The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Udini Square (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A non-descript suburban mall. Other than routine coverage, nothing to show this particular mall is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Adequate references from credible, third-party sources, indicative of its notability. This is one of the newer shopping malls on Penang Island, by the way, which is also strategically located at a growing suburban area. Vnonymous ( talk) 23:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep my experience recently has been that most large malls are found notable, even if the only references are arguably WP:MILL. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep - In the absence of a notability guideline on shopping malls, appears to satisfy general notability marginally, and shopping malls probably usually do. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, malls commonly have notability as many people will go there everyday. angys ( Talk Talk) 08:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Unjustified nomination for deletion, as the subject is notable in Penang. As pointed out, the subject's notability is backed by a number of third-party sources. If it fulfills general notability, why the subject is nominated for deletion is beyond me. Semi-auto ( talk) 23:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Gee-O-Jatta (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

PROD removed by with poor explaination why he opposed the deletion of the article. Still unreferenced and searches turn up to unreliable sources like YouTube, Facebook etc. Fails GNG and NFILM. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 23:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 23:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 23:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 23:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Does not meet WP:GNG, or WP:FILM, as noted, per nom. Ventric ( talk) 20:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight ( talk) 22:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

All-Party Parliamentary Intellectual Property Group (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable informal group of members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom (see All-party parliamentary group). Fails WP:GNG.

There are currently 565 All Party Groups (APGs) in Westminster, and most MPs are members of at least half-a-dozen. These groups rarely get any coverage in mainstream media.

In this case, there is only one ref which could make a non-risible claim to GNG's requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject": a deleted blog entry on ComputerWorld.co.uk, archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20120330152240/https://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/03/urgent-help-defend-a-balanced/index.htm

I doubt that a blog on ComputerWorld is a reliable source, and since this blog entry consists almost entirely of block-quotes from the APG's own website, it is hard to describe it as "significant coverage". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• See also deletion discussion of Category:Members of the All Party Parliamentary Intellectual Property Group at WP:CFD 2017 December 10. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete if it could fail CFD then there is no question that it also fails the criteria for notability. Also agree that there is not enough mainstream coverage. D4iNa4 ( talk) 18:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Agreed with nom and above. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CFD. Removal of trivial grouping of notable people in a non-notable circumstance. Ventric ( talk) 20:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. NN political talking shop. No official government designation that I know of. Refs don't support gng. Szzuk ( talk) 21:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Hugh Boyd Casey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:NOTINHERITED. Being related to generals and having an installation named in your honor isn't enough. Clarityfiend ( talk) 21:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 21:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 21:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Casey's death was well covered, and there are plenty of results about it in reliable newspapers on newspapers.com [1] [2]. His activities in WWII are briefly covered in articles about his father from that period. As such, the article seems to me to well satisfy WP:V and WP:NOR. In order to satisfy WP:NPOV/ WP:N, multiple reliable sources are necessary. I feel that period newspapers can satisfy WP:RS and give an article enough to satisfy our policies and guidelines. Further, looking at google books searches, I find some coverage, largely related to the camp and certainly enough to satisfy V/RS/OR concerns. I considered a !vote to redirect to Camp Casey, but the coverage is actually related to three things, the camp, the general, and the Hugh Boyd Casey memorial award which, I think, is still awarded to an NCO every year in the 7th infantry regiment and was, I think, founded as a part of the will of Hugh's mother. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 23:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I've expanded the article using a nine newspapers.com articles. Four of the articles are from during his life, one of which is about his father the rest are about him. Two are obits. One is about the naming of the camp. And two are references to the memorial award (there are more references to the memorial award, each one giving slightly different accounts of the award, so I added two so the reader can get a sense of the variation in the wordings around the award). Links to the newspaper clippings are in the article. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 16:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The guy was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross and had a base named in his honor. If he'd been awarded the medal twice he'd meet WP:SOLDIER and we wouldn't be having this conversation. However, there are fewer bases named after soldiers than there are awardees of the DSC, so it seems reasonable to count the naming as a higher honor than the medal, thus keep. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Per recent improvements. Having a military installation (or ship) and award named after you is a sign of notability. Notability is not inherited, indeed, however coverage may be bestowed on the relatives of more notable individuals (which is partially the case here) and soldiers may be notable also when not presumed notable per SOLDIER. Icewhiz ( talk) 17:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Having a major military base named after him takes him over the the line. I admit that the criteria for this sort of honour is maddeningly random. Has attracted significant coverage. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Major cultural and military relevance in the USA. Ventric ( talk) 20:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above and after improvements is notable has a military base named after him. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 04:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Trinakrian trail (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm not sure if this is a hoax or just a wholly non-notable event. The page is wholly unreferenced. Zero hits for "Percorso Trinakria" on JSTOR, Scholar, Gbooks and Gnews. I see no evidence whatsoever of notability, and no hope of finding sources that would demonstrate it. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 22:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 22:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Trinacria is simply an old name for Sicily. I did some searches in Italian and there's a half-triathlon with roughly the same name, which suggests it's not an outright hoax. However, I couldn't find anything that confirmed the substance of the article or its notability. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 00:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete every reason to believe the article is entirely fictional in nature. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No sources. Possible hoax. Given the paucity of sources GNG not established. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete based on speculation. Raymond3023 ( talk) 11:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete This meets the standard for folklore in some other form. Perhaps as a WP:ESSAY. Ventric ( talk) 20:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Netherlandic sound shift (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No mention of this term, anywhere. WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH. The source mentioned (Jansen, G, "Het Nederlands") mentions no such thing [3] Kleuske ( talk) 20:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I've certainly never heard of anything like this. Also, the term "sound shift" is normally reserved for a systematic change of phonemes, whereas this is just a collection of some unrelated sound changes that happened to occur in a certain language area. It doesn't seem at all notable to me, definitely needs sources to establish notability. Rua ( mew) 21:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

A source has been added referencing all three terms used here for the title. The original German in that particular source, makes use of "Lautverschiebung" which I've translated with "sound shift", another option would have been "constant shift" but the examples listed (see Janssen) include more than just consonants. It is however, a systematic shift. The concept itself is present in most modern linguistic works which deal with Old Dutch, as completion of these sound changes can be taken as the start of Old Dutch proper, following its Frankish proto-stage. Also, as mentioned in the article, it is used to differentiate between Old Saxon/Old High German and Old Dutch, in addition to the much large, intricate and studied HGCS. I've created the article as a start, I'm planning to expand on it more. I'd like to note though, that I've got strong personal indications that this is WP:POINT-nomination by Kleuske, who I sadly had to report for making a personal attack a mere hour ago. I would like to add more source material now, but am quite tired at the moment and would like to make this a promise for now. Cheers, AKAKIOS ( talk) 21:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

At least one of those sources (Janssen, the only one readily available) does not mention the term AT ALL. ""Niederlandische Lautverschiebung" does not deliver any results either (Scholar, google, DuckDuckGo, etc). The term is mentioned nowhere in either google scholar or elsewhere. You got two weeks (generally) to come up with something better than just claiming it exists and delivering and casting aspersions. Kleuske ( talk) 21:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

You're not a moderator Kleuske. Just another Wikipedian, and a Wikipedian with a history of personal conflict and disrespectful behavior on the Dutch Wikipedia for that matter. I'd ask you to refrain from barking orders to fellow contributors, let alone formulating ultimatums to volunteers. Janssen is used for its clear formulation of the changes (page 58 onwards) and online availability, a quick reference for the table presented. A source mentioning the terms, has already been added. Luckily it was still on my desk. More sources will follow, as soon as possible, when I have the time. Regardless of your personal deadline and shouting. Cheers, AKAKIOS ( talk) 21:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Move to AKAKIOS's userspace, so that he can properly source the article. Can you guys not argue whenever you encounter each other? Mr KEBAB ( talk) 13:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. AKAKIOS has been banned, so there's no other option than deleting the article. Unless someone is interested in improving its sourcing? Mr KEBAB ( talk) 13:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  AKAKIOS is actually blocked rather than banned, and could fairly easily be unblocked. But if the article is deleted before that happens, they could request a restoration into their userspace. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 13:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  @ Boing! said Zebedee: Right, there's a difference. If that happens, I'll support the restoration. Mr KEBAB ( talk) 13:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Question — The article nl:Klankverschuivingen in de Germaanse talen (Sound shifts in the Germanic languages), which is unsourced, and the article nl:Ingveoonse talen (Ingvaeonic languages) describe several sound shifts for the Ingvaeonic languages Dutch, English, and Frisian. Generally speaking the historical sound shifts of these languages seem appropriate topics for Wikipedia. While searching the web, I found some publications discussing these shifts. In which English Wikipedia articles, already existing or not, could these be best described? – Editør ( talk) 01:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Editør: That (probably) refers to Grimm's law. Other candidates include Holtzmann's law, Sievers' law and Verner's law, but I'm not going to figure that out right now. I'm not contesting the phenomenon of 'sound shift' exists, I contest there's such a thing as the "Netherlandic sound shift", since it's not mentioned by any sources. Kleuske ( talk) 19:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

    Perhaps the title of this article was ill-chosen, but its content doesn't seem to be complete nonsense. The sound shifts in the laws you mention are all about the Proto-Germanic language. What I understand is that the Ingvaeonic languages developed from this language and consequentially their sound shifts would be different ones that occurred later in time. – Editør ( talk) 20:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

    • It isn't complete nonsense and one of the sources ("Het Nederlands vroeger en nu", Janssen, G.) does mention the shifts specified. It's just that the term does not exist. If you can come up with a title that a) can actually be properly sourced and b) describes this set of shifts, feel free to rename the article and I'll happily withdraw the nomination. I doubt you can, though. Kleuske ( talk) 23:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Young Medics International Conference (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

no evidence at all of notability for this conference for medical students and medical residents (postgraduates), . Their web site makes it clear that its essentially a student conference. or mdeical residents nility. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 07:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 07:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 07:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 07:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - There isn't coverage of this conference by any independent sources within the article and I couldn't locate any on a brief search. Notability has not been established when judged against WP:COVERAGE. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 13:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I can't find any evidence that this is a notable organizatin/conference. Maybe someone would want to merge some of the content into Armenian Medical Association, but I don't personally think it's worthwhile. TimBuck2 ( talk) 14:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Noh Matta Wat!. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

The Diegos (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No out-of-universe notability asserted, untouched since 2006 Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Noh Matta Wat! tv series. Trim the description if necessary. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge and redirect: This article didn't cited any sources for identifying a WP:INDEPENDENT standpoint since 2006, some of the materials are related to the TV series Noh Matta Wat!, which may need to redirect these description. SA 13 Bro ( talk) 05:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge with article on Noh Matta Wat!. This article says that in Season One of this series, we are introduced to the Diego family, and information about them could go there. Vorbee ( talk) 15:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

UTV Pakistan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

After all my checks there is nothing for this WEBTV in RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 08:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 08:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment There is nothing worth for saving. Delete it per WP:TNT. Störm (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete- lack of coverage. PhilKnight ( talk) 22:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Malinaccier ( talk) 01:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Model Open Government Partnership (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I failed to find coverage about this topic. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ ( talk) 05:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - does not meet the basic inclusion standard. I cannot find any reliable sources discussing it. -- Ajraddatz ( talk) 00:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability has been established. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Calvin Cheng (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

As per talk page OppieSG ( talk) 20:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 21:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 21:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 21:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete This page was nominated for deletion before and was kept partly due to a now banned sockpuppet. Once the puff has been trimmed, the subject is non-notable except as a Facebook commentator who makes controversial remarks in Singapore. Few reliable sources. OppieSG ( talk) 20:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC) (extra !vote struck Jytdog ( talk) 05:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)) reply

• Comment Subject’s last notable position with Elite Models was over 10 years ago. None of his companies thereafter are notable. He was an appointed legislator for only 21 months. Not a real politician OppieSG ( talk) 20:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Close discussion until other issues are fixed - Like most pages related to Singapore politics and politicians, this one is an absolute mess, full of COI editors, IP editors who have only edited this page and the page itself was seemingly created with the sole purpose of self-promotion. However, since the article also contains some unsavory material about the subject matter, and given the widespread nature of editing paid by the ruling party of Singapore or its fanatical supporters and detractors, the nature of this nomination and some of those calling for it is somewhat dubious. Though I would most likely support deletion, with the current circumstances it seems unlikely to be able to have a balanced discussion based on WP policy without POV-pushing. I suggest closing the discussion, sorting this out with a lot of blocks (preferably extended far beyond this page, but that seems unlikely to happen) then revisiting this discussion once that's concluded. SegataSanshiro1 ( talk) 23:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete In local context, the subject is notable only for controversial comments that die out quickly, from the sources, he doesn't get any international coverage.

On a side note, let's be realistic, there are fanatical supporters and detractors come in both flavors. Its not even a new thing, i.e. personally I saw cases of people canvassing outsiders to come into wikipedia to help in his/her editwar [ [4]][ [5]]. But let that distract from keeping articles neutral. Our role is not to write what is "right"/"truth", which may be subjective, but what can be "reliably sourced". Zhanzhao ( talk) 05:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. "Per talk page" is not a reason for deletion. Please state a reason here. -- Bistropha ( talk) 05:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Apparently there is some misunderstanding about the Wikipedia concept of "notability". It does not refer to the importance of the person or his companies or career. Instead, it refers to how much coverage the person has received from independent publications considered "reliable sources" (which roughly means: journalistic publications or commercially produced books). The references to the article show numerous journalistic publications that have reported on Mr. Cheng, so that is sufficient to meet Wikipedia's "notability" criterion. For further information on the criterion, please see WP:PERSON. -- Bistropha ( talk) 05:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Please also note that former members of a national or regional legislature qualify as notable, according to WP:POLITICIAN. -- Bistropha ( talk) 05:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

i don't believe a partial term as an appointed member really gets over the POLITICIAN hump; even that argument is marginal at best. Jytdog ( talk) 05:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

The policy stated at WP:POLITICIAN does not exclude appointed members or short-term members. It even includes members who were elected but who never served. Note also that the British House of Lords and the Canadian Senate are appointive bodies. -- Bistropha ( talk) 06:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• delete there are few high quality refs with substantial discussion about him. There are lots of passing mentions, sure. Some of the lack is due to the impoverished state of the press in Singapore but some is due to the fact that he is a medium sized fish in the small pond of Singapore. If this article had a normal history I probably wouldn't vote at all. I am involved in this article because it has been subject to relentless promotional pressure for around ten years (see this piece of promotional garbage from 2007, and see this from Feb 2016), and I would be happy to see it gone. If the subject were very notable it would be worth the effort; since notability is marginal, it is not. Jytdog ( talk) 05:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Sorry to be disagreeing with your good-faith arguments, but the past poor quality of the article does not imply that the person fails to meet the Notability criterion. Does anyone have another reason to delete the article (based on Wikipedia criteria)? -- Bistropha ( talk) 06:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Please do not misrepresent what I wrote here again. I did address N, and did so clearly. I will not reply further to you. Jytdog ( talk) 15:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

If I've misrepresented your statements here, please accept my apology; I hope everyone can Wikipedia:Assume good faith. -- Bistropha ( talk) 04:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply

You did; there is no "if" about it and AGF has nothing to do with it. Bad behavior is bad behavior Jytdog ( talk) 21:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Subject is notable in Singapore. Suggest raising the level of protection to WP:BLUELOCK permanently since a lot of those edit warring stuff by representatives of the subject through sock puppets can be avoided. Editors shouldn't be wasting unnecessary time dealing with COI users whose objective is at WP:Stonewalling and WP:PROMO. Jane Dawson ( talk) 10:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  What is he notable for? As a ‘politician’ he was an NMP with no voting power. It isn’t the same as the Canadian Senate or UK Lords. He never said anything of significance in office. His term was cut short. As a businessman, none of his companies are notable. If you do a google search now, the vast majority of news is about his Facebook comments about Singapore issues. That may make him notable in Singapore, but definitely not according to Wikipedia notability standards. OppieSG ( talk) 14:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  All Wikipedia needs is significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. And the sources should be national or at least regional in scope. Here we have a case were "national scope" of a source is a small island of 5 million people, the size of a large city in any other country. I'd say it's a loophole in the case of city-state countries, but the article does meet "the letter of the law" if not the spirit. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 23:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  The Bluelock suggestion sounds good. The level of contentiousness over this article is puzzling to an outsider. -- Bistropha ( talk) 04:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete for a couple of reasons. While one could argue that he's notable "nationally" in Singapore, it's also the same as being only locally notable in a city. If it were any city in the United States, he definitely wouldn't merit an article here. Secondly, I am in communication with the subject on OTRS. He has been disturbed about the article's history of "constant edit wars, vandalism and anonymous IP edits". He prefers that Wikipedia not have an article about him. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 03:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  WP:BLPCD is not a valid policy for deletion. He is often quoted by the state media, example http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/social-media-abuzz-over-walkover and http://m.todayonline.com/singapore/halimah-may-be-strongest-ep-candidate-say-analysts If state media gives him that much attention, it means he is notable. Also, constant edit wars can be easily prevented using proper locks, there is no reason to delete the article because of that. Jane Dawson ( talk) 05:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  There are plenty of non-notable people by Wiki standards that are quoted in state media frequently. Gillian Koh for example. They are even put on state media TV. The issue here is he isn’t notable for any Wikipedia recognised category. Being a political commentator and analyst often quoted in the poor press environment of Singapore is definitely not a reason. OppieSG ( talk) 05:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  He is not just a political commentator, but also a former politician per WP:POLITICIAN. There are quite a number of less notable NMPs with their BLPs here such as Viswa Sadasivan whom I have never even heard of until today. We shouldn't remove a BLP just because the subject is unpopular or highly controversial figure. Also, the same policy should be applied fairly and consistently to every BLP. Jane Dawson ( talk) 07:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  NMPs are not politicians. In fact the scheme was set up to allow non-professional politicians to have a voice in Parliament. They thus have no voting power. Almost all of the entries on them should be deleted (including Viswa Sadasivan’s) unless before they were appointed, they were already notable. Some were Olympic sports people for example. The subject isn’t being proposed for deletion for being controversial. The discussion is whether he is notable. OppieSG ( talk) 08:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  NMPs are politicians. Even his BLP says he is a (former) politician. Also NMPs do have voting powers. Quote: "In Parliament, NMPs can participate in debates and vote on all issues except amendments to the Constitution, motions relating to public funds, votes of no confidence in the Government, and removing the President from office." Wikipedia's policy should apply. Jane Dawson ( talk) 09:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  From the Wiki entry “The NMP scheme was a move to provide more opportunities for Singaporeans to participate in politics. It was a "privilege" extended to Singaporeans who could make valuable contributions to public policy but for good reasons did not desire to enter politics and look after constituencies.”. They are not politicians. Also, those four things NMPs can’t vote on are the most important functions of a legislature OppieSG ( talk) 10:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  As I said in my rationale, "state media" in this case amounts to local coverage. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 06:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  National coverage, to be exact. Jane Dawson ( talk) 07:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  No, it's local coverage, to be exact. It's local coverage in a city that also happens to be a country. Local coverage in any other city the size of Singapore wouldn't merit an article here. For cases like this, international coverage would be most appropriate. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 16:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  As an administrator, you should have the vast knowledge and experience to convince everyone here by pointing to the specific Wikipedia policy that states so to support your argument unambuiguosly instead of repeating your point. I am willing to vote otherwise if you are able to do so. I am done arguing with you. Jane Dawson ( talk) 00:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  Well, WP:NLI is a failed proposal. The coverage is unarguably confined to a single city. That's local coverage by any definition. The fact that the city happens to be a state is an irrelevant semantic argument. I would argue that the geographic and population-based scope of coverage matter more than the political boundary of the coverage. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 04:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete The page has significant violations of our policies on biographies of living people. It should be deleted for that reason. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep I have to admit that the whole NMP scheme seems a bit odd to me, but the NMP's sit as members of parliament specifically to give added and broader voice in public policy consideration. This is enough to give them notability. I would also back articles on every member of the central legislative bodies of every ancient Greek city state if we had the sources to verify them. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  Some NMPs are notable and some are not. There should be no blanket policy. The question has to be given that they are not proper MPs or politicians, what ELSE is an individual notable for? So we have several in Singapore who are CEOs of billion dollar companies, leading academics, a former Attorney-General etc. Cheng does not meet any of these criteria. OppieSG ( talk) 13:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  They are members of parliament and Cheng has received enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG.-- BukitBintang8888 ( talk) 14:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Notable per WP:NPOL. We have articles about mayors of large cities, so I don't see the problem with having an article about an NMP. There is enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. It is sad that the article has been plagued with so much COI editing. I suggest permanent extended confirmed protection. The comment by Anachronist indicates that the subject is aware of this article and has requested a delete. However, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE shouldn't be honoured here because the subject is not a low profile individual, but a high profile individual whose views have been quoted in newspapers regularly. Wikipedia is one of the few neutral sources of information available and deleting this does a disservice to our readers. It is funny that there was no request to delete it when this article contained a bunch of WP:PROMO content.-- BukitBintang8888 ( talk) 12:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  There was. This article survived a deletion discussion 10 years ago due to the efforts of a sockpuppet. It should have been deleted then. OppieSG ( talk) 13:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  In the meantime, I see you have added back and made substantial changes to the article that other users have made in the last few days, without discussing it. This is as good as edit warring. Please refrain whilst this discussion is going on. OppieSG ( talk) 14:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  You talk exactly like the sockpuppets Aricialam and Historicalchild. Now that the article is not going your way, you are trying to get it deleted eh? And stop your bogus accusations of edit warring.-- BukitBintang8888 ( talk) 14:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  Please do not accuse people of sockpuppetry just because you disagree with them. Thanks OppieSG ( talk) 14:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  Then stop accusing people of disruptive editing and edit warring. Nice case of pot calling the kettle black.-- BukitBintang8888 ( talk) 14:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep NMP's sit as members of parliament specifically to give added and broader voice in public policy consideration and appear to have limited voting rights. The wikipedia page suggests that several NMPs have be successful in passing legislation. One of the goals of WP:NPOL is to build a record of every legislator, which includes non-voting members (similar to the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico in the US House). -- Enos733 ( talk) 17:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep I'm not very familiar with Singapore's system of government, but if NMEPs are basically members of parliament but appointed rather than elected, then that means that they would meet WP:NPOL as "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." Although it appears that the subject has requested deletion of his article, WP:BLP states that such requests could only be given to low-profile individuals who probably wouldn't meet notability guidelines anyway. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 02:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Entry reads like a nasty hack job on subject. Detailed writeups about two controversies and thin on everything else. If subject is notable mostly for a price-fixing incident 6 years ago and some stupid facebook comment he wasn’t even arrested for, this entry should be deleted. Not all legislators meet WP:NPOL automatically. 195.68.63.82 ( talk) 12:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:NPOL as he is a Nominated Member of Parliament. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 04:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment In his speech to Parliament in the second reading of the Bill, when then Prime Minister of Singapore Goh Chok Tong introduced the Nominated Member of Parliament scheme, he makes it crystal clear that NMPs are not Politicians. In fact, the scheme was introduced precisely to allow NON-POLITICIANS a voice in Parliament.

Take some time to read this:

http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp?currentTopicID=00061822-ZZ

Some important quotes:

“Parliament does not have to, but it is a special privilege it can extend to those Singaporeans who can contribute, but who for good reasons, have no desire to go into politics (emphasis mine) or to look after a constituency, to enter Parliament.”

Politicians who have no desire to go into politics is a contradiction in terms.

“For example, many foreign companies, in particular multi-national companies, do not allow their staff to take part in elections because they want to retain a neutral position in their host country. Oil companies practise this policy. For the same reason, some local companies do not allow their staff to stand for elections. The Straits Times, for example, does not allow their journalists to do so.”

There are of course NMPs who were notable at their point of appointment. Examples would be Olivia Lum, founder and CEO of Hyflux, Loo Choon Yong, founder and CEO of Raffles Hospital. Or Joscelyn Yeo, who was appointed same time as Cheng, who was Singapore’s most be-medalled athelete. Some like Walter Woon, were marginally notable when appointed (being an outspoken law academic), became notable as NMP (for being the first non-Government parliamentarian to get a bill introduced and passed in Parliament) and then became even more notable after he stepped down as NMP (being appointed Ambassador to Germany, then Solictor-General and then Attorney-General of Singapore). Most however were ordinary Singaporeans who were just given a voice (academics, unionists, environmental actvists, artists) who would fail Wikipedia’s notability guidelines before, during and after appointment, if we do not automatically consider them notable as WP:NPOL. And we shouldn’t for the reasons explained above. OppieSG ( talk) 10:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability not established by those asking for retention. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Collegemarching.com (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable website lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are brief mentions of site. reddogsix ( talk) 17:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete the references (other than the primary source [6] ) are trivial or image-credits at best. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep Aside from references in multiple mainstream news sources, two of the sources are about ideas specific to marchingband. Subuey ( talk) 01:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The only sources do not cover the website itself, they simply cite the website. The website itself does not appear to have garnered the attention necessary for web content to be considered notable. It may be that the website will become notable later. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Stars in the Sky (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Website does not exist it appears. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 22:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 22:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The website has moved to [7], they are a non notable introduction agency. Szzuk ( talk) 21:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Hindaun Fort (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable ruin which might be a palace or a fort. Material is covered also at Hindaun, so WP:FORK applies. Article is not only uncited, but by my search, it's unciteable as there are basically no suitable sources to demonstrate notability. Redirect and PROD were removed by author, so here we are. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. Clearly an historic building which would undoubtedly be heritage listed if it was in a Western country. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, there are actually multiple references to Hindaun Fort in a number of books including Administrative System of the Rajputs (1979), The Second Anglo-Maratha War, 1802-1805: a Study in Military History (1990), New History of the Marathas: Sunset over Maharashtra (1772-1848) (1968), and Rajasthan [district Gazetteers].: Sawai Madhopur (1981) to name a few. Dan arndt ( talk) 14:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Guys, many thanks for the books, do you have actual quotations, page numbers or URLs to provide verifiable citations? Simply repeating "GEOFEAT" does not help much as the policy rightly says

Many artificial geographical features may be mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but they may not necessarily be notable. The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability

Therefore, what we require here (as in many places) is actual evidence of notability. The district Gazetteer is certainly a "directory" in the terms of WP:GEOFEAT and is therefore not evidence of notability. The other books could possibly be suitable but we require evidence of substantial entries (per WP:GNG as well as WP:GEOFEAT) to do this correctly. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep, Per Necro and Dan. -- Molestash ( talk) 13:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Knife Capital (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable company. Sources include 1 dead source which I can't view and the rest look like simple announcements on a website that seem questionable at best.

Google shows the same two stories over and over on those "repost every announcement ever" sites which is that they invested in some swedish company, and that they launched an accelerator.

Very little in depth discussion outside of these reposted announcements. TKK! bark with me! 18:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails GNG, CORPDEPTH, tone borders on advertising. Doesn't seem like it can be saved. South Nashua ( talk) 21:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{( c · m)} 04:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, and the other two initial delete comments have also been withdrawn. Floquenbeam ( talk) 22:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Germaine Guex (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Clearly does not pass WP:GNG. Would normally be CSD material, except one editor repeatedly contests it (which, to be fair, is allowed). — cnzx ( talk) 17:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator The foreign language references, I think, establish sufficient notability. — cnzx ( talk) 17:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete per WP:A7. The article has no claim of significance regarding the subject. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

*Delete -- Let 'em put it in the French wikipedia. Not of shred of interest for English speakers. If you cannot explain why the subject might interest me, then let it be gone. Rhadow ( talk) 02:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I've added information about her notability. A leading Swiss psychanalyst, covered in dedicated articles in the International Dictionary of Psychoanalysis ( [8]) and in the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland ( [9]). Clearly meets WP:GNG based on the references in the article. Sandstein 18:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment – I have struck my !vote above, as the article now has a valid claim of significance (e.g. "Guex established a pioneering medical-pedagogical service in Monthey ...") North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. the contributions to the major encyclopedias in the field are enough to meet WP:PROF . DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Historic subject of significant importance. Documented in historicially notable sources. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Major Emmerdale storylines. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Who Killed Emma Barton? (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Storyline not notable enough to warrant own article. There is already the Major Emmerdale storylines article to house this, which is has been doing, amongst many other storylines which could be argued are more notable in their respective period. Bungle ^{( talk • contribs)} 17:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge with Major Emmerdale storylines per nom. Poorly sourced article with nothing to suggest notability. It's hardly of the same profile as Who Shot Phil? or Who Shot JR?. This is Paul ( talk) 19:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge. Can't think what to add really, one of many plots. Szzuk ( talk) 20:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge - This does indeed seem the best option. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 07:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Fictional landship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is nothing but a thinly disguised "List of fictional landships" spinoff article. Most of the article is an unsourced WP:OR list of different fictional landships. When that is removed the article becomes pointless, and actual referenced info can easily be added to the article Landship. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 17:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: By reading the past discussions I can see why the content was originally split from the Landship article. However, most (all? I could not find anything that is related with the topic from the two given references) of the content here is unsourced original research. Perhaps WP:TNT is the solution here... Deletion is not cleanup, but any cleanup would make the article pointless as stated above. Ceosad ( talk) 18:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete, no such article like this anywhere else on Wikipedia: Fictional cat (redirects to a list page not about fictional cats as a topic), Fictional board game, nothing. There is no indication that the concept of a fictional landship differs significantly from real landships or why these elements are considered landships. If this is a list, then the correct name is List of fictional landships. And, as noted above, is largely unsourced and original research. 165.91.13.28 ( talk) 17:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge to landship, trimming appropriately, per WP:ATD-M. Neither the nom nor any above participant explains why this is unworkable (indeed, the nom advocates it!) and it is the policy-preferred option. Jclemens ( talk) 20:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Promotional article without notability. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Jason Saltzman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

promotional article for minor businessman, written by undeclared paid editor ,based entirely on his press releases published in the usual places . DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! From Baby miss fortune 21:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! From Baby miss fortune 21:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for people to promote their businesses. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Otgonjargal Davaasuren (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Most of the coverage, as it is, out there is due to her participation in a single film (Warrior Princess - [10]) and her name being repeated in various credits/catalogs. References in article seem impressive, however they boil down to 4: [11] [12] [13] [14] which is far from enough for an actor (and I'm unsure of the RSness of some of them) - the rest are Youtube recordings of performances, and credit lists / reviews of the film mentioned previously where she is briefly mentioned. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for actresses. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

OPL 281 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete No indications of notability. Is listed as a company but it appears to simply be an area (or "asset") where oil and gas exploration takes place. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 15:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 16:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 16:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- per HighKing -- Rhadow ( talk) 16:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

IPI Solutions (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete No indications of notability - fails GNG, references are all company announcements, fails WP:ORGIND. Entirely promotional, fails WP:SPIP. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 15:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 16:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 16:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 16:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as classic company promotion, nothing different. Hey you, yeah you! ( talk) 07:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP– Ammarpad ( talk) 12:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

L'Espace (concept store) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete Fails GNG, some references are 404 but the remaining are unconvincing - fashion blog from a self-described "influencer" or interviews. Nothing that meets the criteria for establishing notability, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 15:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 16:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 16:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Promotional without signs of notability. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Terragon Group (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete Entirely promotional fails WP:SPIP, references are company announcements and PR, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or promotion. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 15:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 16:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 16:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 16:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{( c · m)} 06:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{( c · m)} 06:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{( c · m)} 06:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{( c · m)} 06:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Deleteas typical spam. Hey you, yeah you! ( talk) 07:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

StateCraft Inc (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete Fails GNG, no indications of notability. References are a mix of company announcements, company produced "case studies" or quotations from company personnel or associated people, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 15:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 16:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 16:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{( c · m)} 06:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{( c · m)} 06:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Maliakal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Would've turned into a surname SIA, but no notable person with this surname exists. Fails WP:GNG. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk • contribs) 00:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 03:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Agree with nom, nothing to make an SIA with. While it exists, as per WP:NOTDIC, no need for the uncited article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Bruce Maitland Carruthers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A person who went to Newington College and then became a hospital administrator. No achievements disclosed. Adsfvdf54gbb ( talk) 12:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Director General of Health for Tasmania. Castlemate ( talk) 04:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Quite sufficient alone here to support WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. Aoziwe ( talk) 08:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I went to the first 15 hits there. There is one short article about his death, two others was him giving a quote about someone dying/hospital incident, the other 12 were all lists of people enlisting in the war/receiving something or returning and did not have any description of him, or was his own diary entry published in the newspaper. ADS54 talk 08:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Yes there are a wide range of references to the subject here. There are 65 of them in that explicit search result. They are spread over three to four decades in multiple independent reliable sources with editorial overview. I suggest there is sufficient to demonstrate notability. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep per Aoziwe's sources. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 09:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep - the best of Aoziwe's sources are actually already cited (the extensive Examiner obit and then the account of the cremation in the Advocate). The rest aren't great, but combined with these get him over the line in my opinion. Frickeg ( talk) 10:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep for five reasons: 1 –This one also has entry in Who's Who in Australia which is authoritative reference material used by academics as a resource that identifies Australia's leading individuals, and as a research tool by journalists and historian. It is equivalent of Dictionary of National Biography and all its entries passes WP:ANYBIO #3. Number 2 and 3 –He passes WP:ANYBIO #1 as well as WP:NACADEMIC #2 as a holder of the Officer of the Order of the British Empire, a well known and significant national honor. Number 4, –Passes WP:NACADEMIC #3. He was Fellow of renown academic society during his life. Number 5 –He received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG in reliable sources as the sources in the article already show. This is another among the most misthought and careless nominations in the recent – Ammarpad ( talk) 13:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Elliston Campbell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A non-notable graduate of Newington College. He was an electrical engineering lecturer, but no research achievements are disclosed, and he was the leader of a state chapter of an engineering society. Other than that he was interested in religion and left his estate to that religion but there is no indication that he is notable as a religious scholar Adsfvdf54gbb ( talk) 12:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! From Baby miss fortune 21:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete The coverage of people with connections to Newington College has clearly gone way overboard. No sign of notability is present here. On the other hand the comments by Publicschoolboy show a total lack of the acceptable form of discourse on Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete There is some non routine reporting on the subject, but not sufficient. Aoziwe ( talk) 08:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Aoziwe. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 09:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Can't find anything here to support notability. (But can we perhaps delete or at least strike the disruptive nonsense above? It adds nothing and has been added by a SPA.) Frickeg ( talk) 10:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Done. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 11:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Stephen Brown (colliery proprietor) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A rich person who went to Newington College and inherited the family business. No specific business achievements disclosed Adsfvdf54gbb ( talk) 12:02, 10 December 2017 (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/2017 December 10. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now. I cannot see how this person is notable based on the article or on what I can readily find. However, this off line material could be very revealing, if some one can access it ? Aoziwe ( talk) 08:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete though would also be interested to see the material Aoziwe notes. I also note that there is a deliberately misleading citation - the title is given as "Brown, Stephen (1869–1958)" (implying that he has an Australian Dictionary of Biography article), when the actual article linked is one on his brother, which has three lines about this person, and isn't considered notable enough for a joint listing by the ADB. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 09:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Nothing I can find here - and as The Drover's Wife says, that citation is pretty much fraudulent. The NLA cuttings might establish notability, but they might also be nothing at all. Frickeg ( talk) 10:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Please reconsider your comments about Fraud and then consider an apology.
  • You wrote an intentionally misleading citation that implied he had an Australian Dictionary of Biography article. The ADB has no record, standalone article or joint article, for "Brown, Stephen (1869–1958)", which you wrote as the title of the citation. This is poor form - and screwing up and doubling-down and demanding apologies just makes it worse. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 22:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Senior partner of a major private Australian company ... he inherited the position because it was a private firm. Castlemate ( talk) 22:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete colliery proprietor? This guy has no particular achievements outside of the small business related sphere he was in. Classic case of non-notability. Siegfried Nugent ( talk) 11:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Lancelot Bavin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A non-notable alumni of Newington College who started a primary school. The school appears to be small and non-notable because it closed down as soon as Bavin retired (Bavin and his wife appear to be only people running the school). There is no specific achievement in pedagogy disclosed. Some later-notable people went to the school when they were in primary school, notability is not inherited Adsfvdf54gbb ( talk) 11:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep WP:ARTN-- O1lI0 ( talk) 12:11, 10 December 2017 (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/2017 December 10. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• delete O1lI0, what makes the subject notable? From what I can see, there is a gaping big hole before wp:GNG would be met. Schwede 66 09:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Founding a school is not a sign of notability, especially when it closes down with ones own ill-health. I am less than convinced we should have an article on the school Bavin founded, but there is no evidence that he himself meets any of our notability guidelines for academics. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Other than WP:EXISTS I cannot find anywhere sufficient to support WP:NEXIST for GNG. Aoziwe ( talk) 09:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment I don't have time right now (and not sure I will have access because this was many decades ago), but it might be worth researching if Bavin passes WP:POLITICIAN. I found a source that he was mayor of the City of Willoughby for "several terms." I imagine with his brother being Premier of New South Wales, he might have also had some clout in the Nationalist Party. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 06:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. What use is there in saving the buildings without the man who created the school and ran it. If nothing else the Bavin family should be created to save this important contribution to spiritual, political, migration and educational history of NSW. There may not be consensus for this view but I hold that Mayor of a major town centre is notable by itself. Castlemate ( talk) 08:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Non-notable schoolteacher. Longstanding consensus that suburban mayors aren't inherently notable by that fact alone. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 09:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not much to establish notability here. He certainly doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN himself, and merely being related to Thomas Bavin doesn't do much either without the coverage to support it. Frickeg ( talk) 10:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment nothing of note from New Zealand NealeFamily ( talk) 06:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have tried cleaning up this article, given my interest in mayors, added emphasis on his political career as well as a reference cleanup. That seems to be the limit of what i could usefully add, unless his time as a headmaster was particularly noteworthy (which I'm not sure it is). Not sure as to whether this is now able to pass, but perhaps this could be merged into the Mowbray House School page (should that also pass AfD)? Siegfried Nugent ( talk) 23:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Garth Barraclough (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A person from Newington College who was on some company boards Adsfvdf54gbb ( talk) 11:48, 10 December 2017 (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/2017 December 10. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete the sourcing goes against our guidelines on reliable sources. Who's Who is especially depricated. It is basically Linkedin when it was a little more restrictive in inclusion. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete I cannot find anything to support notability. Aoziwe ( talk) 21:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I would have thought his roles would be notable (there's also some reference in Google to him being the president of The Smith Family (charity)) but Google turns up nothing useful. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 09:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Almost complete lack of sources to go on. Frickeg ( talk) 10:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Cyril Bavin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A priest who attended Newington College. No notable achievements disclosed. He was on some internal YMCA Committees. The article does not disclose what the impact of his work was. The first citation in the lead is misleading, and simply is to an opinion piece he wrote in 1929. Nothing there says that his views provoked debate at the time, let alone that he is remembered after his death Adsfvdf54gbb ( talk) 11:55, 10 December 2017 (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/2017 December 10. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Agree with the nomination - nothing to indicate this meets GNG. -- Gronk Oz ( talk) 12:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Archive searches show that he got WP:SIGCOV in the 1920s as a promoter of mass emigration form Britain to Australia, N.Z. and Canada where these healthy, sturdy young men and women sould help build the Empire, or, at least, the economy. Beware presentism, it can lead you into missing all sorts of things, such as what a big deal the YMCA was back in the day. Bavin wasn't just shooting his mouth off, he was speaking on behalf of a powerful organization. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Notable in Australia, UK and Fiji. Bio could be improved given new information on the web but as everyone who ever attended Newington College is currently faced a vexatious rash of AfDs it might need to wait. Highly notable family in church, state and education that deserves a family article. Castlemate ( talk) 04:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Had an (albeit short) obituary in The Times, which we usually take to indicate notability. That plus his posts and his OBE I think make him notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Over 20 google-book hits that are non-passing. Not everyone who ever graduated from Newington is non-notable. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Quite sufficient here to support WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. Aoziwe ( talk) 21:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Gets over the line as per Aoziwe. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 09:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Sufficient coverage demonstrated multiple times above. Frickeg ( talk) 11:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - clearly notable. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Mark Bagshaw (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable businessman, who is on some consultative committees for disability advocacy. Another alumni of Newington College by Castlemate ( talk · contribs) Adsfvdf54gbb ( talk) 11:46, 10 December 2017 (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/2017 December 10. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 12:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 12:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable businessman. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete This subject looks as though they should be notable, but I cannot find the references to support it. If all the claims in the article can be independently referenced then it would easily pass GNG. Aoziwe ( talk) 08:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep. As Aoziwe said, it looks as though they should be notable, though I found just enough references to support keeping it. Would be much easier if the claims in the article were independently referenced. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 09:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete. Essentially in agreement with Aoziwe and The Drover's Wife above. Things said in the article suggest notability but the references often don't support the claims (example - the Australian Story stuff, which would not be enough by themselves but could be significant supporting coverage - but the reference only goes back to 2005). Even on what I've found he's not that far off, though ( this is better than most of the in-article references), so very open to convincing with more sources. Frickeg ( talk) 10:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that Burnt Toast Vinyl satisfies the notability guidelines for music. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Burnt Toast Vinyl (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Source searches are only providing routine passing mentions; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 13:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 13:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Author Keep Meets WP:MUSIC's notion of "one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." The label released albums from, e.g., Explosions in the Sky, Unwed Sailor, Damien Jurado, The Six Parts Seven, Denison Witmer, Yndi Halda, and Efterklang. The label has gotten its own coverage (see reffed interviews and media coverage), in addition to there being significant coverage of the albums it has released. Chubbles ( talk) 18:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - number of notable artists the label has signed, but longevity, indicates that this label has made an impact on musical culture, and that music historians, musicologists, and discographers are likely to seek information about this label, thereby reducing the value of this encyclopedia if this entry is removed. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 19:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Stanlie James (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG and fails in particular on the areas of "significant coverage," "reliable," "independent coverage," and "independent of subject." There is no sourcing at all. There is nothing to indicate the subject of the article has any standing in her field. There is no reporting of her accomplishments other than an unsourced list of publications. There is no comment on the value of the publications, assuming they are real. This could be a case of WP:SPIP as perhaps it's intended to be her online CV (I'm not accusing the subject...someone else could have done it). She appears to be an academic, on whom the world has not commented. That does not, in itself, merit a biography. Even as a WP:NPF, the article will still need more sourcing and external commentary on her. GetSomeUtah ( talk) 11:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 12:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 12:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 12:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep: It seems to me that, even as the article is now (as opposed to when this was nominated for deletion in good faith), it satisfies WP:NPF. The references to her work in King, Deborah K. (2010) and Barnes, Marian (2005) are both in books published by reputable academic publishers, and can be checked online. The same seems to be true of the Pedwell, Carolyn (2010) citation as it's published by a reputable academic publisher, (though it may not be checkable online). And this is quite likely only the tip of the iceberg since googling "Stanlie James" (in quotes) gives 10,400 general results and 4,100 book results. This also makes accusations of possible self-promotion ( WP:SPIP) seem pretty implausible - with that many books available she could presumably manage far more than just the 3 independent citations she has now (and the none she had at the time of nomination) if she were promoting herself. And the article was originally created, and has now been greatly improved, by one of our most experienced editors ( SarahSV), who has won two Million Awards, (one of them for bringing Female genital mutilation up to WP:Featured Article standard, so she presumably is well qualified to judge on the notability of the author of Genital Cutting and Transnational Sisterhood (2010)), as well as again making accusations of possible self-promotion utterly implausible. Tlhslobus ( talk) 04:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The "keep" argument here seems to be that her work has been cited a few times (but there are probably many more citations) and that the article was written by a good editor. Agricola44 ( talk) 18:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC). reply

• The 'good editor' bit is mostly there to try to show the implausibility of the WP:SPIP part of the nomination. (Incidentally she is not just a good editor - in this particular field she is demonstrably a uniquely good editor, which is arguably somewhat relevant to what follows). But, apart from the SPIP aspect, the judgment of an experienced editor who is demonstrably expert in the relevant field may also be at least partly relevant to assessing the notability of the subject of an article, especially if it is under-developed. For example, a sufficient criterion for notability in WP:AUTHOR is "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." The "or" means that "The person is regarded as an important figure" is sufficient for notability. But most of us have no real way of knowing whether James is regarded as important in some field or not, and in that case we may have to rely to some extent on the judgment of those who demonstrably have expert knowledge of that field, and in that sense SarahSV's judgment seems relevant, at least to me (and justified by me per WP:IAR if necessary).
• I did not say 'probably' many more citations, I said 'quite likely' (although this may be an understatement by me, given the 4100 Google Books hits). This seems relevant per WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST because the article seems under-developed - all its best bits were added in a last-minute rush (partly for reasons already mentioned in my much criticized comment below).
• That said, I have felt forced to spend more time on this than I feel I can reasonably afford, so I will probably (or should that be hopefully?) not be saying any more on the subject.
• Regards, Tlhslobus ( talk) 23:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment Also, as WP:BIAS tells us, being female and black probably means that Stanlie James's article is in practice liable to get far less work done on it than if she were male and white, and consequently makes it far more likely to be nominated for deletion, thus forcing female and black editors to drop what they are currently working on to rush to try to fix the problem, an exhausting process that presumably leads to such already under-represented editors being more likely to quit, thus further aggravating Wikipedia's Systemic Bias problem. Needless to add this is liable to then be made even worse if their efforts then prove to be wasted because the article gets deleted anyway. Tlhslobus ( talk) 04:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment. This type of speculation is completely irrelevant to the conversation here. Agricola44 ( talk) 18:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• 1) I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned what I said was and remains 100% relevant. I was and am merely trying to describe an aspect of this nomination and vote, and of many other similar nominations and votes, which tends to be damaging to Wikipedia.
• 2) It damages us in terms of editor retention as per our WP:WER project, in terms of Gender Gap (which damages our editor retention, and the quality of our subject coverage, and our reputation) as per our WP:GGTF project, and it presumably has similar effects in terms of minority participation as well (though I'm not aware of which of our projects, if any, specifically deals with that). I am well aware that the damaging effect of such deletions has been repeatedly complained about in the GGTF and elsewhere (though if someone wants explicit documentation on that I would probably first want to consult somebody a lot more expert than me).
• 3) These are matters which I honestly think people need to be aware of and need to take into account when voting, perhaps also when trying to assess whether there is a consensus, and perhaps also when making future nominations (this nomination has already been made, in good faith, as already mentioned, so I'm not really concerned about it, as that would be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted).

• 3b) This is probably especially important if people are uncertain about what they should do, as I'm not suggesting these considerations should automatically outweigh all other considerations.

• 4) Incidentally, please note that much of what I wrote above was not in any way 'speculation', but had already happened before I wrote my comment (as a look at the nominated article's edit history will quickly confirm).
• 5) I am not aware of any rule which says these seemingly entirely relevant matters should not be brought up in an Afd, nor taken into consideration there, but if such a rule exists I think I am obliged to ignore it in Wikipedia's interest per WP:IAR and per the related 5th of Wikipedia's 5 Pillars ( WP:5P5). These are both completely opposed to any notion that we should somehow blindly follow some rules or traditions regardless of how much damage this may do to Wikipedia in practice.
• 6) Regards. Tlhslobus ( talk) 21:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The subject is a longtime academic and this is one of those cases for which the details have to be checked closely, I think. First, GS citations look good, but there's some double-counting. For example, the two top hits are to the same source, one being to a book she helped edit and one being to a chapter in that book she wrote. This duplication is repeated at least an additional 5 times, if one looks through the GS listing – it is unclear how independent these are of one another. However, if considered as one contribution, her GS h-index would be around 7. She has also written many journal articles, but WoS shows all of them to be cited only in the low single digits or in journals that are not indexed. She has helped edit 2 books and WorldCat shows pretty good holdings (760 for the book just mentioned, and 620 for another book). This is probably the strongest argument for notability, however edited volumes are problematic in terms of assigning notability. For example, the first book (with >700 holdings) has 17 contributors who wrote articles. The subject has written several books on her own, but WorldCat shows single-digit holdings of these. Overall, a detailed look suggests this person has not had impact demonstrably above the "average professor" level. Agricola44 ( talk) 18:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep as WP:AUTHOR. The three books listed are widely held, with the top books in 700+ libraries: Worldcat Identities. The article is sufficiently well sourced at the moment and establishes stand-alone notability. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment from the nominator. I appreciate that the article has been improved since I nominated it. But it remains a straightforward listing of CV-type data, solely drawing on the works of the subject herself. The subject fails all four criteria of WP:AUTHOR: no evidence of being "widely cited by peers," no evidence of "originating a significant new concept," no "well-known work or collective body of work," and has "not won significant critical attention." Just listing the subject's books and saying they sit on library shelves doesn't do it. I don't think I have to remind people that we need people other than the subject herself commenting on these things -- none of that is in the article. I greatly respect the article's creator, SarahSV, and find it somewhat off-putting that other editors are implying the author is above the WP:GNG process and that her many awards somehow tilt the scales on the issue of Ms. James. Such assertions reinforce the notion that Wikipedia is a clique of insiders and continues to harm efforts to retain editors. The not-veiled-at-all commentary by Tlhslobus about the nature of the nomination is doubly offensive given my background. I would hope we could return to focusing on the substance of the article, rather than the creator and the nominator, and when one does that one sees that the article subject still lacks any mention of "significant coverage," nothing "reliable," no "independent coverage," and nothing "independent of subject." GetSomeUtah ( talk) 20:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry if anything I said offended you, though I'm not entirely clear precisely which part or parts of the complained-of comment (if that is what you mean by 'commentary') offended you (and I'm not sure that I really want to know either), as it was not and is not in any way intended to be directed at you personally. On the contrary, in my Keep vote, I explicitly said you had made a good faith nomination. My comment was merely trying to describe an aspect of this nomination and vote, and of many other similar nominations and votes, which tends to be damaging to Wikipedia, and which I honestly think needs to be taken into account in our present and future decisions, as explained in more detail above. (Incidentally, since you brought it up, I know nothing of your background, as it was and is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make, and if I had been trying to make insinuations about you (which I wasn't), this would have been wrong of me regardless of your background). Or if you are objecting to my mention of SarahSV, I'm afraid this honestly seemed unavoidable to me once your nomination stated "This could be a case of WP:SPIP as perhaps it's intended to be her online CV." (It may also be relevant to notability, as I have now argued at length above). Meanwhile I would ask you to please try to assume good faith per WP:AGF, and to please try to refrain from making any further unwitting personal attacks on me per WP:NPA (Please note, as indicated by the word 'unwitting', that I fully accept that it was not your intention to make a personal attack). Regards, Tlhslobus ( talk) 21:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. meets both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR; a "straight listing of CV type data" when the CV data indicates the elements of notability , is entirely appropriate for an academic bio. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The article seems to meet WP:PROF, and it can be developed. She has done some interesting work on families and on FGM, which can be expanded because secondary sources discuss it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Now passes WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. Edwardx ( talk) 23:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep does meet WP:NOTE, but still currently reads too much like a cover letter, or resume instead from a neutral point of view. Should be overhauled to read in a more encyclopedic fashion and tone of voice. -- Clarkcj12 ( talk) 01:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Mauricio Umansky (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Per source searches, coverage is limited to business deals the subject has performed, how much money he wants for his home, and moving into a new home, but not finding much significant coverage about the subject himself. Does not meet WP:GNG. Could potentially be redirected to Kyle Richards. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 11:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 11:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete & redirect to Kyle_Richards#Personal_life where the subject is mentioned. Not independently notable for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Burton D. Pusch (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate biographic information in secondary sources. Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 11:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 11:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Found very little online that shows article meets WP:GNG. RelaxedTim ( talk) 11:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete total and complete lack of anything even resembling a 3rd party indepdent source. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:SIGCOV not showing up in searches I run. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BBYO. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 17:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply