, I didn't mean Saroja but meant Chandikuthirai which is mentioned as a film in the references but now suspect thats a misspelling of Sandikuthirai, can you please confirm, also are you sure it wasn't a theatrical release as found this here thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources provided do confirm that he's had a 10+ year career in television and in serials, even being recognised with an award in 2007. A comprehensive list of serials he has starred in would be helpful, but the lack of coverage of mid-2000 serials online is evident. In terms of his feature films, Sandikuthirai did release in August 2016. His second film, Melnaattu Marumagan, will release on 16 February 2018. Editor 2050 (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Editor 2050 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Delete or Redirect to Jodi Number One. I can't see if the actor has played a major role in films listed in the article except a possible non-notable film Sandikuthirai and Melnaattu Marumagan which not yet released. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the extra additions/sources, which have been added since the deletion proposal, into account. Plenty of coverage from a variety of papers. Editor 2050 (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep career and coverage meet guidelines. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: would you reconsider your keep vote to Redirect to Jodi Number One, the subject does not pass WP:NACTOR and in my opinion the coverage on him does not justify a page on Wikipedia. Thank you. FITINDIA 07:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to one of the television shows he featured on doesn't make sense because he's had other television and film roles including lead roles. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Those links of Deccan chronicle and Times of India[3][4] are not that bad, and somehow establihses notability. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. If this were a vote count it would end as a keep but honestly the only comment that cited policy/guidelines was the OP's nominating statement. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

System C

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

The article was modified on 11:41, 14 Feb 2018 to ensure that it complies with the WP:NORG or WP:ORGDEPTH . Ldemignot (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable company. Does not satisfy WP:NORG or WP:ORGDEPTH . Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 06:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitta Pitta (talk • contribs) 23:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC) — Anitta Pitta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Deletion is not warranted. McKesson sold System C in 2014 back to its orginal owners and they (McKesson) have no share or interest in the company. https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/midlands/115922- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:7422:4600:8538:2141:ABD8:BB32 (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC) — 2A02:C7F:7422:4600:8538:2141:ABD8:BB32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom, has no encyclopedic value. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is now notable due to changes made. Ldemignot (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC) — Ldemignot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the article indicates anything that makes this noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: System C employs over 600 people in the UK at 10 offices. It is the largest UK based developer of software for healthcare and social care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwironmonger (talk • contribs) 11:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC) — Jwironmonger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. The UK is one of the leading economies in the world and this company is one of the top 100 mid-sized companies in the UK and it employees over 500 people. Common sense points to the article being notable and the article has decent sources.Knox490 (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raven & Kreyn

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

Non-notable music producers. Lack of significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG & WP:MBIO. — Za wl 10:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually notable, and do not fail WP:MBIO, see criteria 1, 2, 12 (live broadcast on national french radio "Fun Radio" on 31/01/2018). How does it fail WP:GNG ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elekktronix (talk • contribs) 20:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I don't see any sources in the article verifying a substantial broadcast segment or a place on a national music chart. I don't think the Beatport 100 is sufficient.Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found a video posted by the official Fun Radio facebook page ( https://www.facebook.com/PartyFunOff/videos/1938982079462651/), should i add it to the article or it's not "reliable"? I think Beatport top 100 still is an international music chart. Still fulfill more than 1 criteria of WP:MBIO, no reason for deletion. 07:55, 17 February 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elekktronix (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Ownby

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

Ownby's claim to notability is as the "International Commissioner" of the Boy Scouts of America, making him a member of the World Scout Committee, but the single citation given for that fact fails to list him as a member of that body, and it is not clear that membership on that body would be sufficient notability anyway. Insufficient significant sources available; most sources are mere mentions in passing or entries in a list. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources to address your points. --evrik ^(talk) 00:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence for notability. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has at least seven different citations that establish notability. --evrik ^(talk) 00:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article, as of this moment, has seven citations. Please point out which of them establish Ownby's notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per evrik, who has done a great job to improve the article, thanks!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, I would disagree. The sources provided do not appear to be sufficiently independent of the subject. Ownby may be a notable scout, but Wikipedia is a generalist publication; a person must be generally notable to be included. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I too disagree. The primary issue here is general encyclopedic notability, specifically WP:GNG. Even if one assumes the subject is a notable scout, that characterization does not define him as a notable person who warrants an encyclopedia entry. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Petra Pudova

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

I declined a speedy/salt request because I don't think this is unambiguous. Google news turns up quite a few articles, but they are in Czech, which I don't read, and I can't tell if they are quality sources. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article itself and the behind-the-scenes discussions involving the SPA-creator suggest this is PROMO. I haven't checked anything on GNews, but the sources in the article are rife with YouTube, Imdb, and Czech websites. This person may be notable, but the article, as it stands should be deleted (TNT). Agricola44 (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more like an argument for editing with a chainsaw than deletion...----Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Czech sources are permitted per WP:NONENG. Česká televize, one of the sources, is the state broadcaster. As well as what's already on the article page, she has coverage in iDNES.cz, one of the main Czech media sources [5]. She also has coverage on account of being a dog breeder - check the photo of her and the trophies [6] from novinky.cz as well. Seems to meet WP:GNG. C 679 15:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Czech language sources are no problem as long as they're in reliable sources. I'll take in good faith the assertion above that these particular ones are. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I searched for her name and I can see she's extensively discussed in Czech news sources. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to pass GNG from sources showing in the piece. Carrite (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Krampus in popular culture. This was not the easiest close, but I do think the weight of argument based on guidelines and policy is against the article. That said where redirection is a reasonable option that is normally the course vice outright deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Krampus (musical)

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

No claim to notability. This musical only seemed to be relevant locally JDDJS (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Non notable, local theater production Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Grossberg, Michael (2015-12-10). "In 'Krampus: A Yuletide Tale,' creature haunts the naughty during Christmastime". The Columbus Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2016-01-24. Retrieved 2016-01-24.
2. Grossberg, Michael (2015-12-14). "Theater review | 'Krampus': Light touch just enough to brighten holiday tale". The Columbus Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2016-01-24. Retrieved 2016-01-24.
3. Fischer, Jim (2015-12-10). "Theater preview: "Krampus: A Yuletide Tale"". Columbus Alive. Archived from the original on 2016-01-24. Retrieved 2016-01-24.
4. Sanford, Richard (2015-12-13). "Theatre Review: Short North Stage's Krampus: A Yuletide Tale Has Magic to Spare". Columbus Underground. Archived from the original on 2016-01-24. Retrieved 2016-01-24.
5. Ades, Richard (2015-12-13). "Mythical ogre stalks kids in musical yuletide tale". Columbus Theater. Archived from the original on 2016-01-24. Retrieved 2016-01-24.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Krampus to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although the sources are all from Columbus, they provide "significant coverage" about Krampus as required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The Columbus Dispatch is a major regional newspaper in Ohio. Cunard (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The musical also can be discussed in Krampus in popular culture so deletion is not a policy-based option per WP:PRESERVE.
Cunard (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krampus (musical) participants: NeemNarduni2 (talk · contribs), Dylanfromthenorth (talk · contribs), EditorE (talk · contribs), Atlantic306 (talk · contribs), and MurderByDeadcopy (talk · contribs). Pinging creator Nippeankarblom (talk · contribs) and major contributor Thnidu (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources including The Columbus Dispatch which is a regional rather than local paper, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The keep arguments that cite “significant coverage in reliable sources” are failing to take into account that press for a local stage production falls under WP:ROUTINE, per “ ..planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." This is the nature of regional theatre and every production the Short North Stage theatre puts on gets this same kind of “local scene” coverage from any and all local media be it print, TV, or online. Every single source cited above is promotional . More significant to why this fails as a notable play is that, per my google attempts, it appears this seasonal production was the only time this play was ever staged. If there were significantly more and they were backed up with similar coverage such as this one, I’d say keep. Until such a thing happens, at best this could be considered WP:TOOSOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider theater reviews from regional sources to be routine. Regional sources are discriminate in selecting which productions in the region to review. Regional newspaper The Columbus Dispatch covers the Columbus, Ohio, region. The city of Columbus itself has around 860,000 people according to the Wikipedia article. The review at http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/life_and_entertainment/2015/12/14/light-touch-just-enough-to-brighten-holiday-tale.html has a positive tone. Positive reviews should not be considered promotional sources that cannot be used to establish notability. The review offers extensive analysis of the musical. It calls Krampus a "lilting musical", "charming and touching", and has "just enough humor to lighten its darkness". It compares the title character Krampus to another literary character ("arc of transformation similar to Dr. Seuss’ Grinch"). It compares the musical with another literary work ("weaves echoes of Hansel and Gretel into the lush melodies, soaring solos and emotionality of European operetta").
Routine sources would lack such literary analysis.
I prefer retention because I believe the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. But if editors disagree, the policy-based action to take is a merge to Krampus in popular culture in lieu of deletion per WP:PRESERVE.
Cunard (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local coverage in regional papers is still local, not regional, in nature, just as local coverage in National Papers is still local (we view the metro section of the Washington Post as local...) Cunard's sourcing is normally the best you can find for an article in question, and in this case, it makes it abundantly clear that this is not an article that should be included in Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Krampus in popular culture - coverage does indeed seem to be local, it would be a worthwhile, encyclopedic addition to the other article. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth even that, 78.26 (talk · contribs)? This is a play that has only been produced once for 9 performances over a two week period in a theatre with a 150+ capacity. The math isn't exact but it has roughly been seen by a total of less than 2,000 people, and garnered routine local press. It has never had any other production or press beyond this single seasonal production, nor has it ever garnered any additional reliable source recognition beyond it's own homepage. Is that a significant enough imprint on the legacy of the Krampus topic? To me it seems it would be giving it recognition for mere existence rather than importance. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, yes. It is very short (particularly since the last sentences wouldn't be kept, as it would be redundant to the rest of that article), so it doesn't skew the article subsequent to the merge. I believe it helps demonstrate a geographic diversity to the impact of the character on popular culture. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A second look with this re-listing. I’m sticking with my previous vote of delete, based on my research and a refutation of the 2 keep votes. Per my comments above, this original musical has only been produced once for 9 performances over a two week period in a theatre with a 150+ capacity, meaning it was roughly seen by a total of less than 2,000 people. (There are high school plays that have had larger audiences during their complete run!) The two keep votes argue that this event has garnered “significant coverage from reliable sources.” The sources are The Columbus Dispatch, the Columbus, Ohio regional daily; Columbus Alive (a city dinning and entertainment guide owned by the Columbus Dispatch); Columbus Underground, a self-described on-line resource guide for Columbus, Ohio nightlife; and Columbus Theatre, a blog. I would argue that the Columbus Dispatch is the only significant source among these (even though Columbus Alive has its own wikipage). The Columbus Dispatch and the Dispatch-owned Alive account for 3 of the 5 references, with two of them being blatantly promotional. What’s left are 3 reviews, one in a metro daily, one from a blog, and one from a website that promotes Columbus area life. The only source that has weight, in my opinion, is that it was reviewed by the Dispatch critic. The coverage from the 5 cited sources span a four day period around the date of the play’s opening performance, during which local media typically reports on such things. Beyond this four day period this musical does not turn up in any additional searches beyond it’s own promotional website. My contention is this is not a notable play, and sources trying to prove otherwise are merely routine coverage of a local event (further research shows that every year the Short North Stage Theatre’s Christmas season production gets the same dutiful, routine-type coverage) and thus fails wikipedia standards for that reason. The above argument that the coverage transcends being routine because the 3 reviews are positive and one contains literary analysis is—and I don’t mean to offend—simply preposterous; poorly or well reviewed, insightful or not, doesn’t elevate the significance of the sources or the nature of the coverage. A final point: the article was created by a SPA editor, seemingly with an intent to promote either the play or the theatre. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allset

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

lotys of promotional references, but not actual notability DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just a set of the mentioned references here:

^ "Allset Raises $5 Million To Help Diners Order Ahead When They Eat Out". Forbes. 17 October 2017. Retrieved 27 November 2017. Jump up ^ "Allset | crunchbase". www.crunchbase.com. Retrieved 27 November 2017. Jump up ^ "Allset raises $5M to help restaurants deliver a more efficient dining experience". TechCrunch. 17 October 2017. Retrieved 27 November 2017. Jump up ^ "Allset raises $5 million to cut wait times at restaurants". VentureBeat. 17 October 2017. Retrieved 27 November 2017.

As far as I can tell this company is notable and simply naming actual numbers is not "promotional" (reality isn't spam, that would be like that mentioning that Ireen Wüst won silver at the Pyongchang Winter Olympics is "promotional"), Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise but we should also be able to distinguish between what is an advertisement and what isn't an advertisement. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 10:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. (Post-Script) Some sources are from May while other sources are from October, so this isn't a WP:ONEEVENT company either. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 10:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Biased selection of material to include can be and often is promotional. The relevant guideline is WP:UNDUE. Rentier (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient sources available to write a meaningful, balanced article, fails WP:NCORP. Rentier (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. It has been mentioned that "numbers aren't promotional" but articles based on company announcements fails the criteria for establishing notability. Other references fail mainly because they are not intellectually independent and rely on quotations/interviews with company officers, or because the articles focus on the app and not the company (which is the topic of this article). Some of the articles even provide a discount code ... Probably WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Jaff

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

I've tried to cleanup this promotional bio/. I think it's hopeless. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DGG, I came across this article some time ago and it was full of promotional material and reduced it to this. I also considered sending to AfD back then, but concluded that there were sufficient reliable sources to establish notability, though I can see no compelling reason to keep it other than it technically meets our criteria for notability once the promotional stuff is removed. One possibility is to revert the article back to the article I cleaned up (linked above). I'm neutral on whether to keep or delete it.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:NOTADVERT violation, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can write something more neutral and less dependent on primary sources and glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things than this version is. The one thing that jumped out at me from the sources as the most seemingly compelling evidence of notability, the notion that a Mexican political figure was getting media coverage in Kurdistan per footnote #26, actually turned out to be a press release (in English, no less, which makes organically independent coverage of her an implausible explanation as virtually all of the site's other content is in Kurdish) — basically, it's a user-generated public relations blog that will "publish" absolutely anything that gets submitted to it at all, not a real media outlet. But self-promoting wannabes routinely try to game our sourcing rules by creating and distributing their own self-published "sourcing" for themselves on user-generated content and "citizen journalism" sites, and then trying to use that self-created "coverage" as proof that they pass WP:GNG. So if that's happening here, then I have less inclination to give any of the other questionable sources the benefit of the doubt, and I'm not seeing enough non-questionable sources to vote "keep with cleanup". If somebody can write and source a new article much better than this, that's another story — but this as written is so bad that it qualifies for the blow it up and start over treatment regardless of her potential notability. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yes, this article in its current state is promotional, and that should be changed, but I don't think it's to the point that it should be deleted. For example, several of the references cited, such as Kurdistan24 and Rudaw Media Network, seem reliable, and I found this article on her, which seems like a good one to cite (though I'm not familiar with Mexican media sources). It's not the strongest sourcing, but it works for me. The article definitely should be changed and improved, and it should be condensed even more than DGG did (and we don't need so many headers), but ultimately it should be kept. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, when I say the article should be "changed," I mainly mean trimming to get rid of the promotional info so only independent sources (such as the ones I mentioned) are cited. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with 1990'sguy. Article could use cleanup, expansion, improved referencing not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article about Hanna Jaff as it stands now already has several reliable source across multiple languages, e.g. the Forbes article. WP:PROMOTIONALISM is not a reason to delete an article in and of itself if it already passes WP:GNG. Carajou (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is complete self-promotion of a person without political relevance, the person in question does not represent any important group or organization, has not exercised any public office at the federal or local level, nor has she been a candidate or participated in constitutional elections in Mexico. Its main references are to a supposed Kurdish genealogy, and to social and business magazines where there is no journalistic rigor. Checking the sources it is clear that it is a self-promotion article, most of these, are completely invalid. Number 4 is related to a business website but has no author or context, number 5 has no relevance, number 6 leads to a website where nothing related is mentioned, number 7 does not work, number 8 leads to a directory of a private company, the number 11 leads to a pdf that does not clarify if it was published in any means of communication, the number 12 directs to an article in a generic sports blog, the 13 and 14 direct to the official site of the Institutional Revolutionary Party but there is no mention of it anywhere, number 15 directs to a homepage of a lifestyle blog where there is no mention of it either, number 18 does not work, number 20 directs to a multimedia homepage , a means of communication where there is no mention of she, number 21 goes to the homepage of the OEM, a means of communication where there is no mention of she, the number 24 addresses a news of candidacy in Mexico in a Kurdish medium or but it has no references in Mexican media, where for obvious reasons it should appear, the number 28 does not show any mention of she. andreszavalas (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does appear to have several reliable sources across multiple languages (for example, Forbes Kurdistan24 and Rudaw Media Network). Jaff has also held notable enough political offices and she also has a well-rounded life of accomplishment in several areas (politician, philanthropist, etc.).Knox490 (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GLOBAL should be invoked here. Many of the citations in the article are in other languages besides English, but that does not mean that Wikipedia should discriminate against these. The abundance of sources in the article testify to Jaff's notability. desmay (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Rootes Memorial Fund

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

No demonstration of notability. Cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Kioj156 (talk) 17:33, 24 February 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 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm surprised this has been on WP for so long, no assertion of notability. Szzuk (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 21:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the King's Men (King's College London)

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

No demonstration of notability. Cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Kioj156 (talk) 17:22, 24 February 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 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Refs don't support notability.EmyRussell (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The article makes a claim of notability but it doesn't really work for me. The refs in the article aren't enough, I googled and looked on news, there wasn't much that isn't in the article. It hasn't had many edits. A rescue isn't impossible but is unlikely. Szzuk (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eye Industries

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

Non-notable record label. While there are other labels closely resembling this, I couldn't find anything significant on this. The website is also non-functional. MT Train^Talk 17:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With regret, delete. Unless someone can actually make the British Newspapers Archive work and finds something there, I don't believe there is RS. The label comes up on blogs and unofficial lists of ED/trance music labels. There's a Zoominfo page for the purported founder saying it became an arm of Sync Sound (I think I recall that correctly), and a founding date of 1996 floating around the web. But nothing I could possibly cite, not even a physical location, so I don't know whether this was run out of a flat in the East End or a garage in Birmingham. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utter lack of reliable sources. Nothing at all turns up in a search through WP:Newspaperarchive.com, which seems to have a fairly extensive collection of United Kingdom newspapers on file. Even that Billboard link in the article (as in the Bodyrox article) turns up archived as a dead-end. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:CORP. The Bodyrox single was a big hit both in the UK and on the US Dance charts, and the label had at least three other UK Top 40 hits via singles from Michael Gray and Supafly vs. Fishbowl. But four hit singles doesn't make the label itself notable, particularly when there appears to be nothing discussing the label itself. Their SoundCloud page isn't active (never a good sign for a dance music label) and the most recent upload is from seven years ago; likewise, I can't find any release on the label after 2010, which all points to the label becoming inactive around 2010–11. The best you could hope for is that there was a feature on the label a dozen years ago in one of the UK dance magazines or in Music Week... but they're not going to be available on the internet, and it's asking a lot for someone to find and trawl through back copies of the print editions of those magazines. Richard3120 (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I think I wrote this out of love for Mantronix, which is always a good motivation. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True Drmies, but I'm not sure how involved Kurtis Mantronik was with this label – it seems to have been a couple of collaborations and a few remixes, none of which got anywhere near charting. Richard3120 (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and I can't put up much of a fight, haha. It's one of those stubs that you hope someone else will pick up, and you hope there's something to pick up. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick Student Arts Festival

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

Fairly obvious above that article is being used to WP:PROMO this NN, now seemingly defunct, event and that the editors in question are WP:NOTHERE to build WP. Kioj156 (talk) 17:09, 24 February 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 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. EmyRussell (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick Economics Summit

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

Fairly obvious above that article is being used to WP:PROMO this event and that the editors in question are WP:NOTHERE to build WP. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warwick Economics Summit for previous discussion. Kioj156 (talk) 17:16, 24 February 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 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure why this page was revived given the outcome of first AfD nomination. EmyRussell (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic or useful, salt if it reappears. Szzuk (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick International Development Summit

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

Fairly obvious above that article is being used to WP:PROMO this NN, now seemingly defunct, event and that the editors in question are WP:NOTHERE to build WP. Kioj156 (talk) 17:00, 24 February 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 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure why this page was revived given the outcome of first AfD nomination. EmyRussell (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SciPost

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

Article de-PRODded by creator without stated reason. PROD reason still stands: "A (minor) grant from MPI is not enough for notability: Non-notable publisher of as yet non-notable scientific journals." Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. The only source is a non-independent press release that is one sentence long (not counting links at the end). This may become notable, it may not outlast the granting period of the original grants that established it. Time will tell but isn't notable now. Agricolae (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SciPost Physics is also related. --MaoGo (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SciPost Physics

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

Article de-PRODded by creator without justification given. PROD reason still stands: "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases (ESCI is not selective), no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on this, it might merit a mention at overlay journal. XOR'easter (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there's ~~now a fork~~ also a draft of this at Draft:SciPost Physics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I had started Draft:SciPost Physics before this page came out. It is relatively new journal but is backed by several universities. --MaoGo (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ... and that satisfies any notability requirements exactly how?? Any independent sources? Please note that !votes not based in policy (and yours basically is WP:ILIKEIT) are wont to be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to compile whatever I can find that is reliable. --MaoGo (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no refs for any of the content other than an index entry, questionable notability. Agricolae (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to LSE Students' Union. czar 21:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LSE German Society

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

No demonstration of notability. Cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV and seems to breach WP:NOTADVERTISING. Kioj156 (talk) 16:38, 24 February 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 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selective merge to LSE Students' Union as not significant enough for a standalone article. EmyRussell (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not notable in itself, refs are synth. Szzuk (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one sentence mentioning the symposium would be enough Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Student Theatre at Glasgow

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

No demonstration of notability. Cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Kioj156 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 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 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Refs don't support notability and suffers from WP:Tone. EmyRussell (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evans Bros Auctioneers

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

Non-notable business. MT Train^Talk 16:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going, going, gone per nom. Being in business a long time doesn't make one notable by itself. No media coverage that I can find. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any takers?. <Silence>, I guess that's a no. Szzuk (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (insert auction joke here). No refs that suggest notability guidelines are met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karnesh Sharma

How is this person notable again? I mean seriously? Just because his sister is famous? As a producer? It seems like someone from her company created this article. Just because someone is co-producing a film with a family member, it doesn't make the other person notable enough to have a mention in an encylopedia. I was thinking to do this since a very long time. In the media also, Clean Slate films' films gather coverage because of Anushka Sharma not her brother. I think it's high time to delete the article. I am sure Anushka Sharma is responsible for that company and the talent which are attracted towards that company and not her brother. A token credit as a producer does not count. I don't see articles on Hiroo Johar, whose credit include over 10 super successful films. I think it's enough that the company has its article but this man? He is not notable.Krish | Talk 15:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Not inherited and all...~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Not inherited and no sign of independent notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kyriakos Georgiou

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

Virtually no references to back up any claim of notability (within the article or otherwise) London Hall (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Perhaps it could be made into an article, but as it stands, and as a BLP, it ought to go. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion or redirection. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bit by Bats

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

Fails WP:Music and WP:GNG. Could not find any references online either. London Hall (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage in mainstream Australian newspapers, details to follow. Quotes removed by nominator just before starting this add indicate further coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easily online. [7] [8].

Munro, Kelsey (16 April 2007), "Punk primitives sink their teeth into dance", Sydney Morning Herald

Carroll, Nick (13 April 2005), "Bats on the go", Portside Messenger

"REWIND", Sunday Herald Sun, 2 September 2007

Silkstone, Dan (23 February 2007), "March cds", The Age

There's more out there. Enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, satisfies WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC) Apart from the above there is also:[reply]

Palathingal, George (20 April 2007), "Bit By Bats", Sydney Morning Herald

Bit By Bats - Go Go Go! all over Australia, Polaroids of Androids, 6 May 2007

Dixon, Carl (16 February 2007), Bit By Bats to Go Go Go!, Faster Louder

Keep passes WP:BAND. I've added content including using some refs by the two users above. I've also added a few refs not already mentioned.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination - per above. London Hall (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cooking Vinyl. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Essential Music & Marketing

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. MT Train^Talk 14:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Refs don't support notability, the article doesn't assert any notability in its text, the link to their official website is somebody elses. Szzuk (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The website does belong to the company as per what I can make out from this. MT Train^Talk 15:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Essential Music appears to be a subsidiary of Cooking Vinyl and they have linked to Cooking Vinyl. Szzuk (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cooking Vinyl - no notability outside parent company, per sources in article and search for other references. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daarul Salaam

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

I'm not sure what happened here. All the various names seem to be for some sort of development project in Mogadishu, not a village. At the very least this needs some WP:TNT. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be verified. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Trade show. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Computer expo

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

Unreferenced arbitrary list of events Rathfelder (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to trade show Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and selective merge to Trade show. COMDEX at least should be listed there. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoracetam

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

All chemicals compounds must meet the general notability guideline. This is not a notable chemical compound. There are zero references in PubMed and nothing about the compound found in SciFinder. A google search doesn't turn up anything more than database listings and unreliable websites (such as recreational drug use discussion forums). In light of WP:RS and WP:V, there is nothing more that can be said about this than it merely exists. ChemNerd (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - adding to ChemNerd's analysis, it does receive 13 Google Scholar hits, but they are all patent applications that mention it in passing, usually just naming it among long lists of tested drugs. That a compound exists is insufficient, as per ChemNerd. Likewise, the second paragraph appears to be a WP:NOR violation (i.e. the editor is likely reporting that they didn't find any papers, rather than having a source for the non-existence of papers but failing to provide it). Agricolae (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This compound gets fourteen hits for scholarly articles. The fact that it’s a widely tested drug earns this subject an individual article. It is also mentioned in textbooks such as Drug Therapy in Old Age and Generalized Non-Convulsive Epilepsy: Focus on GABA-B Receptors, both of which are academic in nature. Carajou (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not what the searches actually show. For the Google Scholar search the result is not 14 scholarly papers, but 13 matches (at least not when I click the link given by Carajou), and every single one of them is hosted at Google Patents - they are all patents. A patent application is essentially a self-published document, not a WP:RS. This does not represent 'widely tested', nor would such lists of a hundred drug names qualify all of them as notable. Likewise with the books, what precisely are they supposed to say about the subject? When I search for nicoracetam within Drug Therapy in Old Age on both Google Books and HathiTrust, I am told the term does not appear at all. The same is true for Generalized Non-Convulsive Epilepsy (not available on Hathi). A Google Books search sometimes returns works that do not contain the search terms, just being what the Google algorithm considers relevant - if you click on the match and it tells you there are 1-0 matches (snippet) or takes you to the title page (preview) it means the search term doesn't really appear there. If this is the best that can be done in terms of finding a basis for notability, it proves the opposite. Agricolae (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd want to see at least some peer-reviewed studies (even primary) before considering it as a stub. This seems to fail the fairly low bar chemicals have for being notable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It’s better that general readers gain info from Wikipedia than drug forums.--Davidcpearce (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without a single WP:RS in sight for 9 years, what makes it better? Agricolae (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good - and occasionally even better - material can be found on drugs, including the racetams, on the forums. But Wikipedia should be a consistently trustworthy and encyclopaedic resource, which alas can’t be said of forum postings. --Davidcpearce (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally this is what Wikipedia should be, which alas can't be said of a Wikipedia page completely devoid of reliable sources (for 9 years). Agricolae (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no info in the article for general readers to gain. TimBuck2 (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What information is this supposed to convey other than it exists? This is context- and essentially content-free directory listing. --Calton | Talk 16:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without content, or reliable sources from which to add content, this article is unsuitable for Wikipedia at this time. Even the most basic aspects of notability and verifiability are far from being met. TimBuck2 (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could only find listings in dbs which are programmatically generated, so it does seem a shame, but failing GNG there's no other option. Widefox; talk 01:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Liebman

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

Notability seems questionable... several PR/bizjournal sources, and no obvious claim to notability. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for GNG - article contains a 2007 profile story in the Seattle Times [9] in which the Seattle Times, speaking in its own voice, describes Liebman as someone who makes [notable] "... people nervous. City officials, labor leaders, Port commissioners."; Knute Berger writes in 2007 in Crosscut.com that Liebman is a "900 pound gorilla" in commercial real estate [10] (so he passes the Gorilla Notability Guidelines); article includes a 650-word story from 2016 in the Seattle Times [11] dedicated to Liebman's legal disputes; Liebman received dedicated coverage by NBC News [12], the Christian Science Monitor [13], Eugene Register-Guard [14], and USA Today [15] in the context of a fish he caught in 2016; Liebman also has a couple incidental mentions in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Northwest Asian Weekly spanning two different years (a Google News search produces a few more short mentions on NPR and the New York Times); he also has mentions in the Seattle Weekly and Seattle Times about a restaurant naming a menu item after him. While there are PR and WP:PRIMARY sources (e.g. a Bloomberg profile and a SEC filing), they're just used to fill-out vital statistics and not to establish GNG. I agree with Coffee that this is on the line, however, IMO it just crosses the GNG for consistent and in-depth coverage spanning multiple events in WP:RS. Chetsford (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Full Disclosure: I am the editor who originally created this article. Chetsford (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Keep per Chetsford's arguments above, and the considerable non-routine coverage of his activities by The Seattle Times. I can return 43 results since 2000 alone, including front-page (A1) articles like this one. Sounder Bruce 21:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adult entertainment convention

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

Unreferenced and devoid of useful content Rathfelder (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -No referenced sources, and it looks like nothing more than a promotional article. Not notable. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aytash Iraq

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

An article on this company was turned down at AfC for lack of notability. The creator of this version's username reveals an undeclared conflict of interest. No references. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notability--IamIRAQI (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(?) Pinus

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

Apart from the article title being a curious misunderstanding of a notation indicating uncertainty of classification, it seems the source only describes Pinus yorkshirensis and no other species of Pinus, and describes no "(?) Pinus". As such this is either WP:OR, a hoax, or some clumsy attempt without meaningful content. cyclopia ^speak! 11:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete The name is obviously wrong for anything. Whenever a paleontologist describes a specimen for the first time they give it a species name. So I suspect this was just some kind of mistake. If there was any useful content it should just go to Pinus. (My earlier speedy delete nomination did not proceed). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Curiouser and curiouser. Paper doesn't even use this instance of placeholder nomenclature; clearly some misunderstanding. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with User:Graeme Bartlett, seems to have been created by mistake. JIP | Talk 13:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be based on some kind of misunderstanding of the cited source, not a namespace worth preserving, even as a redirect. Agricolae (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creator clearly misinterpreted something, because plant and animal species aren't named with question marks and even the paper cited as the source for it doesn't do so at all. I'm willing to WP:AGF here rather than labelling it an outright hoax per se, but I'm still not sure why the creator thought this was the article title or that we didn't already have an article about the actual species name covered in the cited source. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Wheeler

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

He may have a life outside of Fresh Off the Boat, but I see no other significant roles (for him) or notable statements about him. I'd accept "Merge back" as an outcome, but an AfD gets more eyes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. As far as I can tell he's only had a significant role in one TV series, Fresh off the Boat. He's only 13 so I suspect this is WP:TOOSOON Cait.123 (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 18:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Keep all three boys on this show are celebrities and role models in the Asian American community. Oodles of substantial coverage. Many roles even apart from a major long running hugely successful sitcom. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The young artist award alone should be enough, but there are plenty of sources currently in the article, no need to search for more to see this is a keep.Jacona (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has done hosting duties and won several awards. I think he's notable to keep. Small5th (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to remove this article. It follows the general criteria and it is informative.(Voicebox64 (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Keep the guidelines for child actors are severely lacking. GNG does seem to be met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No dissenting comments. The one rather long and rambling "comment" did not in any way address the subject of the AfD discussion but rather seemed to be a political op-ed. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global policy

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

Unsourced article with an arbitrary collection of society topics. While there seems to be a high level overlap between some agenda items of e.g. the United Nations or WEF, the terms "global policy" or "global priorities" seem arbitrary. There is no evidence of those agenda items being called or agreed as "global policy". As such, propose deletion as essay, original research and/or opinion piece. See also Talk:Global policy. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New article in development. See my comments on the talk page, as requested. -Inowen (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Its rather late, in America. I will check in on this in the morning. -Inowen (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Topic is duplicative of international relations. Coretheapple (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User:~~Acebulf~~ Inowen below; my basic point is that the article is too broad, vague, and not sourced with regard to the overall article. It's original research in essay form as noted in the nomination. Coretheapple (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The arguments against this article seem to fall under the categories of political realism, where 'there is no global policy, only global politics' is the thesis. But political realism is just one point of view, and exists in opposition to an equally valid school of thought, namely idealism. The argument that realism is valid and idealism is not is out of place in favoring one point-of-view. The argument that this is redundant with international relations is inaccurate, as international relations is a general topic, wheras here there is an idea of being specific in naming specific goals and strategies. The argument that development goals is the proper place for this has weight, but that's not an article yet, and it simply redirects to Millenium Development Goals. The UN has a top place in setting such goals, but there are other entities as well who should contribute to the mix, plus the UN is compromised on a fundamental level by the UK and other anti-democratic entities, who don't honor some of the basic idealistic goals that are common on a global level. One could complain that the idea of global policy and goals is inherently democratic and therefore biased against hereditary government, but thats the point, that part of world political reality is the universal validaty of democracy. -Inowen (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the header as it was affecting the AFD page in its whole. Acebulf (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Wikipedia:Synthesis; it is also patent nonsense if you know anything about the topic. Isingness (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Everest

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

Not able to establish notability as per WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. There is no credible claim of notability in the article, technically A7 applies here, however, I believe discussion is better option since the article is up for 1 year and has been edited by several users. Hitro talk 08:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom plus lacks the minimal threshold of RS. Agricola44 (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 am not seeing any clear Keep arguments and this has already been relisted. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RealSound (RS)

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

Non-notable record label. Fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP. Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. — Za wl 15:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added AllMusic, they do exist and made recordings that look notable. Can't do more right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Between AllMusic and the "official" site, it appears they are mostly a classical-music producer of some VERY high profile classical recordings, and a recording studio. They released CDs under their own name in the 90s to about 2005, including several notable artists. Probably notable under NMUCIS#5, but very difficult to find sources, searching "RealSound" or "Real Sound" gives you lots of chaff to wade through. Except for the artist list, the article gives no useful information for a discographer, music historian, or musicologist, so I'm not all that inclined to say 'keep' as having encyclopedic value. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article consists of little more than a definition. It doesn't assert any notability or give any actual information about the company. The only external links are to the company's own homepage. JIP | Talk 13:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ponce Renegades

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

No notability. Not a single reference was found online other than circular reference to the WP page. Mercy11 (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 19:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here is one source [16] that mentions the Renegades from Ponce under list of teams. I can find references of them existing, now its a matter whether we consider this one season 0-8 team from a semi-professional league is notable. I don't know how things like this go for sports teams that aren't that popular in their countries. Being as a lot of these sources will be in Spanish, might take me some time trying to find more. WikiVirusC^(talk) 02:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably non-professional team without any decent sources I could find. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. One keep + the OP's delete. Article has been relisted w/o further comment. It's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal development planning

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

Not a notable topic on its own. If included at all it would be as part of the Personal Development article. NerudaPoet (talk) 20:54, 16 February 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 February 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a highly notable topic as there seem to be many books devoted to it. The nomination is therefore false and it also seems to suggesting merger not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I am seeing a strong argument for passing GNG based on SIGVOV. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Clinton (“Bud”) Johns, Jr.

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

Non-notable individual lacking support to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Probable~~ Keep There is WP:SIGCOV, such as this 1981 UPI story: 40-mile Ride and Tie; New kind of marathon is based on Old West practice.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is hardly in-depth or non-trivial sourcing. reddogsix (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN I added a few sources. The many varieties of his name may be part of the problem here. Searching under "Bud Johns" it is easy to establish such facts as his major role as a successful, longtime communications director building the Levis brand. And even easier to show that he is credited with being the founder of the modern sport of Ride and Tie, sourcing on that has WP:SIGCOV in many articles that I have not added to the page (I added a handful of what I saw) and it is certainly a valid claim to notability. His role as founder is widely covered over many years in WP:RS. Certainly article can and should be improved using the many sources available, with the caveat that sources about activities in the 1970s and 80s don't pop up at the top of searches. Nom came to this when it was a virtually unsourced page on a person whose very common name and nickname make searching difficult, but WP:HEY, this page now meets WP:ANYBIO, criterion #2 : he founded a pretty popular sport. Not a sport I previously knew about, but the news media sure covers Ride and Tie and his role in establishing it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article Is still lacking in-depth, non-trivial support to establish [[WP:N]. reddogsix (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has very good references, and it fulfills all the notability requirements, it should be kept in the enciclopedia.Fructisgarnier (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)— Fructisgarnier (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The article Is still lacking in-depth, non-trivial support to establish [[WP:N]. reddogsix (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Puzzled by User:Reddogsix's attitude, I went to look at article creator's page, which shows several weeks of attempts to delete this page and investigations of editors supporting page for sockpuppetry - which it all may well have been. To me, however, what this looks like is an attempt by a WP:NEWCOMER to create a bio page - whether the NEWBIE is Johns, someone who loves or admires Johns, or a Ride and Tie aficionado, I cannot say. What I can say in that rather tan starting a series of PRODs , and notices turning down article at articles for submission, and AfD and, finally, a sockpuppet investigation, someone might have simply explained to the newbie the basic approach to sourcing an article in plain English. Our templates only seem clear to us, to most people they are as arcane and impenetrable as a game of cricket is to an American. Or someone might have sourced some part of the article to show the NEWBIE page creator how sourcing is done. What I am appalled by is this sort of aggression-by-template on an obvious NEWBIE. This is not the way to welocme NEWWBIES to the project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The facts on this bio page - (well, most of them, I have tagged some for sourcing) - are supported by WP:RS, often a sentence or two in a longer article, about Johns' career, jobs held, marriage (big city daily obit of first wife), donations of art to museums, and so forth. There are somewhat longer passages describing his role as the founder of Ride and Tie, a sport that, according to numerous articles in major publications, he created in his role as the longtime Communications Director for Levis jeans. The idea was to buff the corporate image by backing something more unique than a tennis or golf tournament, and, according to the New York Times, (ON YOUR OWN; A Long-Distance Event That's Not So Lonely) Ride & Tie fit the image Levis wanted to cultivate. Ride and Tie is such a colorful sport that searching the various versions of John's name in Proquest news archive, I came upon literally scores of articles published over the course of the 5 decades since this sport was created by Johns in 1971, all discussing his role, and published in major national magazines (Sports Illustrated THE RIDE & TIE RACE DEMANDS LOTS OF STAMINA AND PLENTY OF HORSE SENSE], and daily papers, many with INDEPTH, far from "trivial" coverage of Johns' role: Extreme horse racing: Where man and beast both run] (Christian Science Monitor, 2007); "These Marathoners Get on Their Mark, Get Set and Giddyap: Annual Race in Utah Requires Running and Riding Skills; One Steed for Two People These Marathoners Get on Their Mark, Get Set and Giddyap" (Wall Street Journal, 1984]]). While I find it convenient to use a news archive - plus it gives a better idea of the universe of coverage of a topic - here is a non-paywalled, 1983 article in the Washington Post "There is a lot of strategy involved in deciding when to run and when to ride," said Bud Johns, who devised this sport in 1971 while working in the public relations department for Levi's jeans. "We didn't want to sponsor just another tennis or golf tournament that you'd forget about a week later." Johns has been researching the ride-and-tie concept of travel for almost 25 years. Ask about its origins and he will cite historical precedents as far back as 18th Century England. "I tell people that Joseph and Mary were ride-and-tying to Bethlehem, but I can't document it," says Johns, who has a white beard, blue eyes and the kind of craggy face you'd expect to find peering into a pan for mountain gold...."] Other articles go into more detail, but even this one, stating that Johns "devised this sport in 1971 while working in the public relations department for Levi's jeans" cannot be dismissed as "trivial."E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep Meets the GNG. What else is needed?Sandals1 (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you like them apples

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

An idiom, and a famous line from Good Will Hunting, but there's nothing that justifies an encyclopedia article here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No encyclopedic value. Article mostly consists of mentions in popular culture only. JIP | Talk 13:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the entire article is trivia. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous comments. Non-encyclopedic --HunterM267 ❯ talk 19:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Noting the copyright violation concerns. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Gallagher (American politician)

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

Non-notable county politician. Fails WP:POLITICIAN like the others. Also another copy and paste job from his official county biography [17] Rusf10 (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for basically the same notability reason, although they look like they've been edited enough so they no longer appear to be plagiarized:

Delete - Should honestly be speedily deleted; copyvios are not minor offenses. Even if these articles were completely re-written, they still would not satisfy GNG and their positions are not reasons for an automatic keep.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As usual, county freeholder is not a role that constitutes an automatic WP:NPOL pass — it can get a person over WP:NPOL #2 if they can be sourced to a volume and depth and breadth of media coverage that marks them out as significantly more notable than most other county freeholders, but it's not an "inherently" notable role that entitles a person to have an article just because they can be nominally verified as existing. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a copyvio and in any case doesn't hit WP:GNG or WP:NPOL]. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete These biographies of minor politicians in New Jersey have gone beyond any reasonable level of inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Harsh Rathod 04:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anubhav (1986 film)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Anubhav (1986 film)

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

This article contains no references. It is a stub. The poster image used is also not real one. Harsh Rathod 04:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: please read WP:BEFORE. Being unsourced and/or a stub is not a reason for deletion. WikiP as 100s of 1000s of articles in the same condition. Next, can you provide any evidence that the poster used is not the real one. Most films have more than one poster. MarnetteD|Talk 05:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains personal viewpoints and notability issues. See the music section in it. Neither music nor the film is notable. Harsh Rathod 05:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to give some examples of the "personal viewpoints" as well as explaining what is wrong with the list of music used in the film. MarnetteD|Talk 06:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - film is very famous and well known in india for its suggestive content..ALSO, not having a popular music as deletion criteria is strange..this film was never meant to be musical...its a mild sex comedy..and what make nominator feel that poster is not real?"personal viewpoint"?? :-)) the film Also has IMDB page --http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395453/... many wikipedia film articles are based only on IMDB...

I ask for proof on these statements: 1. From Soundtrack section: "Music was not very notable." 2. From track listing: "Alka Yagnik uncredited" Harsh Rathod 07:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment-- @Harsh Rathod, WE already have your vote as nominator... please delete your additional vote of "strong delete" it doesn't serve any purpose to vote again and again...ALSO, not having a popular music as deletion criteria is strange..this film was never meant to be musical...its a mild sex comedy..and what make nominator feel that poster is not real?"personal viewpoint"?? :-)) the film Also has IMDB page --http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395453/... many wikipedia film articles are based only on IMDB... thanks, Adamstraw99 (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. This article has a history of poor editing and the English here nowhere resembles like encyclopaedic prose. Also, having a dedicated page on IMDb, BBFC, etc. does not mean that the film is notable and should be on Wikipedia. Till now, the only reason I got is that it has IMDb page. I am asking for reference proof after every statement on this page. Or this page will spread misconceptions to a huge mass of people. IMDb is not a sole place for reference.Harsh Rathod 08:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--- "not done", you should have deleted your double vote before writing "done" here ..again, "poor editing" and "poor english" are not criteria for deletion.. we must contribute to improve English and editing in this article instead of trying to delete the entire article ... thanks Adamstraw99 (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Varifiability is the issue here. You are still not able to provide proof for above two statements. Justify the prose written in the article by citing references. Harsh Rathod 09:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-- Read and try to understand the first comment in this thread by MarnetteD... also, there are hundreds of indian films without popular music... Ek Ruka Hua Faisla is one such example which did not have even a single song...why don't you nominate it also on the same grounds??..thanks Adamstraw99 (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still stay put to my firm decision for deletion of this page since the text provided on the article can't be verified on the basis of IMDb page alone. And I didn't ask if the music did well or not. I just wanted verification proof for statements in the article. There is no source for proof reading. It is written that Alka Yagnik was uncredited on that track. How can I know what was the source for that? Is it written on any publication? How can I know? Harsh Rathod 13:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-- it does not matter (or nobody gives a damn) whether you stay put to your "firm decision" or not..... Sadly, this article does not meet the wikipedia community requirement for deletion.... I will leave it here for Admins to decide... thanks -- Adamstraw99 (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who asked you? Just leave. Instead of fighting with me here. You could have improved the article by now. But no, people got opinions on everything whethere it matters them or not. Harsh Rathod 19:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep have found some references and will add them to the article, they are here, here and here. According to the first reference the film was re-released in 2013 so it must have been a popular film and attracted attention 17 years after its first showing. Will also change the poster as you consider it to be wrong. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources added means that the article meets WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. MarnetteD|Talk 16:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I withdraw my nomination. 😭 Harsh Rathod 04:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This discussion was previously closed as keep and then reopened for additional discussion. Since that time, I don't think the discussion has progressed any closer to a consensus. With more than three weeks of discussion already, keeping this open longer is unlikely to be productive. In terms of the weight of arguments, I think there is a preponderance in favor of keeping the article; however, I don't think it rises to the level of being clearly for keeping. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian Nobel laureates

AfDs for this article:

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

A man's religion has nothing to do with his awards. Christianity discovered none of modern science's achievements, it was peoople who discovered it. Other religions should be spared, as They have very less entries, ranging from 11-193. But, this is a very long list with 427 people. Nobel Prize was originated by a christian person, It is given by two 99% xtian dominated countries, It is mostly given to North Americans and Europeans, majority of whom happens to be christian. Almost, 75% of all winners are christians. So, there's nothing special if a Nobel laureate happens to be christian. It is special, if a non-christian gets this award. Moreover, similar article List of Hindu Nobel laureates was deleted following a discussion eariler. Most wikipedians consented a delete and they showed the reason that a person's religious identity doesn't make any sense to his achievements So, why should this article exist? মাখামাখি (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent to the 2007 discussion to which you refer, this article has been subject to 3 AFDs (as linked above), all of which had a majority in favour of keep. What has changed since those? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. মাখামাখি (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. মাখামাখি (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:26, 24 February 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 February 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the fourth time that this article has been nominated for deletion and yet again, the argument for doing so is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. If it doesn't exist yet, then create it! Simple! This article is well sourced and several academic publications have written on this topic, as evidenced by the abundance of citations in the article. Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, Hindu, and other types of scientist are all worth listing, that's no excuse not to list this. It is of general interest. desmay (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"If it doesn't exist yet, then create it! Simple!" Is it really? The word "yet" is misleading here. Once upon a time there were both an article List of Christian Nobel laureates and an article List of Hindu Nobel laureates. Then, as the outcome of a deletion discussion, both were deleted. Later, both were recreated. The new article List of Christian Nobel laureates was tolerated, but the new List of Hindu Nobel laureates was speedily deleted multiple times per CSD G4: recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. There is no reason to assume that yet another recreation would fare differently. --Lambiam 18:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is very well sourced and definitely meets WP:GNG. It has also survived three previous attempts to delete it, so there appears to be a consensus in favor of keeping it. There is nothing unusual about such an article, as we also have the articles List of Muslim Nobel laureates, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, and List of nonreligious Nobel laureates. If the Hindu article (or a proposed version) is shown to be well-sourced and can meet GNG, than it should also have an article, though that is a separate discussion. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Atheists just want this hidden for no good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.133.175.145 (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid argument. Ajf773 (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If I understand the nomination correctly – it does not point to any P&Gs to support deletion rationales – the primary argument for deletion is that List of Christian Nobel laureates "is a very long list with 427 people". But that is a matter that can be solved by following WP:SPLITLIST, it is not a reason for deletion. Is "75% of all winners are christians. So, there's nothing special if a Nobel laureate happens to be christian" a secondary deletion argument? If yes, I don't buy it; sources show that this list is a valid, encyclopedic cross-categorization. Sam Sailor 08:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I must admit that I am intrigued by the argument that scientific research is not informed by the scientist's religion, but I would put that up for community debate in the article's talk page. Not a reason to delete the article (for the 4th time), for reasons stated by most of the voters above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep it and close this AFD. M A A Z T A L K 13:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The intersection of nobel status and religion is not defining, although many people who understand the matter assert that Henry Eyring was denied the nobel prize because of his religion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow (reinstate?) lists of Hindu, Buddhist etc equivalent lists. This is a prize of such significance that it is allowed multiple categories and lists, where we would not for lesser prizes. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised at the overwhelming number of Keep !votes, many with quite poor arguments and no sources cited in this AfD. There are obviously many sources in the article, but obviously we need not just verifiability but the notability of this intersection, i.e. sources about this intersection and/or sources which treat this intersection as a group. Pardon me if these are in the article, my connection is bad at the moment. (hence no !vote yet). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable cross categorisation. What use is a whole list dedicated to Nobel laureates who subscribe to one particular religion and all its sub-denominations? Ajf773 (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment how many times does this have to go back and forth? The subject is worth keeping and if someone wants articles for other religions they'd be worth having too. desmay (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many people find this kind of list informative, especially for Peace and Literature prizes.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has already survived thrice. samee ^talk 18:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The keep !votes with no basis in policy/guidelines at all continue... showing how this specific intersection of subjects has been given significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subjects is what we need here. Delete pending that being demonstrated. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources showing how the specific intersection of science and religion has been given significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subjects:

- Shalev, Baruch Aba (2003). 100 Years of Nobel Prizes. New Delhi : Atlantic Publishers & Distributors.
- Zhang, Weijia; Fuller, Robert (May 1998). "Nobel prize winners in physics from 1901 to 1990: Simple statistics for physics teachers". Physics Education.
- Zuckerman, Harriet (1977). Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. Transaction Publishers.
- Lazarus, William P.; Sullivan, Mark. (2008). Comparative Religion For Dummies, Wiley Publishing.
- Feldman, Burton (2001). The Nobel Prize: A History of Genius, Controversy, and Prestige, Arcade Publishing.

Though I have access to Zhang & Fuller, I'm limited by Google Books previews for the other 4, though those previews do exist. In one case, there's a bit of oddly done analysis, but for four out of these five, there is nothing resembling significant coverage -- just basic declarations of data/demographics and tangential subjects like, as you've just put it "how the specific intersection of science and religion has been given significant coverage" (which is irrelevant, since this is not about science and religion broadly, but about a specific award and a specific religion's intersection).

In Shalev, I see only basic statistics ("About 66% of the Laureates belong to the Christian faith" and data tables). He spends just as much time offering statistics of laureates by astrological sign, so I suppose we should also get on creating list of Scorpio Nobel laureates.
In Zhang & Fuller, this is the only relevant line in the text: "Our statistics show that about 60% of the laureates had a Christian background."
Zuckerman is the only one approaching decent coverage, and here it is one of many demographics she looks at in the "social origins of laureates" chapter (which spends as much time examining social class, date of emigration, state they live in, etc. Interestingly, it seems like (from what I can gather from the preview) the author uses religion as a defining variable, splitting all American laureates into Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, and looking at other demographic factors in relation to those categories that are taken for granted. This is tangential, but it seems like it's treating Christian/protestant as a stand-in for racial/nationalistic terms (in the sense that "Christian" could, at one point, mean "European people like us" rather than speaking to religious beliefs)). I digress...
In Lazarus & Sullivan, the only hits for "Nobel" Google turns up are for Jewish, not Christian laureates.
In Feldman, I see some content about the connections between science and religion broadly, in relation to the works of the laureates, but not about the religious demographics of the laureates. As this isn't an article about the intersection of science and religion broadly, but on the particular intersection of Nobel laureates and Christianity, this doesn't seem relevant.

Again, limited in my access to some of them, but I don't find these convincing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 07:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that list of Scorpio Nobel laureates and Christian Nobel laureates is a fair assessment, as religion has not only more notability value but even more significant is the fact that it has a lot to do with identity (Majority of notable people mention their religion in their biographies, same happens in Wikipedia biographies). M A A Z T A L K 19:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point in general but you're applying your own standard rather than going by Wikipedia's. Whether one part of the intersection is notable or more notable than another isn't relevant. The only thing that's relevant is the coverage of this specific intersection. Whether it has to do with religion, identity, cookies, or magic, it's just about how much coverage it has received. We need in-depth coverage of this intersection, not just some statistical statements. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Linking religions to the receipt of a Nobel award, which has no religious test, is wrong. There is also no real study or scholarship saying that religion has a correlation to or influence on winning a Nobel award. This list and the others like it look to be pushing arbitrary links as if there is substance behind it, and it is astonishing they have not been deleted earlier. Holbach Girl (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is significant debate over whether religious belief is compatible with scientific work, therefore lists like this are useful. Compiling a list such as this, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, List of Muslim Nobel laureates and List of atheist Nobel laureates is not original research; it's compiling existing research.78.12.28.46 (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL. Any keep !vote should really be showing how this intersection of subjects has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Lots of things are subjectively useful and/or tangential to notable subjects. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW just to be clear, I have not done the same evaluation of sources for the other articles that I have for this one, but it's almost certain I would support deleting the others as well. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The arguments so far presented for delete do look quite poor and almost unaware that list is more than just about the sciences (even the nominator had such a limited view). I would have supported a Hindu list too based on the reasons that follow. One big problem here is that none of the delete votes, except one, have even done an attempt at being consistent because none are even proposing the deletion of other parallel lists such as List of nonreligious Nobel laureates, List of Muslim Nobel laureates, and List of Jewish Nobel laureates. The fact that Category:Lists of Nobel laureates by religion exists means that there may be something to this kind of listing. There are other lists such as List of Nobel laureates by country but not one is commenting on that one either.

I think we should all keep in mind the complete scope of the list: The Nobel prizes include more than the sciences. The complete set of prizes on the list is: Physics, Chemistry, and Physiology/Medicine, Peace, Literature, and Economics. The sources for the sciences seem to be there but the areas worth emphasizing at this point are the Peace and Literature prizes which have very good links with Christian identity. For instance, Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa are easy examples and Teddy Roosevelt and Jimmy Carter too for their endeavors which eventual won them prizes in some way. In literature, you have T.S. Elliot, Robert Andrews Millikan, and William Daniel Phillips etc who expressed themselves and in some cases reflected their own character or beliefs. Some of their works won them a prize too. Even in the sciences, people upbringing (which includes belief or lack of beliefs in religions) sometimes plays some role along with other things in making them who they are (for instance, Nobel Prize Women in Science: Their Lives, Struggles, and Momentous Discoveries by Sharon Bertsch McGrayne). Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say that the arguments for delete look quite poor, and then immediately launch into WP:OTHERSTUFF and your own comments about the prizes and religious identity (?) without even addressing notability. Though it shouldn't actually matter for the purpose of this discussion, as I said above, if this is deleted, I would almost certainly support deleting the others in that category. Do you have sources to make an argument that this specific intersection has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject?

I'm starting to repeat myself, and don't want to get into badgering territory by responding to every poor keep !vote, but there are just so many of them. So many, in fact, that we might wind up in the unfortunate situation where NOTAVOTE goes out the window (i.e. in theory a single !vote should be able to swing the result away from 50 !votes if the argument is better, but nobody is actually willing to put that into practice unless it's sort of close... not that I can blame them). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have relisted in part because I realize I am non-neutral and would do better to give an opinion. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

KeepIt's true there is some ambiguity. Indeed, with every religious or ethnic or political classification, there's a distinction between passive and active adherents, but the characteristic nonetheless have meaning. As with all lists and summaries, to find the specifics, one needs to read the articles which should discuss it more fully than they commonly do. With respect to the general issue of such lists, I consider these dimensions among the basic ones of human experience, and matters of general public interest appropriate for an encyclopedia--appropriate not just for discussion within articles, but for organization and systematic access.

As for some minor objections: I fail to see why the fact that most of the recipients were in some way Christian makes a list of them invalid. It's a complement to having lists of the others; together, they should cover the area. I think it's been fully demonstrated that the concept has been discussed in the outside sources that were presented above. The GNG in any rate has only limited and artificial applicability to lists, which are a device for classification of articles, not a subject.

So far from not having support in policy, I think the deletion would be opposed to basic policy: I consider it to be a matter of avoiding topics where there might be unresolvable controversy and strong emotions, which would be a direct violation of NOT CENSORED. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I relisted, I think the consensus was unmistakable. Some but not all similar discussions may have closed otherwise, but that is not evidence this was discussed inadequate or closed incorrectly. I hope that this is, rather, evidence that the consensus might be changing and that we need to reconsider previous deletions. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This seems to be an appeal to personal opinion about what aspects of human experience matter (I imagine there's an applicable AADD), an argument that the above sources satisfy GNG (I am surprised to see you say this, having looked at the sources and described them above), and an argument to consider this a purely navigational list (i.e. the sort that GNG wouldn't quite apply to; in that case, it's problematic for other reasons, like those that JzG mentioned on your talk page). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, you might want to read WP:NOTAVOTE.~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I look at this article and see a vast field of names of people with unsourced claims of their religious affiliation, let alone no sourcing for that affiliation being of any importance to their lives or accomplishments. Some of them are living people and this is completely unacceptable for a WP:BLP but it should also not be acceptable even for the no-longer-living ones. This sort of "my religion is better because it has winners of (unrelated event)" jingoism has to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are sources for them in each individual article--if not, they need to be found. This is a reason for improvement, not deletion. I do not see the article as opinion about the importance of religion but as plain statements. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we rely on sources from the individuals' articles that verify that they are both Christian and a Nobel Laureate and compile a list of them, we have a textbook case of original research/synth, as what is missing are the sources about that particular intersection of biographical facts which justify a stand-alone list on Wikipedia, apart from editors' own opinions/feelings about what is important. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me this may be a response specifically to the BLP issue raised, in which case my response is irrelevant. If that's the case, disregard. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: my position is that much of this list appears to fail the test in WP:CAT/R that "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." If we wouldn't allow the religion to be listed as a category for the person, what is the basis for listing it here? Spot-checking the first 20 entries on this list found only four that mention religion in the article and have a religious category on the article (Marconi, Millikan, Hess, and Walton), and even among those four our classification of them here is oversimplified (Marconi was at different times Anglican or Catholic and we only say Catholic here). If this is to be kept at all (not my preference) it must be trimmed back only to those entries that pass CAT/R. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per David and Rhodendrites.~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important cultural information for this and other religions also. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete My reaction to it is the same as that of David Eppstein - it is sorting based on irrelevant criteria, with no better basis than to have a List of blonde Nobel laureates. For some people, religion is an important part of their identity, an influence on their works, but for others it is entirely incidental or altogether nominal, and this grouping seems over-categorization or 'my group has the longest list' tribalism. Agricolae (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many scientists were and are influenced by their faith in order to pursue the study of science. University of Oxford Professor John Lennox clearly details this, here. Indeed, Alfred North Whitehead summarized this in the following quote: "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver". In the Medieval Era and beyond, to learn about God, people studied two books, the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature--the Christian faith of individuals influenced people to pursue scientific endeavor so they could learn more about God. Individuals commenting here like User:Agricolae and User:Rhododendrites are being disingenuous in their comments by setting up strawman arguments with "List of blonde Nobel laureates" and "List of Scorpio Nobel laureates" and I think they know that. While faith has influenced individuals to pursue science, their hair color or astrological sign does not. Besides that, WP:OTHERSTUFF does not exist. In fact, the whole academic field of science and religion is dedicated to studying this relationship, while obviously no such field exists for the strawman fields listed by these two users. The article should definitely be kept without a doubt. --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 17:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from your thoughts about the connection between science and religion (science and religion is not up for deletion, nor challenged for its notability), what is your policy-based reason for keeping this particular article? In the source context in which I made the scorpio analogy, there was just as much coverage of astrological signs in relation to Nobel prizes as there was this subject. Since we have policies about verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research, what editors think about the subject is irrelevant and all that matters is the source coverage of it (of this specific intersection of subjects, not of science and religion broadly). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There are people who for whom, as you say, religion significantly influences their decisions and actions, for whom it represents to them a significant aspect of their identity, and there are people for whom this is not the case. There are also people whose astrological sign influences their decisions and actions, for whom it represents to them a significant aspect of their identity, and there are those for whom it doesn't. Viewed from the other perspective, there are Noble laureates who pursued medicine or peace because of their religion, and there are also laureates who pursued medicine or peace simply because they witnessed people dying in horrible ways. There are people who pursue science simply because they like science, people who pursue peace because they think it is a good thing for there to be more of, or for other reasons entirely. Did Theodore Roosevelt pursue Russian-Japanese peace because of his religion, or because it would advance the geo-political goals of the United States? Did Malala pursue the education of females because she was Muslim, or because she saw an inherent unfairness in her society (and later, because she didn't appreciate getting shot in the head)? How about Al Gore and Linus Pauling - maybe, just maybe, they were primarily influenced by the end of the world being a bad thing, worth avoiding independent of what religion you practice or don't. People have a range of motivations for the choices they make and the careers they pursue, from religion to personal experience to simple personal preference. Your argument that 'because religion is an important motivating factor for some people, the religion of everyone is important and relevant' is unsupportable, because for many of them it's not. Agricolae (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there is no category for Nobel prises in Religion, the recipients religion is of no more relevance than eye colour or skin tone. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In agreement with the other comments here about faith historically encouraging scientific endeavor (e.g. Isaac Newton's Christian faith compelling him to study physics [18]), this topic passes WP:GNG, with reliable sources discussing it, such as the scholarly text 100 Years of Nobel Prizes. It seems that despite two well-done closes on this 4th Nomination AfD alone, a minority of users here have fought to reverse the close (twice) in order to reach a different outcome ([19] & [20]). The first close (and second) should be respected and the sysop closing this should take into account the wider consensus to keep this article established in the AfDs before this. I also find it amusing that despite the existence of List of Muslim Nobel laureates, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, and List of nonreligious Nobel laureates, people only seem to be triggered by the article about Christian Nobel laureates. Carajou (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Again with the same argument - some individuals have been inspired by their faith to do what they do, so let's just go ahead and conclude that all Christians are so influenced, and therefore that all Christians are fundamentally different in a noteworthy way in all of their endeavors. You hear gridiron football athletes thanking God for letting them beat the Christians on the other team often enough that you could certainly have List of Christian wide receivers were you to apply the same logic across the board. There is no policy that supports these assumptions, extrapolating as they do from the specific to the general, that underlie the page - it is WP:SYNTH/WP:NOR, unless you have a specific citation that each individual listed was personally so inspired, and even then I question its value. The same argument does indeed apply to the other Nobel-by-religion pages, just as it has already been applied with extreme prejudice to the Hindu page. Bringing up the others is just WP:OTHERSTUFF, not evidence of the anti-Christian cabal. Agricolae (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the -keep- votes argue that we should have a page on Relationship between religion and science and I agree. None of those -keep- voters have made a case for a list page implying a correlation between belonging to a religion and achieving a Nobel prize. The sysops should take that into account. They should also look at [21] Holbach Girl (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research and difficult to verify. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination). Religious people seem to have a prosecution complex. This is not about christianity, lists of atheist and hindu nobel laureates were deleted in the past. This is not picking on christians.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I must say this AFD is becoming quite hysterical. Nominated 4th time. Now on the 4th attempt, closed twice as keep and re-opened twice. Its like; until it won't be deleted by more delete:keep ratio (which won't happen anyways), it may continue to be relisted. There is nothing wrong with these kind of articles as this article is notable as there are so many references, and in today's world, religion is associated with both notability and identity just like nationality. M A A Z T A L K 16:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hysterical indeed. The keep !votes with no basis in policy/guidelines just keep coming. Then bolstered by meta comments about how strong the keep arguments have been. It is !vote because it is not a vote. It is based on strength of argument. Granted, most admins have a hard time closing against the majority, but that's the way it's supposed to work in practice anyway. We'll see, I guess. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The intersection of religion and accomplishments such as winning the Nobel Prize has cultural significance. While it may be worthwhile to merge all Lists of <insert religious beliefs here> Nobel laureates into one, that's not what is proprosed here. It doesn't make sense to delete this one without proposing to delete them all (or handle them all consistently in some other way). TimBuck2 (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Re "It doesn't make sense to delete this one without proposing to delete them all": others have been deleted before; see, e.g., the links given by Vinegarymass911 barely two comments above yours. (But also, your argument is WP:WAX, to be avoided in AfDs.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that others have been deleted before doesn't mean that I agree with those deletions. TimBuck2 (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, but it invalidates your argument that this deletion would inappropriately single one of them out and keep the others. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nonsense, of course it doesn't. The fact is that there are others that haven't been deleted and aren't nominated for deletion. It is inappropriate to single out this one for deletion but not those ones. TimBuck2 (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The intersection of religion and specifically getting a Nobel prize doens't appear to be something treated by sources as something meeting WP:GNG (or specifically WP:LISTN) beyond basic demographics. The keep votes so far have been fairly superficial and not grounded in policy by typically waxing about the importance of religion influencing science. That's tangential to this AfD and more appropriate for broader science and religion article treatments. This is a fairly weak X of Y classification in violation of WP:NOTDIR policy. Grounding in policy is ultimately what decides if this stays or goes (not WP:OTHERSTUFF), and I haven't seen anything that really supports keeping it yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An arbitrary and unencyclopaedic selection based on two randomly-chosen and otherwise unrelated criteria, the absolute essence of WP:SYNTH; we might as well have List of dyslexic ski champions or List of red-haired estate agents or List of octogenarian tiddlywinks instructors. Nothing reliably suggests that being or not being Christian (or belonging or not belonging to any any other religion or irrational belief system, or to no irrational belief system at all) has any effect on a person's ability to do useful science or write a good book or work towards peace or whatever it might be. Delete this, and if there are others like it, then delete them too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to remind everyone that the list of Nobel prizes are not just about the sciences, the Peace and Literature prizes are part of the picture too. I do find the references mentioned earlier in the discussion quite interesting since they do discuss the correlation of religion and the Nobel laureates (which is what the list is about - people who happen to have a particular ultimate worldview), not about causation. So it has notability already because of the sources clearly discuss such an intersection of both in terms of correlations. It is not like editors are manually connecting the two variables, the sources do that connecting themselves and even do some analysis of the correlations to some extent. I don't think anyone here is saying that being a religious person or not will lead to any Nobel prize (most people on earth will not earn a Nobel prize). Causation and correlation are two different things and all the lists of the same nature seem to just make observations on correlations, not discuss causation for people becoming a laureate. Causes are too complex for becoming a laureate - including serendipity being an important factor, but causations are not what lists do. Lists are not really arguments for causation of anything, they merely are correlations discussed in sources (like the ones above do). Just a few thoughts. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is no more our job to try to demonstrate correlation than causation. It is only in a small number of cases that the sources are making the connection between a specific listed person's religion and their accomplishments as a laureate. In all the other cases (the majority) the editors are indeed the ones connecting the two variables for each specific individual, attributing significance to what may be just be coincidence. This isn't what editors should be doing, yet it is the central operating principle of this page and the others like it. Agricolae (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Rooney

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

Non-notable government official; according to archives.org Rooney was never the acting deputy secretary of labor during 2017 or 2018. Corky 04:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a deputy cabinet secretary can be enough to get a person into Wikipedia if she can be properly referenced to enough reliable source coverage about her to get over WP:GNG for it, but it is not a role that constitutes an automatic WP:NPOL freebie just because her existence can technically be verified by the Department of Labor's own self-published website. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tripti Gupta

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

Pro forma nomination, after TonyBallioni's PROD tag was removed by an obvious sock. Original rationale was: "Created by UPE socks in violation of the TOU. Violates WP:NOTSPAM." GAB^gab 04:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my PROD nomination. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MT Train^Talk 10:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO by blocked sock. Agricola44 (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article. FITINDIA 01:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ARTSPAM for non notable person--Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Stoneman (disambiguation)

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

Declined CSD G6 (unnecessary disambiguation page). Orphaned disambiguation page ending in (disambiguation) where a WP:PTOPIC exists (Camp Stoneman), and there is only one other topic with the same name (Camp Stoneman, DC). feminist (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:G6 has very specific criteria when it comes to disambiguation pages: it must either disambiguate between zero articles, or disambiguate between one article and end in "(disambiguation)". This dab disambiguates between two articles, so G6 clearly does not apply. That being said, the California camp looks to be the primary topic, so this can be deleted per WP:TWODABS. -- Tavix ^(talk) 06:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the description in Twinkle is inaccurate regarding G6. I agree the page is unnecessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Armen Sevada Gharabegian

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

Article does not demonstrate notability, and appears to be promotional. Initially I marked for speedy deletion, but this article has existed for a year, so I would like to get additional input here. Prodego ^talk 04:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article needs a significant rewrite, as right now it is promotional in nature. However, there is some coverage of this individual online on various websites. [22][23] His company has garnered significant press attention for his weird ideas. [24][25], but from the wording of the articles on him, I'm left wondering if those articles are not paid for.Acebulf (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- From the edit history, it appears that the page was created by a marketing company. It's very likely paid for. Aveek (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This article was created by the Indian marketing agency socialstardom.in, and appears to be a paid for promotional piece. Linuxthefish (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear violation of Wikipedia policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Self-promotion_and_publicity 88.115.35.67 (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable, as promotional, and as a product of obvious paid editing without the necessary declarations required by the terms of use. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete We need to be more diligent in prevent Wikipedia from being used as a platform for self-promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Discussion of where to take the article from here can continue on the article's talk page. Michig (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lilo Gloeden

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

While courageous, her anti-Nazi resistance work does not merit an article. Her marginal involvement in the 20 July plot does not rise to even WP:ONEEVENT. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a couple references and others may be found (many in German) by searching books or scholar for "Elisabeth Gloeden", satisfying WP:BASIC. In editing the article, I've put the focus more on the family as a unit and a rename might be appropriate if kept in this form. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With these additional sourced, the article seems to reach the general notability bar.--Ipigott (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Possibly rename to Execution of Gloeden family - which is clearly notable in a BEFORE. The individuals may fall under BIO1E.Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsing this rename target. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and restructure per Icewhiz. I was dubious of the merits of this article when I looked at it; but am not opposing three keep votes. However, she seems no more (or less) notable than her husband and parents, all of whom were apparetnly executed for the same "crime". Was the use of beheading usual in Nazi Germany? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but probably rename as suggested. There is important material here, but I would agree that Icewhiz's suggestion might be a better fit for the content. Dunarc (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability criteria met. Move/rename to "Execution of Gloeden family" as suggested. Hmlarson (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and restructure With these additional sources, the material itself reaches the general notability bar. The time also had a profound effect on world history as well so it is important to document. In addition, Lilo Gloeden actions were very brave and admirable and her life intersected with an important figure in a notable manner.Knox490 (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss and Mrs Curvy Queen

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

Does not meet WP:GNG for events on Wikipedia. The event has limited coverage in media and is unclear if it is of any significance. Importantly, the page was created by an editor who is the organizer for the event and seems to have a heavy COI. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I fail to see anything resemblant to significant coverage in reputed media-outlets.Typical paid-promo-stuff.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon and yet to show that the event is notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep nom withdrawn, no delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Icewhiz (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gay bomb

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

No real sources. All sources link to fake or archived webpages on alternative sites. Lbparker40 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No indication of notability; the given sources do not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and largely do not exist in any appreciable detail. Those that do are press releases or web archives, user-submitted content without editorial oversight, and not reliable third-party sources. Lbparker40 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

??? @Lbparker40: are you sure you've nominated the right article? The article you've listed does not match the description you give for deletion. Acebulf (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Make love, not war. Article is properly sourced and BEFORE show ample additional sources, clealrly meeting GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep, barely A piece of lore that is well-documented enough and tickles a certain fancy enough to be endlessly repeated, though I have to say it is a bit, um, off-putting when the Weekly World News was the first GBook hit. But sometimes, I guess, they didn't have to make things up. Mangoe (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's a good amount of coverage of this spanning at least 8 years based on what I could find, with enough depth to sustain an article as far as I can tell. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -That being said, I could not believe I wasn't reading the Onion. It is well sourced and a bit of urban lore that is notable, even if I can't read it with a straight face. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The description does not match the page, which is not a corporation and satisfies WP:GNG SportingFlyer (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This should be speedily closed because it clear case of nominating the wrong article mistakenly because the description doesn't match the article entirely. It is about type of bomb not about company and the source description is also completely different from what is actually in the article. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closed I see your points and withdraw my request. Lbparker40 (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 21:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RushHour

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

Totally unreferenced, excluding the quote. A low-quality stub. Seems impossible to find any source. — Sanmosa 15:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found several sources: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] Stopped there. Probably not notable, but there are definitely sources. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @SportingFlyer: Whatever, thanks. I shall put those sources to the Articles for deletion of the same article of Chinese Wikipedia. Maybe we may save an article. — Sanmosa 04:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @SportingFlyer: Sources from thestar.com and The Gateway would be great, but others seems poor. — Sanmosa 12:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't pass WP:NNEWSPAPER, but there are sources. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searching by "RushHour Canada"(even without quotes), nothing special comes up. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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