WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION LOG 2018 JULY 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 July	7 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. Copyvio, G11, copied/close paraphrase of https://www.facebook.com/pg/anoice.japan/about/?ref=page_internal Randykitty ( talk) 16:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Anoice

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:V. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable, third-party published sources. They got played once on the BBC in 2014, but were never placed in rotation. There are a handful of reviews by tiny (i.e., not reliable) music sites and plenty of user reviews on the bigger sites, but no professional reviews. They've released a number of albums, but on their own label. The individual band members are in other bands, but they're not notable as well. The best I can say is that the band does appear to exist though I'm not sure they'd meet WP:BAND even if any of those criteria were sourced. They do have some cool songs and videos at least! Woodroar ( talk) 23:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete, per nom. = paul2520 ( talk) 21:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Draftify. This seems like a well covered and nicely detailed article, and it would be a shame to see it deleted because it doesn't have enough sources to meet WP:GNG yet. Pinging User:Macoron6on to see if he would allow it to be moved to his draftspace. -- Henry ^TALK 02:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment. After a little more digging, this is probably a WP:COI issue and is definitely a WP:COPYVIO. File:Anoice in Shenzhen.jpg, the main image for this article, is the same image used on the band's website and their Facebook page. Note that User:Macoron6on claimed it as their own work. The initial version of the article appears to have been copied from the band's biography as well. The current version has been edited somewhat but still contains significant blocks of copyrighted text. I'm sympathetic to the above suggestion to draftify the article, but as a copyright violation this would really need to be recreated from scratch. Woodroar ( talk) 04:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty ( talk) 16:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Devon Moore

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage. Nikki♥ 311 21:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥ 311 21:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥ 311 21:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails the GNG. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete I felt a guy with as many accomplishments as this would have enough coverage to have an article so I went and looked around, the only decent source I found was this, and that really isn't enough. ★Trekker ( talk) 04:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Yeah, it's true. I created the article 3 years ago, I was young and I needed the money. As today, I don't see sources proving his notability. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 08:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Non-notable, fails GNG - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 01:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty ( talk) 16:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Crawfordsville monster

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

Although it is a well-documented occurrence, this bit of trivia does not meet GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 21:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Weak keep Got a certain amount of newspaper coverage back in the day, some of which is in the article, some more is here: [1] [2] Not bad exposure for 1891 - I think it just clears the notability hurdle. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep The newspaper reports from the time should technically satisfy GNG, per WP:NTEMP; the GNG standard is essentially equivalent to "well-documented". But in addition, the phenomenon has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Strange and Unexplained Physical Phenomena, which is legit enough to have been cited a half-dozen times in scholarly publications, and was the subject of a History Channel episode, besides the thorough treatment on the Indiana Digital State Newspaper Program blog. FourViolas ( talk) 15:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep; I agree with Elmidae's point about coverage back in the day & what FourViolas said. = paul2520 ( talk) 21:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep Based on sources provided by editors above, subject meets notability guidelines. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 04:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep – Squeaks by GNG per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty ( talk) 16:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Lawrence Washington (1565-1616)

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

Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. See other AfDs for this user's articles. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 20:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - being the great great great grandfather of George Washington is not in itself notable. There are no other assertions of notability in the article and I can find no other myself. Search results appear to be just a long list of genealogy or similar sites. -- Whpq ( talk) 21:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Redirect/merge to List_of_United_States_political_families_(W)#The_Washingtons^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete being the grandfather of George Washington is not enough to make him notable per WP:NOTINHERITED and there is absolutely no other information in the article to make a case for notability. Tillerh11 ( talk) 00:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per Whpq. Also, the article has no sources. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - WP:NOTGENEALOGY Agricolae ( talk) 02:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Article is not properly written, sourced, and formatted. TH1980 ( talk) 04:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete article with no substnace, no sources and no actual claim to notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note - wrong birthrate - 1568 - I think. An article probably could be developed on this Washington - [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] scholar hits - if someone is inclined to do the rescue work. At current form TNT is begging.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete MensanDeltiologist ( talk) 19:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Weak delete - he's one of many remote ancestors of a famous descendant. An argument could be made he could pass if somebody wanted to do the work. Bearian ( talk) 20:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty ( talk) 16:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Robert Washington (1545 - 1620

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

Wikipedia is not a geneology site and none of these Washington members are notable in their own right. See other AfDs for this user's pages Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 20:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - Being the great-great-great-great grandfather of George Washington is not notable. There are no other claims of notability in the article, nor do my own searches turn up any indication of notability. -- Whpq ( talk) 21:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per Whpq. Also, the article has no sources. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment/possible speedy delete: There's no CSD criteria this would fit under, correct? Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 04:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Correct (unless the creator is a sock of a banned user, for which I see no evidence). It is not a hoax, made up, or gibberish, and it does give a statement why the subject is notable (even if the claimed basis for notability is not a valid one). Anyhow, it is too late now. Once an AfD begins, speedy requests are usually rejected. The only possible way of shortening the process now is an early close based on WP:SNOW. One thing you could have done is to include all of the Washington deletions under a single AfD. Agricolae ( talk) 11:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae ( talk) 02:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - WP:NOTGENEALOGY Agricolae ( talk) 02:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete As per all of the above. TH1980 ( talk) 04:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete I shudder to think the mess Wikipedia would become if we started including such geneological articles. We may have a few, but this is one of the worst cases. Nothing of substance is said at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. Per TNT, lack of sources, and this individual does not seem notable in a BEFORE (beyond brief coverage of ancestorship). Icewhiz ( talk) 12:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per nomination. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - he's one of many remote ancestors of a famous descendant. Bearian ( talk) 20:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - As with other similar nominated articles this individual is not notable in his own right and the article basically just says he was the great-great-great-great grandfather of George Washington and so is not really serving any useful purpose. Dunarc ( talk) 22:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty ( talk) 16:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Alexis Marcou

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

The !keepers in the previous AFD all appear to be either undisclosed paid editors or have some link to the subject. There were no sources presented to demonstrate that either WP:NARTIST or WP:BIO were met. From what I can see, none of the sources listed in the article demonstrate any significant impact, and BIO is definitely not satisfied. My own searches have not turned up anything better. SmartSE ( talk) 20:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete There is a dearth of secondary, independent coverage in reliable sources. There has been no persistent and in-depth coverage in news outlets or the literature. Fails both both the general nobility guidelines and WP:ANYBIO. @ Smartse:, please remember to asume good faith from your fellow editors, a quality that was singularly lacking at AN/I. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /
cheap sh*t room} 09:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete there is so much self-promotion going on here that WP:TNT is the only reasonable way to go. Some sources may establish marginal notability, but all of them have been blended into a piece of promotional writing that makes it impossible to assess the article objectively. 96.127.242.226 ( talk) 23:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete Even if there is a borderline notability, the article so promotional in it's tone. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 08:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep. WP:AUTHOR also applies to visual artists. The references suggest that he passes at least point 1. And promotional tone can be edited out.

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

And any promotional tone can be edited out. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Eastmain: Which references do you think demonstrate that are regarded as important? SmartSE ( talk) 16:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete I'm in agreement with IP and Arthistorian1977 that it even if Marcou is notable, it is so promotional that it needs a TNT. -- Theredproject ( talk) 15:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty ( talk) 16:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Lawrence Washington (1498)

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

See John Washington (1475) and associated AfD page. Fails WP:BIO, again no need to have a page for anyone's 5x great-grandfather, really. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 20:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. Notability is not inherited, so people who have no notability claim in their own right do not get Wikipedia articles just because they happen to be ancestors of notable people. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a genealogy site — Lawrence Washington would have to have achieved something encyclopedic in his own right, not just be a branch of somebody else's family tree, to qualify for a standalone article about him. Bearcat ( talk) 20:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Being George Washington's great-great-great-great-great grandfather is not notable. There are no other claims of notability in the article. A search turns up just genealogy sites. -- Whpq ( talk) 21:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Only one great to the nth degree grandfather is notable. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per Whpq. Also, the article has no sources. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae ( talk) 07:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - WP:NOTGENEALOGY Agricolae ( talk) 07:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Wikipedia is not a geneological database. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - TNT, no sources in article, and I don't see much that could be sourced about this individual beyond being an ancestor. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - Being an ancestor of someone famous does not make someone notable and there is nothing in the article to suggest any other grounds for notability. Also as noted above there are no sources to support the claim made. Dunarc ( talk) 19:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per nomination. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per nomination MensanDeltiologist ( talk) 19:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - he's one of many remote ancestors of a famous descendant. Bearian ( talk) 20:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty ( talk) 16:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Marlabs

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

Fails to meet notability requirements. Most third-party online coverage consists of paid articles, press releases, etc. UnstableAngina ( talk) 19:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete No coverage apart from passing mentions and routine business announcements. Kleuske ( talk) 10:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment @ Rajendra menon: The current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable. Please expand it to explain that and it may have a chance of not being deleted. Accesscrawl ( talk) 15:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete The article doesn't make a meaningful claim of notability and no sources could be found in a Google search that would support such a claim. Alansohn ( talk) 21:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails GNG with no significant references. ~ EDDY ^{(
talk/
contribs)}~ 23:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Agree with above, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty ( talk) 16:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

John Washington (1475)

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

Totally fails WP:BIO, I really can't see where we would find sources on George Washington's 6X great-grandfather. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 19:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. Notability is not inherited, so people who have no notability claim in their own right do not get Wikipedia articles just because they happen to be ancestors of notable people. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a genealogy site — John Washington would have to have achieved something encyclopedic in his own right, not just be a branch of somebody else's family tree, to qualify for a standalone article about him. Bearcat ( talk) 20:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - Being the great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather of George Washington is not notable. There are no other claims of notability in the article and a search turns up nothing but genealogy sites. -- Whpq ( talk) 21:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. He and the other relatives are not so "gr-r-reat!" Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete: Should be speedy delete. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 02:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae ( talk) 02:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - WP:NOTGENEALOGY Agricolae ( talk) 02:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Obviously Washington has a number of 6x grandfathers, and that alone would be NOTINHERITED. However why do we know about this one, three hundred years before Washington? Is that because of some additional reason, which would count towards independent notability? If this was a list of six articles, I'd be inclined to delete. But it's just one - what (clearly something did) has made this one appear, above the others? Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
- @ Andy Dingley:This AFD should have been a bundled nomination. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Washington (1565-1616), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Washington (1545 - 1620, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Washington (1498). These were all created by a new editor with no sources and no assertion of notability beyond being the nth great grandfather of George Washington. So four articles and not six as you stated aboce. I'll also note that I did look to see if there was some other notability but there's none. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  - So is Lawrence Washington (1602–1653) up for AfD too? Is a great-great-grandfather notable (by inheritance?) but the great-great-great-grandfather isn't? I see no WP:N policy based distinction between the two of these. "All created by a new editor with no sources" is very definitely not reason of itself to delete. Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

WP:OTHERSTUFF - the existence of other equally-invalid pages not up for deletion is one of the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. As to the Lawrence W (1602) page, at first glance it seems to have a lot of material establishing notability, but looking at the footnotes, I get the distinct impression that it is relying heavily on 1) passing reference; 2) non-WP:RS web pages and 3) primary sources, so he may indeed not be notable either, but that would take an in-depth analysis of all the sources which I don't have time for, and anyhow would be the subject for another AfD, not this one. Agricolae ( talk) 18:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete the reason we have this article, but not one on Washington's other male ancestors in this generation is because of bias towards tracking the male line of ancestry. Nothing about this John Washington makes him even remotely notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - TNT, no sources in article, and I don't see much that could be sourced about this individual beyond being an ancestor. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - Exactly the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Washington (1498), this individual does not come close to meeting notability. Dunarc ( talk) 19:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per nomination. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - he's one of many remote ancestors of a famous descendant. Bearian ( talk) 20:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty ( talk) 16:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Pickled dragon

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

Non-notable modern-day hoax. Received media attention as a book promo but no lasting RS coverage. – dlthewave ☎ 19:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete: a nn publicity stunt; does not meet WP:NEVENT / WP:GNG. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete It could be mentioned if there was an article about the book it was a promo for, but if the book isn't notable enough for an article then this definitely isn't._{ZXCVBNM (
TALK)} 14:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete due to lack of coverage. Aoba47 ( talk) 02:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 exists that the subject is notable, and any issues with it are no appropriate for AfD. (non-admin closure) ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Church software

See also talk page of merged article: Talk:Church management software

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

Surely this article should be deleted - the first paragraph has essentially zero citations and is simply stating some obvious reasons as to why some churches use software for projecting lyrics. The second appears to be a promotion for church specific management software (rather than a more general piece of management software), and while it contains citations, they're little more than obsolete magazine articles. There's no useful information in this article whatsoever. If the article was going to be improved and expanded upon, it would have happened to at least a degree in the last five years. As it stands at the moment, the page's history shows that it's much more likely to attract vandalism and promotions than it is worthwhile content. It should go. 88.97.39.34 ( talk) 14:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: the article was tagged for AfD, but the above statement was then posted at Talk:Church software. As the IP editor appears to be inexperienced, I have started this AfD discussion page and moved that editor's rationale here. – Fayenatic London 19:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep. I have curated this article in the past, attempting to make it encyclopedic and non-promotional. I'm a potential user of such software, and have no connection to any product or provider. The page could probably do with updating, to check the links and add more recent citations, and I am willing to do this again. – Fayenatic London 19:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
- Note: The article has just been significantly reduced in length by Theroadislong ( talk · contribs), removing material which I had considered acceptable, e.g. [9] removed as "unsourced opinion". – Fayenatic London 07:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  - That example sentence is vague (What kind of "online products" and why are these distinct from offline software?; What is "collaborative planning of church services" and why is it important to note that as a feature only of online products?; Does "online products" mean web applications or any software that can communicate online?) and potentially WP:WEASELly. I empathize with wanting to keep the article WP:USEFUL, but I'm not surprised the unsourced content was removed. I suspect that much of the removed content is true, but it is anecdotal evidence when it need to be WP:VERIFIABLE. However, I doubt most editors would object if you added a source to support the claim while restoring the content. — Ost ( talk) 18:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

As an admin I am very surprised you would consider unsourced content acceptable? Theroadislong ( talk) 15:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep as a notable topic of wide relevance to religious organisations, already contains reliable sources such as The New York Times, the disputed content can be discussed on the talk page, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep WP:Deletion is not cleanup. A cursory Google search shows a bunch of hits for pages related to this topic, though the quality of some of them as reliable sources may be debatable. It's still enough for me to be comfortable that this is a real and notable topic. The presence of "obsolete magazine articles" strengthens that impression, as it demonstrates that the topic is not WP:ONEEVENT. Anyone is welcome to further cull or copyedit any information considered to be WP:ADVERT. — Ost ( talk) 18:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep - it's part of two series of articles on office software (see [[Template:Office_suite]]) and church administration (see, e.g., [[Category:Catholic_organisations_navigational_boxes]]). Bearian ( talk) 20:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep – this is a notable topic. Search for "church software" on Google Scholar, you can find multiple papers on this topic. Any flaws with the current article is not justification for deletion. SJK ( talk) 11:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT. Nominator blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat. D4iNa4 ( talk) 18:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Narcisa Pheres

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

Non notable person. Most sources are passing mentions. 2Joules ( talk) 18:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even though nom was blocked as a sockpuppet, several other editors in good standing !voted "delete". Randykitty ( talk) 16:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Krystal Duhaney

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

~~A promotional and ad like article about a non notable person who fails WP:GNG speedy removed by anon IP 2Joules ( talk) 18:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)~~ reply

Delete Purely promotional article, all of the sources appear to be PR style blogs, non-independent. CataracticPlanets ( talk) 02:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Neutral on this article but note that nominator is a sockpuppet of blocked editor who now also has an indef block. HouseOfChange ( talk) 20:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete an overly promotional article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Promotional & does't fulfil WP:GNG criteria Act345 ( talk) 15:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty ( talk) 16:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Island View Residential Treatment Center

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

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

The article is about a treatment center that is mostly based on press releases, self published websites, unreliable sources like blogs and passing mentions. It does not pass WP:GNG. Apparently the company was acquired by a different owner which rebranded it to Elevations Residential Treatment Center. I have nominated that new page for deletion as well as neither of these articles are notable.

So I request to Delete this article. Look at the references of the Island view article:

Ref#1 is "Certificate of Incorporation", incorporating doesn't mean it is notable. Ref #2

Ref#2 is self published / website.

Ref#3 says it is about the org's closure.

Ref#4 is not available (404 error), it is another feed item like above, clearly not a reliable source. It seems to be a self published blog.

Ref#5 is another feed item like above, clearly not a reliable source. It seems to be a self published blog.

Ref#6 is a visit report / email that has been published on a blog that further states on their home page that "Categories above include Paid Advertisers." The post evidently a paid post.

Ref#7 is a clear cut Press released on the same blog as ref#6, making it further evident that the blog is advertising island view. Not reliable.

Ref#8 is a preview of Island view's own website.

Ref#9 is from Securities and Exchange Commission, registering a company doesn't make it notable.

Ref#10 is an op ed, mostly negative, nothing that establishes notability.

Ref#11 is passing mention and the news is about an incident that happens to be of a student of the org, not of the org.

Ref#12 not available.

Ref#13 a US court case, does not even remotely establish notability.

Ref#14 another self published / "about us" preview.

Ref#15 not available, title says it is a visit report.

Ref#16 not available but the link from utah govt site seems to be unrelated ref bomb. It would not be a secondary source anyway.

Ref#17 org's own website preview.

Ref#18 a US court case, does not even remotely establish notability, no depth of coverage. Not a secondary source anyway.

Ref#19 is another blog Press release.

Ref#20 a US court case, does not even remotely establish notability, no depth of coverage. Not a secondary source anyway.

Ref#21 this one is about litigation against Island view, even the negative coverage / passing mentions do not amount to the depth required for WP:GNG.

Ref#22 just like above.

Ref#23 WP:FAKE does not mention island view or elevations.

Ref#24 it is the same as Ref#21.

Ref#25 same as above.

Ref#26 looks like a paid / advert review that is no longer available on site.

Above analysis of references prove lack of notability of Island view. Neither Elevations or Island view has established notability. -- Nzteoli ( talk) 09:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC) — Nzteoli ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 10:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 10:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep and improve - clearly notable per WP:GNG and WP:CORP, with significant coverage online in WP:RS. For some reason, the nominator has pasted their previous objections to the cited references, including "Ref#12 not available.", despite the fact that I fixed that broken link during the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Elevations Residential Treatment Center, and that repaired link already cited is significant coverage in the Salt Lake Tribune. Other WP:RS online showing notability include Deseret News [10], another Salt Lake Tribune [11], Slate (magazine) [12], Salon (website) [13].

Repeated claim of #11 is passing mention and the news is about an incident that happens to be of a student of the org, not of the org: it's another article from Deseret News on the state requiring the centre to improve their suicide prevention after a child hanged himself there [14], which is also pretty significant coverage of the organization. I'm struggling to WP:Assume good faith here: both articles have a history of removal of content about the centre's controversial history, sometimes including history referenced by WP:RS, and the nominator is a WP: Single-purpose account: see Special:Contributions/Nzteoli.

This nomination should also have been bundled with the original nomination per WP:MULTIAFD, but the nominator contends that they are separate organisations, despite clear evidence to the contrary. TMG^talk 10:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Being a new editor does not discredit me as wikipedia says every one is equal here. Your mention of less other edits does not make sense. Anyway, I let's talk about the topic only, the references you gave are still not establishing notability. The reference #1 in your message talks about a Dr. Phil and an incident, but Island view is mentioned as a passing mention. Desert news being reliable does not make the topic reliable due to his lack of depth. Reference #2 is about the same incident, it does relate to Island view as before but it is another passing mention. Reference #3 Island view mentioned as an example of institutions (even its new brand Elevations is mentioned) but neither are accredited with notability. Reference #4 a few quotations from people mentioning Island view and a statement discussing a culture where residential programs are discussed mentioning "Such as Island view" as an example. This does not make this business center notable. I merely nominated Elevations but your vote at the Elevations AFD lead me to review references of Island view and its eventual nomination. Due to that these were two separate AFDs. The evidence of the two orgs being a single org you are giving is a wikipedia page. After reading through the WP:RS, wikipedia itself is not a reliable reference. Let us stop pointing fingers and see what other editors have to say. You can improve the article as you voted but I think they are not notable. -- Nzteoli ( talk) 11:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Further RS: HuffPost [15], The Wrap [16], Courthouse News Service [17]. TMG^talk 12:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. Notability doesn't expire. This article serves as an important landing place for the controversy that took place at Island View. Too many people pushing a POV are trying to put that controversy onto the successor institution, Elevations. The drama took place at Island View, however, and it deserves to be curated appropriately. GetSomeUtah ( talk) 17:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBG ^converse 13:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

comment This is supposed to have Elevations Residential Treatment Center merged into it per discussion, but this has not happened. I have my doubts about notability but I would need to look into things further. Mangoe ( talk) 16:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply
- I've started merging, but have run out of time for now. Not much left, mainly merging duplicate references, fixing dead ones, etc. Also, several of the RS I linked to above aren't in the article yet, and I'll get to that soon too unless someone beats me to it. TMG^talk 18:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete: not notable and does not satisfy WP:GNG. The references are quite obviously self published, blogs. This is an obvious Press Release. The article does not satisfy WP:CRIME to have an article on the perpetrator. As WP:CRIME says "Where there are no appropriate existing articles [...on the event of the crime...], the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:". Both items noted for perpetrators are not satisfied. That leaves the article to have to be notable as a business. The business isn't notable.-- 103.255.7.2 ( talk) 06:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC) — 103.255.7.2 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
- No, there are multiple reliable sources now, as noted above. Not sure why you're cherrypicking one of the unreliable ones. TMG^talk 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC) reply
- TMG seems to be tagging every one as SPA, well I am not one, I have an edit history and an dynamic IP. A long editing history and really not on USA topics much.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.6.84 ( talk • contribs)
  - That's an excellent reason to create an account. TMG^talk 09:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    - Wikipedia allows every one to edit, with or without an account. I never wished to create an account and there are many more experienced users sharing my philosophy. These arguments have nothing to do with this AFD. Let's not detrack the discussion. It would also be good if you do not edit or split my comments. I'll note to the admins that I have considered the latest version of the article before making my delete comment and I have still not been convinced to sway my views as the sources do not satisfy WP:CRIME or WP:GNG. -- 103.255.6.84 ( talk) 09:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete: No point in merging in Elevations, which seems to be merely an ad for that place. Island View was another fly-by-night treatment center lacking notability. Fails at WP:GNG big-time. 198.81.129.195 ( talk) 12:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC) — 198.81.129.195 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Delete: This article is backed up by blogs, not a reliable source. This subject matter is not noteworthy in the slightest. I agree with the poster above that this article does not satisfy WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:C585:1B00:285D:7C47:7101:E5B7 ( talk) 17:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC) — 2604:2000:C585:1B00:285D:7C47:7101:E5B7 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Delete: Island view is not notable as you can see all the references are self-published or with passing mentions or unreliable.This does not agree with WP:GNG. I agree with the previous two comments for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.128.180 ( talk) 19:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC) — 66.212.128.180 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Delete: Wikipedia should not be hosting articles that are backed up by blogs. There are multiple opinion sources that lack investigative impartial process. This does not meet the WP:GNG standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.81.7.171 ( talk) 20:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC) — 96.81.7.171 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Delete fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~ 10^Eleventeen 18:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Maybe some !votes not from SPAs/socks as well?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep per The Mighty Glen above. Article meets WP:GNG and, after merge, contains a decent volume of content as well. -- HunterM267 ^talk 23:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep Provided some more third-party sourcing can be found and added. TH1980 ( talk) 04:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep passes WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~ 10^Eleventeen 20:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep per recent article improvements; appears to be best known for the lawsuits against it. The facility is defunct, so the page is unlikely to be used for promotion going forward. K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep. Article is well-sourced with a mix of notable newspapers and legal filings. Newslinger ( talk) 19:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 18:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comics and Conflict

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

No evidence of notability WP:BEFORE turned up only references to the book on publisher and sales sites. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 18:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn. Another editor found reviews of the book that satisfy the notability guidelines for published works. Not sure why they didn't come up when I looked. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 18:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Etzedek24: Eh, no worries - they were honestly not that visible when I first looked. Some of these books, it's more a matter of knowing exactly where to dig for them. I've had the same thing happen to myself on multiple occasions. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty ( talk) 16:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Kingstie

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

One-time hoax; fails GNG – dlthewave ☎ 17:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. Appears to indeed be a non-notable hoax. Some fringe authors appear to have ran with it, but I'm not finding anything particularly notable. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. Wikipedia can keep articles about noteworthy hoaxes that received enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG, but it is not our role to keep an article about every hoax that anybody ever hoaxed — and this isn't sourced well enough to deem it special. Bearcat ( talk) 20:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 02:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Fiesta y Vacilon

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

A dab page with one redlink target from a redlinked artist. I couldn't find a good CSD criteria for it, so I'm sending it here. L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 17:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete since it might as well be a redirect, but it goes to a redlinked page. SemiHypercube ( talk) 18:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. PROD would also have been an option. –  Joe ( talk) 18:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment. Gonna be bold and slap an A9+G8 on it. They might not be perfect fits, but... 1. Treating it as an actual dab-page, it relies on having actual targets, which does make it a page "dependent on a non-existent or deleted page" (G8); 2. if treating it as an article resembling a dab-page, "unremarkable musical recording where artist's article doesn't exist" (A9) fits. AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 19:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty ( talk) 17:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Ohrid SOS

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

fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. 2passing mentions and an article written by members of the ONG and the ONG's web site are not enough to show notability. Article creator seems to be a COI editor Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

OhridSponge ( talk) 15:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)OhridSponge reply

Article has been edited with more thorough explanation of activities and outcomes plus wider references to answer WP:NORG and WP:GNG issues in particular to answer notability.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(
spin me /
revolutions)} 17:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. If the redlinked UNESCO Ohrid-Prespa Biosphere Reserve had an article and was notable (my first glance doesn't appear so), I would suggest redirecting there. Without that, I don't see anything that satisfies WP:NORG for standalone notability. Everything I see is mostly organizational WP:PUFFERY language of subject collaborated with group X,Y,Z or content about the geographic area instead. Not to mention that OhridSponge cannot be editing the article directly per WP:COI. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 15:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Furniture Choice

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

~~Fails the new standards at WP:NCORP. 2Joules ( talk) 17:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)~~ reply

Text by confirmed sockpuppet struck. - The Gnome ( talk) 07:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete: Much too promotional for my liking. Co-sign what above user said, most of sources are industry websites or non-notable awards. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 17:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete: Non -notable and too much promotional in tone . Kpgj hpjm 17:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep This page seems very similar to other pages such as Furniture Village or Barker and Stonehouse (which definitely reads a lot like an advert in some places, unlike this one) or Harvey's Furniture. I don't see how they can be allowed and this one not. That would be completely unreasonable. Regarding the tone, I have edited it to sound more neutral and less promotional— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickabiddybex ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a sustainable argument for retaining an article. Problems with articles on other similar firms can be dealt with in their own right. AllyD ( talk) 06:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Nominator is a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat. D4iNa4 ( talk) 18:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete nominator is a now-blocked sock, but their point about the article failing WP:NCORP stands. Likewise, I fail to see how the article meets NCORP and SIGCOV, as none of the sources assert a credible claim to significance for the company.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 01:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete: The article describes a firm going about its business, with no indication of encyclopaedic notability in the text or in shortlisting for an award. Searches find some press coverage of a research release by the firm (e.g. Birmingham Post Jan 2016 – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) but neither that nor anything else that I can see is sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD ( talk) 06:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per above, though I'm not at all comfortable with endorsing the actions of a sockpuppet in any way. We need a better way of dealing with this (unfortunately not uncommon) special case. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 11:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Any promotional language has been removed and information regarding notability has now been added. The company's fly tipping campaign has received a great deal of press coverage throughout the years both from the research findings and the development of a recycling tool. The article also now shows the company has been nominated by two independent bodies for 'notably growing a business online' and also includes mention of the exclusive deal struck with a popular ITV show where their products were the main focus of the segment. My argument is that the article has been improved enough that it does now fit the criteria to be included. Chickabiddybex

Please edit your first comment, rather than adding a second keep vote. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 10:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment: Still looks a bit promotional to me . Kpgj hpjm 16:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment: Which part is promotional? I don't see which part is promotional, but can edit anything you think might be. Also, please forgive my mistakes in commenting in the wrong place etc, I'm still learning. User:chickabiddybex —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete non-notable company; disagree as to it being WP:PROMO. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /
cheap sh*t room} 10:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NCORP. - The Gnome ( talk) 07:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT. Nominator blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat. D4iNa4 ( talk) 18:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Vanessa Verduga

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The page appears to be an ad like promotional page. 2Joules ( talk) 17:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy Delete. G3. Non admin closure. Admin forgot to close the deletion request. " Ronhjones ( talk · contribs): G3: Blatant hoax" (non-admin closure) Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Hook Island Sea Monster

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

Appears to be a hoax with insufficient RS coverage to meet GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 17:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. While pseudoscience adherents have taken this apparent hoax and ran with it, I couldn't find any sources that adequately meet WP:FRIND. :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 02:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 02:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Prime example of single-sighting, blown-up, practically information-less cryptid. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Tagged as G3 -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT. Nominator blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat. D4iNa4 ( talk) 18:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Maradona (2018 film)

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

per WP:TOOSOON. 2Joules ( talk) 16:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep I don't see how WP:TOOSOON applies. It is due for release (quote the article) "mid-July". I reckon that's seven days from now, which is when this AfD will end (excluding relistings). It seems to have a lot of coverage already, so passing WP:GNG on that basis. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 05:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 10:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 10:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty ( talk) 17:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Gnome of Girona

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

RS coverage does not meet GNG; likely hoax – dlthewave ☎ 16:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Couldn't find any sources that met WP:FRIND. :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 02:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete: No reliable sources available. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 02:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 02:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. Randykitty ( talk) 17:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Erica Campbell

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

Fails pornbio and gng and nowhere near close to standards required for a blp. Esp one where a potential blpvio that is certainly undue keeps being edited back in. Should be deleted and redirected to List of Penthouse Pets. I'd do that myself but doubt everyone would accept me as a neutral admin for pornbio related stuff. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete and redirect per nom's accurate analysis. Escaped redirection in the past due to other potential redirect targets (list articles now deleted as not reflecting notable subjects). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 18:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete nothing that rises to the level of notability here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. Lacks significant secondary source coverage to pass WP:BIO. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per PORNBIO & GNG & all that shizz. – Davey2010^Talk 21:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty ( talk) 17:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Alec Von Bargen

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

Poorly sourced puff piece previously deleted, fails WP:GNG Theroadislong ( talk) 15:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete a non-notable actor. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Leaning Delete but could be convinced otherwise. He needs to be considered as an artist. Here is his CV [18]. I'm uncertain about this one. He has numerous vanity shows/spaces on his CV which is a red flag (NYArts, Agora for example). He claims to have been in the Venice Biennale: he was included in a group show that SWATCH sponsored. It was curated, but seems like it was part of a promotional campaign by SWATCH. [19] According to this promotional coverage [20] it seems like the most notable artists in the show were Von Barge, Yan Wang Preston, Chiara Luzzana and Luca Bray, none of which have existing en wiki pages. Cool hunting [21] also talks about the work of Joana Vasconcelos and Chiara Luzzana and about the curator Carlo Giordanetti. -- Theredproject ( talk) 16:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty ( talk) 17:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Mohammed Hafiz Abdullah

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

Non-notable. There's one reference, so I won't A7 it. L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 15:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - titular chiefs of smaller regions are not automatically notable. Bearian ( talk) 20:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per Bearian and nom Apparent BLP lacks sources and fails WP:V. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 23:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Nguma-monene

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

A Non-notable fringe "living dinosaur", as the previously deleted Ngoubou, Muhuru, Burrunjor, Ropen, Kasai Rex, Emela-ntouka, and so on. There is essentially no coverage in reliable sources. tronvillain ( talk) 13:51, 6 July

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. tronvillain ( talk) 15:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. tronvillain ( talk) 15:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. tronvillain ( talk) 16:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. No high quality sources found. It's not notable, it's not verifiable. Slideshow Bob ( talk) 18:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment Somewhat to my surprise, this 1987 book published by Brill Publishers has an entire chapter on this ... alleged creature: [22]. 24.151.50.175 ( talk) 21:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC) I've restored some deleted material drawing from this source and another source published by Penguin for discussion purposes. 24.151.50.175 ( talk) 21:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, A Living Dinosaur? is the fringe source that originated the story. -- tronvillain ( talk) 22:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Can you expound upon why these books published by respected publishers are fringe and do not go to establishing notability of a possible (or mythological) creature? (not disagreeing, just asking for information why this isn't a Loch Ness Monster situation). 24.151.50.175 ( talk) 22:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Sure! It's a fringe theory because it departs significantly from the prevailing views in zoology, archeology, and any other relevant field you care to name. And as seen at WP:NFRINGE: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers." Mackall is the main promulgator/popularize of this fringe theory. This contrasts with subjects like Mokele-mbembe (the primary subject of A Living Dinosaur?) or the Loch Ness monster, which actually have received such coverage. -- tronvillain ( talk) 23:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the cogent response. Color me convinced. 24.151.50.175 ( talk) 15:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete as receiving no substantial coverage in reliable sources beyond promoters of fringe theory. 24.151.50.175 ( talk) 15:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. No notable coverage in reliable sources that I can see. WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES is an already low bar, but since no one has shown it exists yet, that seems to be a pretty clear indication that it fails even that notability metric. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 15:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. :bloodofox: ( talk) 16:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Redirect or merge to its more famous "cousin", the Mokele-mbembe. Bearian ( talk) 20:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - there doesn't seem to be any scientific papers talking about this "organism", nor any actually reliable sources. Thus, it should be deleted, as it does not seem to exist. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete on account of lack of notability. Wikipedia, the last place one can still find living dinosaurs. Exterminate before it breeds. - The Gnome ( talk) 07:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. promo by undeclared COI editor, no proper sources or evidence of notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Franz Inc.

AfDs for this article:

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

Coverage in reliable sources, please.....Fails WP:NCORP. ∯WBG ^converse 13:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Hanno Soth

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO as owner of the Bali Times the 8 references that use this as a source can be ignored for notability as being affiliated, of the 8 sources that remain 3 are passing mentions (Macaron, Freelibrary, Fin24) 1 is just quotes by the subject in a PR piece (Elixir) 1 is a legal notification 1 is a court report on a lawyer's website dedicated to "elder law" 1 doesn't support the claim to having won an award. After a search the only source that supports this claim is The Bali Times which is owned by the subject. the last source is a tabloid piece about the court case that suggests he tried to swindle an old lady out of $2 million Dom from Paris ( talk) 12:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 12:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 12:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 12:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 12:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 12:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. Honestly, I don't know how anybody can argue that this run of the mil business person is notable in any way. The sources are not independent of the subject or are so trivial as to laugh. Bearian ( talk) 20:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete seems to be a publicity gimmick. The interviews in Bali Times are really funny. Dial911 ( talk) 23:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per nomination, with thanks. But this will be raised again as sure as sunrise. - The Gnome ( talk) 07:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 17:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Michael Barrier (actor)

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

This actor, according to the article, is "best known for appearances as Lieutenant DeSalle on the original Star Trek series", all three of them. I'm a Star Trek fan, but I drew a blank on DeSalle. DeSalle is not mentioned in any of the three episode articles. Fails WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. G-searches are turning up nothing useful to establish notability - blogs, user generated sites like IMDb, subject's Star Trek trading cards and a few trivial mentions. CBS527^Talk 08:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. I remember him as DeSalle but his brief appearances on ST don't make him notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Wikipedia does not create articles on bit part actors. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was moved to Draft:Trevoh Chalobah. bd2412 T 15:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Trevoh Chalobah

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

Fails WP:GNG, non notable athlete without a senior appearance, and classic example of WP:TOOSOON Ortizesp ( talk) 02:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply

keep He may not have made his debut yet, but it is the fact he has an FA Cup winners medal despite never playing a competitive game, THAT is the very thing that makes him notable! Either he makes his debut soon and passes WP:Football or he remains the answer to a great quiz question. User: Hildreth gazzard User talk: Hildreth gazzard|talk]] 06.19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Once he actually passes WP:NFOOTY (which he probably will by the end of August), the article can be restored. Number 5 7 13:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep - in lots of publishers like East Anglian Daily Times, BBC Sport & ITV News Joaomufc ( talk) 13:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Where's the source that says he actually has a medal? Even if he does, why does that make him notable? Giant Snowman 16:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply
- He put on his "Insta" (as I believe the kids call it) that he has a medal...... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 08:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - per nom.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 03:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete or Draft Looks like a player who will qualify for a wiki article, but as of right now fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy ( talk) 18:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Draft - Although he has played for the England Youth teams and part of the article is sourced, it will only pass as an article if he makes a league or a senior team appearance. Iggy ( Swan) 21:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league or a senior international fixture and does not have enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Kosack ( talk) 08:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Move to Draftspace - clear case of WP:TOOSOON and article is certainly not notable yet, however I believe the best idea would be to move this to someone's draft space and than could be re-moved to be an article if and when the subject passes the notability guidelines. Inter&anthro ( talk) 12:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 13:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete or draft as WP:TOOSOON Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep About 5,570 results in news search. Some of these are stories specifically about Chalobah. He passes WP:GNG. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 01:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep the oddity of his being on the roster for the FA Cup championship may or may not be enough for GNG. As he is almost certain to become notable by appearing for Ipswich in the course of the next two months, we should keep this, even though WP:NFOOTY is not met yet. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

We can't say for for sure that he will play, Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Kosack ( talk) 05:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep WP:NFOOTBALL: Fail. WP:GNG: Not so clear. Over 8,000 search results on a Google News search is a lot for a player who has yet to make his senior debut. However, being an FA Cup winner (ie having been included in the matchday squad for the winning team in the final), especially at the age of 18 and having yet to even take to the field in a first-team match, makes me think this topic has sufficient encyclopedic value. Mattythewhite ( talk) 14:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I was getting over 5,500 news search results, now I'm getting over 9,000! I don't know what to think. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 23:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Now 10,500...? Jack N. Stock ( talk) 03:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I don't think you're searching right, I get 6800 results. Either way, I don't think new search results are particularly valid, Youssoufa Moukoko still doesn't and he has 10K plus results, and won't get a Wiki page until he formally debuts.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 03:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete on account of subject failing WP:NFOOTBALL, which I find to be too strict, but it is what it is. If subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL, then WP:GNG on its own is not enough. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Joshua E. S. Phillips

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

Fails WP:GNG. Jamez42 ( talk) 01:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 ( talk) 01:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 ( talk) 01:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 ( talk) 01:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 05:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. Not notable. His key work is None of Us Were Like This Before, but I can only find one independent review from a reliable source. Newslinger ( talk) 23:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR both as a writer and journalist. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 20:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
DeleteI found his one interview with Gulf News. Had it been more interviews in reliable secondary sources like this one, I would have voted as keep. But this is probably the only one on the internet. So, delete. Dial911 ( talk) 23:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty ( talk) 17:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Licensing International Expo

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

This business industry fails WP:GNG. There is no coverage in independent reliable sources apart from press releases. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 04:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. Not notable. Besides a short local news mention, the only reliable source I can find is this Xinhua article which describes a single exhibition at the expo. Newslinger ( talk) 00:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Arthur Rovine

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

This article appears to be a compilation of every mention of Mr. Rovine on the Web. All of the sources are either primary sources or non-independent and of questionable reliability. I couldn't find a single independent, reliable source providing any significant coverage of Mr. Rovine. Therefore, the subject appears to fail WP:BIO. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Promotional, fueled by primary sources, and fails WP:GNG. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. Notable academic and author. This is a review of his book in American Journal of International Law, a notable academic journal. See the citations for his work at this Google Scholar search Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm not an expert in this but the provided information doesn't appear to satisfy WP:SCHOLAR. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Also, this link says that he was listed in various biographical directories. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 18:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm listed in various directories too, but I don't get my own Wikipedia article.

-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

It is entirely possible that you would pass WP:GNG. There are many notable people who do not yet have an article. (Anyway, I think that Arthur Rovine is notable.) Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Notable. The citations in GScholar show that this person satisfies WP:PROF. Bear in mind that law has the lowest level of citations of all fields of study, with the average law professor having a h-index of 2. Rovine is far above that. His h-index is at least 11, which is more than four times the average. He also satisfies WP:AUTHOR with multiple periodical book reviews. For example, "Digest of United States Practice in International Law" (1973 and possibly other years) is, as far as I can see, reviewed by Netherlands International Law Review, American Journal of International Law, Texas International Law Journal and Denver Journal of International Law and Policy (according to the index, which says it was reviewed in Spring '76). I suspect that I would find many more reviews of his books if I kept looking. This is the sort of query you have to run to get GBooks to give you all the relevant results: many strings of fragments and keywords, not just the persons' name, or even his book's title, in speech marks. James500 ( talk) 20:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Given that Joaomufc has been blocked. Sandstein 08:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Linda Louise Duan

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

Non-notable indivual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix ( talk) 18:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete: -- agree she is insufficiently notable actress for standalone article. Quis separabit? 18:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Save -- it has already been decided to keep her. Voicebox64 ( talk) 19:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep I added two additional sources that indicate some notability. ABY 124431132 ( talk) 01:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Weak keep - The local newspapers articles cited in the article seem to be sufficiently in-depth to confer notability. Deryck C. 12:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep - appears in Uproxx & East Anglian Daily Times plus more Joaomufc ( talk) 13:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

keep meet notability in some sources. Emily Khine ( talk) 19:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was incorrectly filed. The article filed for AFD is a redirect to a draft page and this is where the AFD notice was applied. AFD does not apply to pages within the draft space - an MFD needs to be filed if a deletion is still felt to be warranted.

No big deal; Kleuske probably just didn't notice that the article was a redirect to a draft. I didn't realize it either and until I actually restored the AFD template the page creator removed themselves and left them a warning... oops.... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk)
(contribs)} 09:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited

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

Fails WP:GNG/ WP:NCORP Sources mentioned are either WP:PRIMARY, routine business announcements on an IPO or short puff pieces. Was a draft, but moved to main space by ~~main~~ only author. Kleuske ( talk) 09:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 09:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 09:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sack (unit)#Coal. Consensus to not keep, but a split between delete and merge. Redirect is a compromise that allows editors to decide whether to merge any content from the history. If that does not occur, the redirect may be RfDed. Sandstein 08:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Large sack

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

Article is based on a fragment of a table in a book known for unreliable claims; it is misleading, in that a "large sack" is actually a container, a sack of a larger size than normal. More rationale at my user page. Imaginatorium ( talk) 08:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC) @ AndyTheGrump, Anna Frodesiak, Archon 2488, Johnuniq, Kikichugirl, NebY, PamD, and War wizard90:: pinging other editors involved in previous AfD discussion. To clarify, I think this article should be deleted because it is not an appropriate topic: I think there could be an article on coal measure (beginings of a draft), which would put the various bits of information in context. "Merge" is not really an option, because there is no information here which is both nontrivial and accurate. And there is no evidence of the expression large sack as the name of a unit, even though clearly big sacks were used, along with middling-large, quite big, and other sacks. Imaginatorium ( talk) 19:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 09:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

comment I can find several earlier references to 1 large sack equalling 2 cwt (one from 1986, one from 1919); I didn't check further. I didn't find any measurements in this unit, but numerous cases of someone carrying coal in a "large sack", so maybe it was a standard delivery. I have to say I'm having notability issues with this. Mangoe ( talk) 14:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Merge with Sack (unit)#Coal per below. Mangoe ( talk) 01:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - not notable -- Danski454 ( talk) 18:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge with Sack (unit)#Coal. OR comment: when I was young (1950s in Britain) a large sack of coal was indeed two hundredweights. I'd hardly call it a unit but it was a standard measure of coal. It was certainly carried by one man and these sacks were the normal size for emptying into our coal shed. Thincat ( talk) 20:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep There's nothing misleading or unreliable about this as it was well-established and documented as a standard measure of coal. There may be scope to merge with other similar units, as Thincat suggests, but this is not done by deletion. Andrew D. ( talk) 22:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment and question - this article reads more like a dictionary definition than an encyclopedia entry, so could it be transwikied to Wiktionary? Vorbee ( talk) 09:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete and merge as per thincat ( talk · contribs) -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment this and other articles only sourced to Cardarelli 2003 (such as Stack (unit) or Aum (unit)) should be merged somewhere if no other references exist; as noted that discussion can happen at some other forum. Several regular participants feel it's likely such references exist for this specific unit, and I'm not interested in conducting a detailed search. If they could provide such a reference this will be an easy Keep closure, otherwise I see no reason not to merge with Sack (unit) (purely an editorial opinion). power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment: exactly. This decontextualising of fragmentary information seems to be a common problem, perhaps caused in part by editors who think that if only they can create 500 articles this is somehow significant. (See Cyrillization of German‎ for a completely unrelated example.) Imaginatorium ( talk) 19:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I find a table in an arithmetic book from 1885, and a 18XX "cyclopedia". I'm still leaning towards a merge; the notable topic is "archaic English units of weight for measuring specific goods". power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Merge with a larger article putting the unit in the wider context of other relevant/contemporaneous units. There's no benefit in having thousands of stub articles on every obscure unit of measurement in history. This information would be more accessible and meaningful to users as an entry in a table of other similar units, rather than as an article in its own right, especially since this article provides no useful historical context – where and when was it used, and by whom? Archon 2488 ( talk) 19:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete unless a non-Cardarelli source can be found which supports the idea that this was ever a defined unit. OED does not define "large sack". It may be that coal-merchants or other dealers used the term "large sack", but we have no evidence that it was a standardised unit. Pam D 22:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

This and the following delete !vote was selectively canvassed by the nominator. The previous AfD for this topic had a much larger list of participants. Andrew D. ( talk) 00:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete as non-notable and highly misguided. There is no standard decreeing that 1 large sack is 224 pounds, and showing "1 large sack ≡ 101.60469088 kg" makes Wikipedia look breathtakingly dumb. The unreliable reference is a printed version of the unhelpful website aggregators that suck up factoids. If someone wants to write an article about this topic, it would have to be more than a dictionary definition. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

If a reliable source can be found for it, it makes sense to keep the information, but to present it in a more meaningful and accessible context. I have no doubt that the appropriate action is to delete this page, but if the information is accurate (even if it was not standardised, as most archaic/obscure units were never rigorously defined as standards in the modern sense) then it makes sense to retain it and present it elsewhere and turn this page into a redirect to that. The decimal dust issue is trivially resolved by rounding, as I have done. Archon 2488 ( talk) 19:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Update The claims that there is no evidence for this are false. The measure was established by an act of parliament so I have added some details and a citation to the article. Andrew D. ( talk) 07:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment: Can you please quote the Act? Do the words "large sack", in that order, appear in the Act? Would you also do me the honour of answering a question: (1) Do you really think that this kind of microstub is the way to make a better encyclopedia? (You could comment on my suggested draft for an improvement: coal measure.) Imaginatorium ( talk) 08:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

The encyclopedia is built by developing such topics rather than deleting them. The act specified sacks of one or two hundredweights. The former seems to have been more common for domestic deliveries, when they would typically be carried on the back. The larger sacks would be too heavy for that but I have found some details of how the larger size was used in the navy -- with hoists and sack trucks. Andrew D. ( talk) 00:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Australian Air Force Cadets. Sandstein 19:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Ranks of the Australian Air Force Cadets

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

This does not need to be on Wikipedia. Ranks don't differ from Australian Defence Force apart from addition to the name of each rank which is not notable outside the organisation and associated entities, and citations are not publicly available. Tytrox ( talk) 10:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep. There is no policy-based rationale in the nomination. Arguing "does not need to be on Wikipedia" is not a valid rationale; no article needs to be here. I have no idea what to make of the claim that they "don't differ from Australian Defence Force" significantly. Both sets of insignia are pretty similar to RAF insignia so on that basis we should be looking to delete Ranks of the Royal Australian Air Force as well. Besides, the claim does not hold up – in the Cadets there is a need for the insignia to distinguish between cadets and instructors and officer cadets and establishment officers. This is unique to the Cadets. Finally, the nominator claims that the "citations are not publicly available". If by this it is meant that the sources are offline then the nominator should read WP:SOURCEACCESS which states that such sources are fine. In any case, the information on cadet signia is easily found online, for instance here. Spinning Spark 12:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Fair point that my first argument was not solid. The information is already available at Australian Defence Force Cadets (which I deleted but have since restored due to being trigger-happy in retrospect (which could then consider this article obsolete)). Tytrox ( talk) 12:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Merge back to Australian Air Force Cadets which is not even vaguely large enough to justify the split-out. Mangoe ( talk) 14:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I would be happy with that solution. I also note that the nominator caused the problem by deleting the information from that article. Spinning Spark 14:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete per nomination. Otherwise, Merge into Australian Air Force Cadets. - The Gnome ( talk) 22:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge into Australian Air Force Cadets. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge to Australian Air Force Cadets -- Baerentp ( talk) 16:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge as per others Wolfson5 ( talk) 18:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge now that an acceptable resolution is possible Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 18:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Henok Mebratu

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

PROD contested by an SPA ( Ethioarts) who has made only ten edits ever, nine of which were to create this article in 2016 and one of which was to manifest from the ether to contest the PROD less than 24 hours after I placed it yesterday. What a stunning coincidence.

Per my original PROD reasoning, this article is promotional puffery. The wording has been adjusted by Ethioarts in the process of contesting the PROD, but the lead originally intentionally misled the reader by describing Mebratu as "one of three award-winning Ethiopian filmmakers selected to participate at the Cannes Film Festival". This is untrue: the "award" in question was winning a trip to Cannes to "participate" by going to workshops and programs. The assertion that Mebratu has worked on 5 feature films is technically true, but not as director or even screenwriter - looking at his actual credits shows he does odd jobs at best.

But getting away from misleading prose and into the claim of notability, there is at total lack of reliable independent sources. Mebratu utterly fails all facets of WP:NCREATIVE, and without sources, there is no legitimate claim to notability under WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. Not notable. His only press coverage describes him winning a free trip to Cannes. Newslinger ( talk) 22:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - a search reveals almost no information about him so not really notable -- Baerentp ( talk) 16:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Osu!

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

Article has 48 references - all primary. Makes no case to pass WP:GNG Lee Vilenski ^{(
talk •
contribs)} 08:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(
talk •
contribs)} 08:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC) reply

The JeuxVideo ref is not primary. Have you checked the WP:VG/SE? -- Izno ( talk) 12:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I just checked, and there's only the one from JeuxVideo. I think this is a clear delete. -- Izno ( talk) 12:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC) reply

The custom search simply brings up a lot of information on Ohio State Football team. Lee Vilenski ^{(
talk •
contribs)} 12:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC) reply

It sounds like you need to learn to filter by e.g. adding the developer name outside the game's name search. -- Izno ( talk) 12:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I'd never really thought about that, thanks Izno. However, I still didn't find much to show notability. Lee Vilenski ^{(
talk •
contribs)} 13:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC) reply

The article received almost 14,000 views in the last 30 days so that could mean something. The editor whose username is Z0 12:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Not really sure how that makes it any more notable... Lee Vilenski ^{(
talk •
contribs)} 12:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Non-notable subjects wouldn't get a lot of page views. The editor whose username is Z0 13:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Page views are not an indication of notability. -- Izno ( talk) 12:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm just pointing out the high page views because that might indicate popularity which would mean significant coverage could exist. The editor whose username is Z0 13:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC) reply

WP:POPULARPAGE isn't really considered a great deletion discussion. There's not much proving these sources exist. Lee Vilenski ^{(
talk •
contribs)} 14:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC) reply

WP:VG has a search engine ( WP:VG/SE, which draws from WP:VG/S) that allows us to search the majority of reliable sources in the domain. A representative search is linked above for this specific topic. As you can see, there are nearly no results, indicating that this topic is extremely unlikely to meet the general notability guideline. Now, it may be there are sources not in English (which are the majority in the engine), but a search of Google's first several pages taking out some obvious non-secondary/independent sources does not yield much of interest. The reason the page is popular is probably because many Twitch streamers play it on occasion, not because independent sources have taken note of the game. (Which is a curiosity, but not one of ours to resolve.) -- Izno ( talk) 15:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep I've done some research and have uncovered some sources that provide evidence of notability for this game:

This paper from The Proceedings of DiGRA Australia Queensland Symposium 2016: One popular approach in contemporary broadcast is the use of a camera inlay. This has been utilised to great effect, by a number of streaming communities, in order to document both material and bodily interface with games. For instance, the streaming community in rhythm game osu! (2007) will often document hand movement via a webcam, oriented toward the player's hand.
This article on Engadget regarding the public beta release of osu!: The public beta, available since yesterday, does a remarkable job of capturing the tap-out-the-rhythm gameplay of the DS games, though the dancing cheerleaders have been replaced with static videos for each song. You can build your own levels or download over 100 "beatmaps" of primarily J-Pop songs that were made by testers.
This video from Polygon in 2016: OSU! is a free rhythm game that lets players create a share playable 'beatmaps' for any song. The game, which is heavily inspired by the Nintendo DS games Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan and Elite Beat Agents, has over 300,000 fan-made tracks and over 500,000 active players. The video contains an interview with the director of the referenced games who offers some additional commentary on the game itself.
This review from the now-defunct web TV series Rev3Games, a subsidiary of Discovery Digital Networks. From the around the 2:00 mark: Luckily, as the always do, the diehard fans of the rhythm game genre have stepped up and found a solution, which is to make the game themselves. That game is called osu! and it's a free, pretty open PC port of Ouendan that allows you to add any song you can think of. It's been around for years but as it exists today, osu! in 2014 might be the most robust rhythm game ever made.

There are a lot of articles with passing mentions of the game in relation to a separate game, Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan. On top of that, Ohio State University-related results are coming up a lot in searches, so that makes surfacing sources a little more difficult in this case. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Here is one Japanese language source as well:

This article from Automaton. Here's a rough translation: osu! is a game developed with the Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan series in mind. The game quality, frequency of updates, availability of songs, and other features make it more than just a mere imitation, and it is a popular game both at home and abroad. There are features such as being able to form communities [of players] and functions for sharing [music], and the influences on the thoughtful music selection [in the game] are clear.

I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep Per User:I JethroBT, the articles for this game are particularly hard to find due to name and age but it is notable._{ZXCVBNM (
TALK)} 20:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate the sources presented in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBG ^converse 12:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep per User:I JethroBT, if the extensive coverage presented by them could be carefully integrated into the article, the article solidifies its notability. Videogameplayer99 ( talk) 19:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete in its current state, otherwise it should be kept if expanded. ~ Dissident93 ^(
talk) 03:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep even in its current state per WP:ARTN; User:I JethroBT's finding of reliable secondary sources should satisfy the notability concerns. 9³ ( talk) 05:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete for lack of independently verifiable notability.

JethroBT did a remarkable job examining sources, yet I find insufficient substance in them. In detail:

The Australian Symposium Paper is about broadcast play and mentions the subject as an example. The Endgadget report comes from an online website that publishes everything that's happening in the video game world ("Endgadget hosts the archives and expertise of early digital publishing players like Joystiq, TUAW and gdgt"). As to the "Polygon source", well, YouTube-sourced material gets a very cold welcome in Wikipedia. The mention of osu! in the now-defunct Rev3Games's YouTube channel is the only one that scrapes the surface of notability. (The nature of reviews is unimportant. A product can be universally assessed as "awful" and still be notable.) I truly see nothing that could merit a Keep. With the utmost respect, what is "passing mentions" to JethroBT reads mostly like " trivial mentions" to me. And they mainly come from the self-congratulatory world of video game media. - The Gnome ( talk) 09:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

StuMagz

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

~~Is not notable enough. Appears to be a local brand, unknown outside its hometown. 2Joules ( talk) 05:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)~~ reply

Note to Closing Admin The nominator has been blocked as a sock HighKing⁺⁺ 12:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tanneruvenugopalam ( talk) 09:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Agree with The Gnome ( talk · contribs) regarding these. Best at least collapse or otherwise separate them off so it's clear which comments are being talked about. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 09:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply

As per my knowledge Its Known and recognized throughout South India. You may get more clarity when Business Tycoon Richard Branson tweeted about this company. Company was into Forbes 30 under 30 Asia List. I recommend StuMagz shouldn't be nominated for Deletion. By deleting we are making mistake regarding the student EdTech Company which provides Digital Campus Solutions for Engineering Colleges in India. Mostly they are helping for Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities of India. We should make them proud by showcasing their strategy of implementation and information to the World.

More Notable references are provided below, You Can Check the tweet too and also the News Channel Coverage regarding them.

"(no title)" (Interview). Entrepreneur India. {{ cite interview}}: Cite uses generic title ( help) Vijayabhaskar02 ( talk) 16:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC) reply

"Entrepreneur India on LinkedIn: "This Indian Startup Caught the…". LinkedIn. Retrieved 2018-06-21. Vijayabhaskar02 ( talk) 16:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC) reply

"Richard Branson on Twitter". Twitter. Retrieved 2018-06-21.

Dash, Sanchita (2018-04-04). "Here's Why Richard Branson Tweeted About This Indian Start-up". Entrepreneur.

TV5 MONEY (2017-03-06), Stumagz Co-Founders Mr Fredy and Ms Manisha @ Startup Junction{{ citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list ( link)

iDream Telugu Movies (2018-04-17), Stumagz CEO Sri Charan Lakkaraju Exclusive Interview || Business Icons With iDream #15

StuMagz (2016-07-18), Always Be Ready To lose- Sri Charan Lakkaraju CEO Of stumagz.com @ Master Orator Championship

"stuMagz". www.facebook.com. Johnhexer ( talk) 12:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet. - The Gnome ( talk) 22:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

~~Vijayabhaskar02 ( talk) 11:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)~~ reply

Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet master. - The Gnome ( talk) 22:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

~~I feel this page shouldn't be deleted. Think More notability is provided for Buzz. Johnhexer ( talk) 11:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)~~ reply

Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet. - The Gnome ( talk) 22:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

~~Hope it 'shouldn't deleted. It looks fine. As per my research stuMagz got notable power. Tanneruvenugopalam ( talk) 09:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)~~ reply

Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet. - The Gnome ( talk) 22:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Is this about schools?! I'm outta here. I was never here. - The Gnome ( talk) 17:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes This is About schools, Colleges and Universities. Motto is to make digitized environment in EdTech Industry. They are making sure all the colleges, Schools in India are digitized in the vision of Make in India by Narendra Modi Vijayabhaskar02 ( talk) 06:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply

~~Digital Education portal Vijayabhaskar02 ( talk) 06:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)~~ reply

Are you, Vijayabhaskar02, in any way whatsoever related to StuMagz? - The Gnome ( talk) 13:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I Am no were related to stuMagz. I was delegate for GES 2017 Summit in Hyderabad,India for which Ivanka Trump is the Chief Guest. As this stuMagz startup was mentioned on the Board pitches regarding development in Indian Colleges and Schools. As am a Journalist i was curious to know about this Indian Startup for which Richard Branson Tweeted them too. And then made my research and Contributions to Wikipedia community. Vijayabhaskar02 ( talk) 15:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet master. - The Gnome ( talk) 22:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note to admins : Some comments above were not posted here by the editors signing them. They were copied & pasted here from elsewhere by Curb Safe Charmer, ostensibly in good faith. Irrespective of the copyist's intentions, such a move is highly irregular as it opens the door for chaotic controversies in AfDs, and it should actively be disallowed. (We would potentially have editors objecting to their comments appearing here, imports of irrelevant comments, conversations without the editors whose comments were copied, and so on.) There is no justification, e.g. "the editors are newbies," that would permit such an arbitrary, distorting action. Editors are also encouraged to look up WP:TALKO. - The Gnome ( talk) 07:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

As The Gnome has raised this at WT:AFD I think there is the best place to discuss the rights or wrongs of this. To clarify though, the 'elsewhere' that I moved the comments from was this AfD's own talk page. It was clear to me that the editors who started to justify keeping the article had intended to contribute to the deletion discussion and just did so in the wrong place. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 15:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

All these editors turned out to be sockpuppets. There is a lesson there, I think, for all of us, and it is to leave things well enough alone! If an editor wants to participate and contribute somewhere, we could show them how but we should not carry their participation forward for them. Nothing good can ever come out of doing their work for them: At best, the editors remain clueless; at worst, we're helping miscreants. - The Gnome ( talk) 21:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment: Here is an assessment of the sources provided in the article:

Analysis of references
Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
The New India Express article	Y	?	Y	Y	?	Difficult to know whether this is quality journalism or a PR piece. Probably the latter
Indian CEO article	Y	?	Y	Y	?	Difficult to know whether this is quality journalism or a PR piece. Probably the latter, particularly as no individual journalist identified
inc42	N	N	Y	Y	N	One of the startups picked by a new incubator
The Hindu article	N	?	Y	Y	N	Just a paragraph. Not in depth coverage
Forbes article	N	N	Y	N	N	Just a paragraph. Not in depth coverage
The News Minute	?	Y	Y	Y	?	Three paragraphs, one a quote.
Entrepreneur article	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Substantial article - looks like a proper piece of journalism
The Hans India article	N	Y	Y	Y	N	A brief mention that one of the founders was featured in the Forbes 30 under 30 list
Telangana Today	N	N	Y	Y	N	A brief mention that one of the founders was featured in the Forbes 30 under 30 list
Talangana Today #2	N	N	Y	Y	N	Announcement of funding round
Moneycontrol article	N	N	Y	Y	N	Announcement of funding round
Cityairnews article	N	N	Y	Y	N	Sponsored a talent competition
Startup Hyderabad	N	N	Y	Y	N	Sponsored a talent competition
Uber	N	N	Y	Y	N	Joint sponsorship of an internship
Coverage of undergraduate summit	N	N	Y	Y	N	Named as sponsor of an event
Startup Hyperbad	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Won an award for branding
The Hindu #3	N	Y	Y	Y	N	One sentence mention as runner up for a startup award
News Minute	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	One paragraph - best emerging startup in StartAP awards
Total qualifying sources					2	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 19:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep: On assessment (above) of the sources provided, the article looks to pass WP:ORGCRIT. The company clearly has a good marketing department or agency, but on balance it looks to me like there's enough coverage. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 19:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment: I do suspect undisclosed paid editing is at play here - a Google search returns an indication that someone of the same name as one of the editors that has contributed to the article is a self-employed SEO consultant. While undisclosed paid editing is not allowed, it isn't in itself a reason to delete the article. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 20:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

This is getting dirtier and dirtier. - The Gnome ( talk) 09:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete First, I must thank Curb Safe Charmer for the analysis. This is a great way to systemically look at sources, and I am impressed. However, I slightly disagree with the 2 sources above which are somewhat reliable, independent. (I have also looked for other sources, but I will come to that later)
1. Entrepreneur article- Entrepreneur is generally reliable. However, they also run some short human interest stories (< 500 words) which are triggered by some social media activity. This one seems to be one of those. At 460 words, the article is not an indepth article. One third of it is about Richard Branson's quote and half are quotes by the founder. This is not really independent journalism, but more like a Buzzfeed/ScoopWhoop style "short scoop".

2. Newsminute (article about startAP awards) - Newsminute is a fully online news media which focuses on stories in the South of India. While generally reliable in terms of being factual, I don't give it as much weightage as a newspaper like Hindu. Quite a few of the stories are ones which would never be published in a traditional newspaper. Coming back to the article, this is a coverage of the "StartAP" awards, given by an organisation dedicated to promote startup activity in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. I don't consider this award to be significant. The coverage about StuMagz is limited to 4 sentences (79 words), which is not significant coverage either.

A notable startup in India will generally attract attention in any of the mainstream newspapers like Hindustan Times or Times of India. These will not simply be announcements of funding/merger/acquisition, but will be about the company, history, target market. It would include comments by not only the founders but also prominent people in the industry. This is missing here. I am particularly surprised by the lack of coverage in most mainstream newspapers.

This looks like an emerging company to me. At this point it doesn't seem to be especially notable.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 14:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep: As a member of Wikipedia am responsible to contribute verified content to the community. Forbes Asia recognized this startup founders in 30 Under 30 List for the year 2018. Entrepreneur Media is one of the respected websites and Richard Branson is a Global Entrepreneur and his validation is Great credibility for this startup. News minute is a Digital news platform read by millions of users. These made me to contribute on Wikipedia. It looks to me like there's enough coverage. Johnhexer ( talk) 12:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment Looks like this AfD has been infested by socks. Striking sock !vote HighKing⁺⁺ 12:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Entirely Promotional article, no indications of notability. For the most part, the references/coverage provided does not appear to be intellectually independent as required by the new version of the NCORP guidelines. There also appears to be a misunderstanding on the interpretation of "Independent". Since the long table above already rules out all but two references (which I agree with) here are my comments on the remaining two.

Analysis of references
Source	Pass/Fail	Notes
The New India Express article	N	Standard Churnalism (usual format is posed photo, history of founders, explain problem and Aha moment, opportunity, funding, etc), relies extensively on interview/quotations from connected sources, fails WP:ORGIND
Indian CEO article	N	Standard Churnalism, relies extensively on interview/quotations from connected sources, no independent analysis/opinion provided, fails WP:ORGIND
inc42	N	Relies on company announcement from their incubator, fails WP:ORGIND
The Hindu article	N	No intellectually independent opinion/analysis provided, the listing appears to be a cut and paste of the company description created by company sources.
Forbes article	N	The exact type of Forbes article specifically excluded at WP:ORGCRIT as most are company-sponsored or based on marketing materials
The News Minute	N	No intellectually independent opinion/analysis provided, relies on quotation/interview with founder, fails WP:ORGIND
Entrepreneur article	N	Extensively based on interview with founders, no intellectually independent opinion/analysis, fails WP:ORGIND
The Hans India article	N	Mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Telangana Today	N	Mention in passing, standard company description, no independent analysis/opinion, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND
Talangana Today #2	N	Announcement of funding round based on company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
Moneycontrol article	N	Announcement of funding round based on company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
Cityairnews article	N	Sponsored a talent competition, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIGCOV
Startup Hyderabad	N	Sponsored a talent competition, mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Uber	N	Mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Coverage of undergraduate summit	N	Mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Startup Hyperbad	N	Won an award for branding, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
The Hindu #3	N	One sentence mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
News Minute	N	Standard company description, no intellectually independent opinion/analysis, fails WP:ORGIND.
Total qualifying sources	0	None of the sources meet the new requirements in WP:NCORP guidelines.

Having any old "coverage" is not part of the criteria for establishing notability. Also, while the "quality" of the publishing sources is a part of the criteria (reliable source, etc) the contents of the articles must be intellectually independent and deep or significant coverage (an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization). In my opinion, this company is on the startup trail, entering startup competitions and promoting themselves to build brand awareness - strip that away and we have a run-of-the-mill company just doing its thing and zero indications of notability outside of that. I'd be hard pressed to come up with a single sentence to describe anything notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep The assessment of references here is not right. You seem to find excuses to discard every notable, reliable and independent newspaper in India. One user cited Hindustan Times and Times of India in their reason for deleting this article. While I know HT and TOI are notable sources in Indian journalism but that does not outcast all other newspapers in India. For me, this article has more than enough Reliable Independent sources to warrant a place on Wikipedia. Try replacing the question marks '?' in the assessment with WP:AGF and things will be clear. None of us actually 100 percent know if something is independent or not. This article should not be deleted. Dial911 ( talk) 17:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply

If you disagree with the assessment of references, please put forward your counter arguments here for specific references. Your argument that they are "notable sources" has no foundation in policy or guidelines. Your argument that the article has "reliable independent sources" has been dealt with above - if you disagree, pick a source and make an argument about that source so we can understand why a mistake may have been made. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete: does not meet the new and improved WP:NCORP. Sources offered at this AfD are passing mentions, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep: By passing statements,opinions or comments this doesn't solve the problem. As a member knew the standards what Wikipedia community follows for the legitimate articles. Above assessment are done for the article. By relisting again and again doesn't look good. Found WP:COI. You should look into this with keen interest and close the issue. Vijayabhaskar02 ( talk) 17:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment Striking sock !vote HighKing⁺⁺ 12:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

~~Keep~~ Curb Safe Charmer’s analysis lists the first two sources as not independent. The user gives reason for The Indian CEO article being not independent because no journalist is mentioned there. I would like to tell the user that not all news stories have individual bylines in print media. Some articles are covered, edited and curated by a group of journalists in the agency/organization and hence they put a collective tag instead of giving credit to one individual. Also, the first source of The New Indian Express article has mentioned a journalist, even then Curb has concluded that this is a PR piece. As far as my WP:CLUE is concerned I would deem both of these sources valid for NCORP. And with that there are certainly multiple (at least 4) reliable sources to keep this article from deleted.

Another thing is the nomination rationale by a user that has been blocked for sock puppetry. The nominator said “Stumagz appears to be a local brand, unknown outside its hometown.” I am wondering how this sock puppet knows that Stumagz is unknown outside its hometown. And since when did we start deciding on something notable based on a random speculation of its geographic reach? Just because one doesn’t know or haven’t heard about something doesn’t make it non-notable.

Another user HighKing just cancels out everything with his own reasoning which to me appears to be a naïve action on his part. I see there are some references that do not meet the new NCORP guidelines but 4 of them are perfectly okay to keep this article. If we use HighKing’s analysis on every CORP on Wikipedia, we would have almost nothing here as anyone can propose their own casual opinion and strike out the references one by one only on the basis of their gut feeling.

So yeah, keep this article. Dial911 ( talk) 17:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment Striking 2nd Keep !vote from same editor as you've already posted above. Also, you were requested to provide links to the references you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability. I note you haven't done that and yet you still say that (in your opinion) there are 4 references that meet the criteria. Please post them here. It would be very helpful if you pointed out why those references meet the requirements too and rebut any arguments put forward that argue to exclude those references. A closing admin won't count !votes but will weigh up arguments based on policies and guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Why would you strike my keep vote? The nomination has been relisted, The admin is anyway not gonna count the votes but the weightage and I never read a policy that says one is not permitted to vote after relisting. Coming back to the references, I think these 4 are suitable:

Dial911 ( talk) 15:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Doesn't matter if it has been relisted, you only get one !vote and it is normal practice to only use a Keep to Delete marking once to indicate your !vote. The articles above were already reviewed. It would be very helpful if you could rebut the arguments put forward earlier. For example, I point out that this newindianexpress reference is pretty standard churnalism. You can tell because it uses the same format (posed pic, problem, solution, future-is-bring) and uses peacock statements such as "Under the able guidance of Charan, teams of enthusiastic young talen who are working day in and out..." and "StuMagz despite initial hurdles is growing in leaps and bounds ..., contains a big quotation from Charan with statements such as "This platform is highly beneficial to the colleges" and has absolutlely zero analysis/opinion written by the actual attributed journalist - just stuff copied from Charan or the company. In order for a reference to meet the criteria for establishing notability, the *content* of the reference must be intellectually independent - while the source must also be independent, they are not the same thing. The content in the references you've provided is not intellectually independent. If it is, please point out what you consider to be intellectually independent content. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Dial911: Just a small reminder. A response to my points above would be very helpful in advancing your argument and would assist the closing admin in weighing the Keep and Delete !voters positions. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ HighKing:, I still think this article should not be deleted because if this one's get deleted there would be a thousand more on Wikipedia like this that shall be deleted. If that is how we are going to analyse sources for CORPS it would be almost impossible to arite new articles on CORPS. But anyways I don't have anymore energy to defend this article. Dial911 ( talk) 15:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Dial911: HighKing is right to strike your second 'keep'. WP:DISCUSSAFD says "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat a bolded recommendation on a new bulleted line".

Re your assessment of independence, please read the second bullet point at WP:ORGIND. Where a piece has been 'written' by a staff writer it is often an indication of churnalism, rather than original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.The guideline goes on to say that if in doubt aboutthe independence of a source, exclude it. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I will keep in mind not to vote in relisting. Thanks! Dial911 ( talk) 18:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment It is informative to look at the website of the parent company Right Process InfoTech Pvt. Ltd which says that it is an SEO, search engine marketing, content management and online reputation management company. I believe there is undisclosed paid editing and WP:NOTPROMO going on here. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 08:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Are you now as sure as you were a few days ago that the contested text should be Kept as an article? - The Gnome ( talk) 08:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ The Gnome: Whether the company is notable is borderline, which is why we're here. Assessment of the independence of sources is subjective. I identified the two strongest references, and felt they were - on balance - sufficient. Two experienced editors have since disagreed. I am sure the closer will evaluate the arguments made and adjudicate accordingly. The socking, COI and undisclosed paid editing is loathsome, but we are here to assess the merits of the article, not pass judgment on the behaviour of other editors, whom admins have already dealt with accordingly. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 11:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the response, Curb Safe Charmer. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete this puppet-infested text about a subject evidently lacking notability. I was not going to participate but underhanded tactics rile me. - The Gnome ( talk) 22:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. Notability borderline at best based on the above discussion; also entirely promotional and so would need TNT-ing in any case. Sandstein 08:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

2007 European heat wave

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

Trivia. Wikipedia is not about summer weather. Mostly unsourced sensationalist essay. ("a number of electricity-bearing, underground wires literally melted while some transformers even erupted into flames", wow) — JFG ^talk 07:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Full AfD list of non-notable heat waves: reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1955 United Kingdom heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 British Isles heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 European heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 North America South and Eastern heatwave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western North American heat wave (2nd nomination): N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Southwestern United States heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2014 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 South-Eastern Australian heatwave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Swedish heat wave: Y Kept; should be expanded and renamed 2014 Scandinavian heat wave
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 American Northeast heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Southern Europe heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Eastern Canada heat wave: Merged
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 North American heat wave: No consensus

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Last updated 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC). reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment – Actually, there's an article devoted to said types of weather, located at Extreme weather. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep - GNG is clearly met. French Wikipedia has some good sourcing on this; in fact a good bit of the article seems to have been copied from over there. If that's not enough, here's a 2017 paper from a blue-linked Elsevier journal discussing it. Daß Wölf 00:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep. I would agree with Daß Wölf that this article in no way fails GNG. An entire 9-page article described the meteorological significance of the heatwave at length. This is plainly non-trivial coverage of the event. Henry ^TALK 23:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

2017 Southern Europe heat wave

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

Trivia. Wikipedia is not about summer weather. — JFG ^talk 07:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Full AfD list of non-notable heat waves: reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1955 United Kingdom heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 British Isles heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 European heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 North America South and Eastern heatwave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western North American heat wave (2nd nomination): N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Southwestern United States heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2014 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 South-Eastern Australian heatwave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Swedish heat wave: Y Kept; should be expanded and renamed 2014 Scandinavian heat wave
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 American Northeast heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Southern Europe heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Eastern Canada heat wave: Merged
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 North American heat wave: No consensus

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Last updated 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC). reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment – Actually, there's an article devoted to said types of weather, located at Extreme weather. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm adding a info box and ref's. -- 79.77.215.132 ( talk) 17:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

References most certainly improve a text's chances of surviving an AfD process. Infoboxes do not affect them. - The Gnome ( talk) 18:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep - I think IP's recent additions are going into too much detail and often relying on somewhat iffy sources, but the subject has clear notability. Here is some of this year's coverage: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]... Most of these are not WP:SIGCOV but they show WP:LASTING. Coincidentally, "Lucifer" is mentioned in today's edition of New Scientist. Daß Wölf 00:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

“Polar bear cubs were given chunks of ice and freezing-cold watermelons.“ Is this going to save the article? Are we serious? — JFG ^talk 01:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I didn't say the article was in good shape. That is not a reason for deletion, however. Daß Wölf 03:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Correct. When I brought this to AfD, the article was mostly empty. [30] Now it's full of sourced trivia. The stub state was better…

— JFG ^talk 04:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Hoax article?-- 92.20.201.243 ( talk) 17:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

No, 2017 was really a hot summer in the Mediterranean. The question is whether the weather deserves an article every time some region gets hot or cold. We need to define an WP:NWEATHER notability guideline, just like we have WP:NSPORT or WP:NMUSIC. — JFG ^talk 17:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I fully agree about the need to have notability guidelines specifically for weather events. - The Gnome ( talk) 18:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. Looks like just a standard heat wave with a bunch of trivia added to it that doesn't pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:GNG. News papers always do stories about weather in summer, so nothing I've seen really passes WP:DUE. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 15:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Weak Delete on account of mediocre sourcing for such an ostensibly important phenomenon.

Sources:

From the United Kingdom we get The Sun and The Daily Mail and no more need be said, while both The Guardian article and the BBC report mention the weather but not as a cause of the fires. The Portuguese source Sapo24 is a report about fires; no mention of the weather at all. In German, we get a simple weather map. At least, both the Boston Globe article and that other Guardian article are straightforwardly about a European heat wave. But that's not enough, at least not yet. - The Gnome ( talk) 18:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete We do not need a Wikipedia article on every time some weather records are broken. Lasting notability from local events not established. Reywas92^Talk 21:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Bordering on keep. Sandstein 07:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

2018 North American heat wave

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

Trivia. Wikipedia is not about summer weather. Are we going to add a "heat wave" article every year as soon as some region gets some hot days? — JFG ^talk 07:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Full AfD list of non-notable heat waves: reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1955 United Kingdom heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 British Isles heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 European heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 North America South and Eastern heatwave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western North American heat wave (2nd nomination): N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Southwestern United States heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2014 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 South-Eastern Australian heatwave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Swedish heat wave: Y Kept; should be expanded and renamed 2014 Scandinavian heat wave
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 American Northeast heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Southern Europe heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Eastern Canada heat wave: Merged
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 North American heat wave: No consensus

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Last updated 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC). reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete First world problem. Not a big issue compared with real disasters elsewhere. HiLo48 ( talk) 08:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Yep, dying in a heat wave is a first world problem. Alex of Canada ( talk) 21:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Are you kidding? 33 deaths in Quebec alone is not a big issue? - Zanhe ( talk) 22:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

It's a big issue in the same way obesity wiped out about 10% of dead Canadians in 2000. We don't have an article for the 2000 fat season, why do we need one for a five-day portion of the 2018 hot season. Hot people and fat people overlap with sick and dying people consistently since 1982 (in my experience). You can wheel a 700-pound chain-smoker outside out for the gentlest spring breeze ever discovered and she's liable to croak on the spot; if she doesn't, she'll do it some other day and someone else will die today. Mortality has a way of maintaining a natural and healthy balance. Heat in Eastern Ontario is sort of like duck hunting in Eastern Kentucky that way; some days you shoot more, and the foxes pick up the slack, somedays vice versa. At the end of the day, there's enough duck for everyone and everyone's happy (including the ducks). Some people keep that shit up from the cradle to the grave, killing the amount of ducks the same pond started with many times over, and so for the foxes. Glorious bountiful death is also known as life. Life happens and life goes on.

A big issue (in an ecological sense) is more like hunters showing up in Eastern Kentucky 300 years before most people picture Eastern Kentucky and just mindlessly slaughtering ducks and foxes alike left and right. An abnormal phenomena of highly significant trauma to males and females of all ages, fitnesses and purposes indiscriminately. That sort of disaster is acute, like an axe to the planet's head; it swells and bleeds into all sorts of nasty aftermath, ramificiations and public inquiry. Entire tribes of ducks of foxes are cleared off the map in the blink of of an eye (on a sociohistorical scale) and they never come again. In move high-rise eagles and high-priced wolves, and soon you've got places like Bowling Green springing up where people have access to Wikipedia and are wondering what the hell actually went on there to make them wonder about it in the first place. It's big and unique and has lasting effect, whatever it is.

In simpler terms, a notable disaster is similar (but not necessarily equal to) to the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event and general reminders about the hazards of life on Earth belong assimilated in places like (but not exactly like) Health effects of the sun. This one is firmly in the latter column, and I say that as a middle-aged lazy white man with a history of kidney problems and concussions who got the same air Montreal did, and rode the wave stuck to a mattress beside a fan with water, weed, tobacco and chips. If it was as disastrous as CNN (kind of) implies, I logically should have died in the red zone, too, or at least seen something scary. I have an injured rooster and a 15-year-old goat known locally for her pointless exuberance, and they've improved steadily since Canada Day "attacked" us all. Not a single person in my whole town (all in the danger zone) reportedly died of anything this week (and word travels quick here). I called my buddy from two towns over today, and everything he knows is pretty much as it was at the end of June, too.

If you want to create an article called The Quebec 58, and have it focus on the affected people and their kin's backstories and coping mechanisms, I say all the power to you. I can see CBC perhaps following through a bit on that. But in the context of North America and its 500 million or so, even 100 dead people aren't nearly enough to matter. All about proper context, not stifling weather information. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep or merge - Keep, per @ Eastmain: and @ Störm: at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Eastern Canada heat wave.

"Not trivia. Many people have died. As a result of these deaths, governments may pay more attention to protecting at-risk people during future heat waves. Also, other weather events such as hurricanes are recognized as notable."

and

"clearly notable with historic significance", "Persisting coverage"

2018 Eastern Canada heat wave should probably be merged to this title, since the heat wave affected the United States. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 09:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Please do not mention "historic(al) significance" just a few days into hot weather. See the 2016 North American heat wave, which in hindsight was not significant at all. — JFG ^talk 22:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment – There's an article devoted to said types of weather, located at Extreme weather. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep and merge 2018 Eastern Canada heat wave into this article. This is a major disaster and definitely not trivia, with 33 deaths in Canada alone. - Zanhe ( talk) 21:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep for now - it might be an idea to hold off on deletion and wait and see how the news story evolves over the coming weeks. It could be created into a larger article about 2018 North American weather. smrgeog ( talk) 23:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS Acnetj ( talk) 23:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Adds very little to the Canadian version beyond a temporary power failure in St. Louis. That's very little itself, but it's huge next to reports of dryness and fire concern in California. Even "Iowa still boring" is a more shocking headline than "California still burning", by this point in time. If we absolutely must keep both articles, keep them together. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep - Meets WP:EVENT and WP:GEOSCOPE. Jmertel23 ( talk) 12:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

GEOSCOPE wants a significant impact on a wide area or population, not just a wide area or population that envelops two sentences about scattered personal impacts, with thousands of miles of same old North America in between. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep - this heatwave has broken several records in these parts, I think making it at least somewhat notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep – This heatwave is notable for its unusual intensity and duration, mirrored in other parts of the world too. A heatwave can be considered a natural disaster, and dozens of people have died from it. Wjfox2005 ( talk) 12:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Got sources verifying "unusual intensity and duration", and "mirrored in other parts of the world"? — JFG ^talk 22:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Or "considered a natural disaster"? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep 54+ deaths in Canada alone is certainly notable.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 13:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

No. As sad as it is, many people die every day from traffic accidents, from heat, from cold, from malnutrition, falling from ladders, or drowning. Barring a demonstrably exceptional death toll, such events are not encyclopedic. The 2003 European heat wave claimed tens of thousands of lives, so that one was indeed notable as exceptional weather (called the "hottest summer since 1540" in our article). — JFG ^talk 20:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

If a single traffic accident killed 54, or 54 people all drowned in a single incident, then it would be darn notable.--21:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlanespotterA320 ( talk • contribs)

As it would be if 54 people died in the same nursing home (or wherever) from the same dose of daylight. But considering the continental air itself a single entity (for one week, but not others) is the same as considering an uptick in motor, shooting, obesity, drug or terror-related deaths as a unified "wave", too. Only tied together by topicality, not reality. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Sometimes less is more when it comes to unfortunate events. A couple of weeks ago in Rosemont, a man was found run over by a car. Police later learned he himself had earlier run over a man with the same initials and birthdate! What are the odds in a city that size, eh? 100%, strangely enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep and merge 2018 Eastern Canada heat wave here. Meets WP:EVENT as it has set temperature records in many locations and has caused a significant amount of deaths according to reliable sources along with tens of thousands of power outages and allowing the formation of wildfires. Arguments for deletion have little basis in policy and seem to just be WP:IDONTLIKEIT and strawman negative WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS repeated for paragraphs on end. 9³ ( talk) 05:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep - WP:WAX arguments do not hold much weight here. The fact is that 54 people have died from this event which per the comment above me would meet WP:EVENT, the article just needs cleanup and expansion. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

What part of EVENT do you think 54 deaths satisfies? This heat affected over a hundred million people. If 99.99999% of the impact is only temporary and fleeting discomfort without destruction, population shifts, rebuilding or political fallout, you can't point to the 0.0% who died (and were mostly dying anyway) as much of anything, let alone a defining aspect and the basis for the whole article's existence. It's plainly WP:UNDUE and presents an extremely skewed view of the general event. Individual local temperature records are useful trivia, and should be mentioned in each locality's perfectly suitable Climate section. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia has an article on Heat wave which clearly explains what it is, unless you want to delete that as well. 9³ ( talk) 11:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ InedibleHulk: I understand where you are coming from, but I don't see a place in WP:EVENT that gives a minimal number of deaths that must be reached for said event. If the heat wave has received widespread coverage as well then WP:COVERAGE would come into the mix. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment This badgering by the deletionists is beyond ridiculous. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 02:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

If you're talking about me, I don't do it to badger, ridicule or delete for deletion's sake. I do it because others claim it meets EVENT, with either no or mistaken explanations on how it does. By prompting for elaboration or correction, I'm giving "the inclusionists" an opportunity to strengthen positions they may not have realized were too flimsy on the first try. (My response to "Are you kidding?" was admittedly a bit much.) I know it inevitably seems rude to tell someone they're wrong, but that's never my intent. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment - At a bare minimum, the article should be redirected to List of heat waves#2010–present. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 12:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge at least to List of heat waves#2010–present. However, reading the discussion here and the article itself, it actually looks like there's solid WP:CONSENSUS for deletion (i.e., we don't WP:VOTE). There's nothing at the article that seems to make it stand out in terms of WP:GNG compared to regular heat waves. Heat waves tend to break record temperatures and kill those who are ill, etc. Newspapers always report on hot temperatures, so simply having news stories does not satisfy GNG and is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If the article is going to be a keep, there needs to be a policy-based argument that this particular heat wave significantly stands out compared to the average heat wave. I haven't seen anything approaching that. Of course heat waves are dangerous, which is what much of the keep arguments here are more or less based in, but that doesn't guarantee notability. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 15:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Shouldn't the closing admin or editor make the call on a solid WP:CONSENSUS or not? I don't know what you are seeing, but not all of the keep arguments are votes. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

No one is disallowed from pointing out that there's not much consensus-based rationale for keeping so far. A number of editors have tried to argue for keep, but no one has really offered anything for those keeps that can satisfy how WP:CONSENSUS works. As I mentioned before, they need to establish this heat wave had significant impact compared to your run of the mill heat wave. Non-notable heat waves are going to set records in some locations and kill people too along with your standard reporting on it, so there's needs to be a bit more depth than that. Heat wave outlines what a severe heat wave does, and it doesn't look like this one is crossing that threshold from a "normal" heat wave to a severe one based on anything I've seen brought up here. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 22:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

You have not addressed how this doesn't meet WP:INDEPTH, if this were really routine do you think that this much attention would be paid to the event? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

As I've already addressed, no one has demonstrated there has been much attention paid to this above your standard heat wave. The burden is on those wanting to keep to establish depth, which hasn't been done yet no matter how many people come in saying it's been covered widely by the media. The issue I've been outlining is that it seems like many of the keeps incorrectly assume news coverage = notability in a topic like this or that breaking a few records and having sick and elderly die is out of the norm for these events. This has so far been in the realm of standard reporting for a heat wave, so it's inappropriate at this stage to call it an obvious keep. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 16:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Split and merge into two articles, leave the continental US wave in this article (and rename it accordingly), and merge the Quebec wave into 2018 Eastern Canada heat wave. If no fatalities occur with the continental US wave, re-try a deletion discussion on this article at a later time. There's not much reason that separate heat waves in separate areas should be in one article unless phrased as such. There are numerous articles in Canadian press reporting on the Quebec deaths, so there should be no question that it passes WP:NOTABILITY. ConCompS talk 19:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Snow keep Record breaking heatwave that's been extensively covered in reliable sources, and clearly warrants a dedicated article. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 20:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - Nothing to suggest that this is anything more than WP:ROUTINE summer weather. Fails the WP:10YT, this "heat wave" won't even be remembered a month from now. -- Millionsandbillions ( talk) 22:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep, it is notable with the sources and have to merge another article here. Felicia (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep and merge 2018 Eastern Canada heat wave here. Smarkflea ( talk) 21:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep. Plenty of widespread media coverage at length, at least 70 fatalities, this is by no means trivia. Plainly meets WP:GNG. Henry ^TALK 23:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2018 North American heat wave. Sandstein 07:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

2018 Eastern Canada heat wave

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

Trivia. Wikipedia is not about summer weather. — JFG ^talk 07:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Full AfD list of non-notable heat waves: reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1955 United Kingdom heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 British Isles heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 European heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 North America South and Eastern heatwave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western North American heat wave (2nd nomination): N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Southwestern United States heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2014 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 South-Eastern Australian heatwave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Swedish heat wave: Y Kept; should be expanded and renamed 2014 Scandinavian heat wave
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 American Northeast heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Southern Europe heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Eastern Canada heat wave: Merged
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 North American heat wave: No consensus

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Last updated 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC). reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 07:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 07:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. Not trivia. Many people have died. As a result of these deaths, governments may pay more attention to protecting at-risk people during future heat waves. Also, other weather events such as hurricanes are recognized as notable. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 07:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

As sad as it is, many people die every day from traffic accidents, from heat, from cold, from malnutrition, falling from ladders, or drowning. Barring a demonstrably exceptional death toll, such events are not encyclopedic. — JFG ^talk 08:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep - clearly notable with historic significance. Persisting coverage. Störm (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

"Historic significance" cannot be assessed mere days into the event. This is WP:RECENTISM at its finest. — JFG ^talk 08:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes Störm. That is a pure POV reason, with nothing to back it up. HiLo48 ( talk)

Delete These events make lovely, immediate, tabloid news, but really need time to pass before a proper assessment can be made as to their real impact. The strange humidex figure is pretty meaningless since it doesn't seem to be used anywhere else, and is wrongly used in the article anyway, with a degree symbol and a conversion to Fahrenheit. (Yes, I followed the link. So should you.) That shows that the writer didn't know what they were talking about. Claiming a record for an index no-one else uses is not a good look. This line about the deaths in Montreal is telling - "...did not cause a rise above the city's overall daily death average". I have thunderstorm warnings current for my city right now, but don't intend to write an article about it. HiLo48 ( talk) 08:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

The temperature in degrees is how hot it feels. The thermometer might give another answer and still be right, but that's because it's made of glass and mercury, not human gunk. Readers (as opposed to meters) are more in tune with human gunk, so relaying the humidex paints a clearer picture than "the truth" would. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep or merge - Keep or merge per Eastmain and Störm. There is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 North American heat wave about whether or not to keep 2018 North American heat wave. If this article can not be kept, it should be merged with that article, as it has affected the United States. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 09:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep record temperatures set all across eastern Canada ought give this one some lasting significance, it's certainly not "trivial summer weather", a number of fatalities, plenty of WP:RS covering it even if it's still stubby. Ideally an admin could speedy keep this since it's currently being considered at WP:ITN/C. -- LaserLegs ( talk) 10:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

The article doesn't actually say there have been record temperatures all across eastern Canada. If your claim is true, the article isn't telling the story very well. HiLo48 ( talk) 10:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Ok so tag it for improvement, not deletion. -- LaserLegs ( talk) 10:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I've seen no evidence that could improve it. HiLo48 ( talk) 11:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Here are a few: [31] [32] [33]. Was the lead story on national news broadcasts and print for days. If a rationale for delete is "article is a stub and I can't be bothered to even see if it can be expanded, let alone do the work" then I think Wikipedia may be doomed... -- LaserLegs ( talk) 11:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

If we allow garbage interpretations of sensationalist news reports to persist, Wikipedia will be doomed. HiLo48 ( talk) 01:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment – Actually, there's an article devoted to said types of weather, located at Extreme weather. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Good point. Folks do seem to want their own experiences to be globally significant, when no evidence has been presented that they are. HiLo48 ( talk) 01:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Not sure where the "Global significance" criteria is at WP:N but to give some context to "folks" and "their own experiences", the affected region is roughly the Quebec City–Windsor Corridor (admittedly the article needs improvement) which is a densely populated part of Canada with roughly half the national population. This isn't "local" in scope, I'm afraid. -- LaserLegs ( talk) 01:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep a heat wave that has killed 34 people is not trivia. Lepricavark ( talk) 15:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Please prove that it killed 34 people, and that this is more extreme than a normal hot summer. HiLo48 ( talk) 01:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I don't need to further prove something that is covered by a reliable source already cited in the article. Lepricavark ( talk) 02:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Reliable sources are actually very rare for events like this. Almost all media outlets get very excited. I would want to see the number of deaths over recent days compared with deaths in any summer hot spell. An isolated figure means almost nothing. HiLo48 ( talk) 04:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Take a look at the policy WP:V and the related essay WP:VNT "Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue". -- LaserLegs ( talk) 13:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I know from long experience that reports of these events are typically scientifically sloppy, sensationalist, and very inaccurate. I'm sure you know it too. That means the sources cannot be regarded as reliable. It is our job to judge the reliability of sources, and in these cases they are not good. We need to maintain our standards, and not get as excited as the mass media and its audience. HiLo48 ( talk) 01:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ HiLo48: I already provided links above, but since you insist, here is a WP:RS the CBC [34]. In case you can't click the link, the headline is: "Death toll jumps to 34 as heat wave continues to bake southern Quebec". Here is another article from the national publication The Globe and Mail which cites "extreme weather" and "record-breaking 34c". This will be the second time I've provided these reliable sources, hopefully you won't feel the need to further harangue every single commentator at this AFD. -- LaserLegs ( talk) 01:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Still no concrete evidence that the heat has killed all those people. The article has the interesting comment "did not cause a rise above the city's overall daily death average." Nor that the temperatures are actually records. You're talking to an old weather nerd here, quite used to seeing sensationalist reporting of seemingly dramatic events, only to see just as dramatic report of next summer's hot weather. We can't just throw around words like "deaths" and "records" without being sure. And why haven't you used those sources to improve the article, rather than attacking me here? HiLo48 ( talk) 01:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm not attacking you, I'm providing reliable sources for your objections. If there is some WP:MINIUMUMPARTICIPATION for AFD that I'm missing, please let me know. -- LaserLegs ( talk) 02:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Merge to 2018 North American heat wave. The amount of death with the record temperatures pass WP:GNG. Deletion is not the solution to article cleanup. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Where are the record temps? HiLo48 ( talk) 01:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Merge into 2018 North American heat wave. 33 deaths is definitely not trivia. However, this is part of the wider heat wave and should not have a separate article. - Zanhe ( talk) 21:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Has anyone else but me noticed the comment that the number of deaths in some areas is no different from normal? Proper comparisons need to be made before such claims can be made. HiLo48 ( talk) 01:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Merge per above reasoning. Definitely not trivia but also not clear why this can't be covered in 2018 North American heat wave. Tillerh11 ( talk) 00:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Not trivia, but not necessarily as dramatic as sensationalist media reports would have it. HiLo48 ( talk) 01:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Merge - This is a content fork of a subject, 2018 North American heat wave, with questionable notability. Unfortunately, I doubt it will also be deleted because of recentism, but one non-notable page is better than two I suppose. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 05:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete As a survivor, I can say it was miserable enough to raise a stink about, but not worse than the typical cold snaps in winter. As an outside observer, I can see it was about as mild for most other victims, governments and industries. Personally a great tragedy for the dead and their circles, but such tragedy is routine for the sick, weak and elderly. The overall rate in Montreal didn't increase. Just made news because complaining about the heat is the thing to do while it's hot; now that it's not, many are still dying, but cooler heads prevail on tying them all together. So should we. But if we can't, at least merge. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge into 2018 North American heat wave. Jmertel23 ( talk) 12:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge. The "Canadian" heat wave is not a separate topic from the "American" one, so there's no need for two separate articles. It's certainly questionable whether the whole thing needs even one article at all, but there's definitely no need for two separate articles. Bearcat ( talk) 20:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Merge per above. Although I am convinced that the heat wave itself is notable and not just news. ~ EDDY ^{(
talk/
contribs)}~ 16:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment - At a bare minimum, the article should be redirected to List of heat waves#2010–present. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 12:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge. I prefer Jax's idea of redirecting to List of heat waves#2010–present the best, but at the least it should be within 2018 North American heat wave. However, the argument that heat waves are notable because they killed people doesn't really hold much water. Heat waves tend to do that, so you need something out the ordinary (extremely high death count, widespread blackouts, etc.) that goes beyond WP:INDISCRIMINATE reporting on weather to have a standalone article. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 15:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep and expand due to widespread media coverage within Canada and abroad. I'm opposed to merging into 2018 North American heat wave, as without the Quebec portion of it (disclosure: I voted to merge into this article in its AFD discussion) it'll likely fail WP:NOTABILITY on its own. Whatever happens, there's no reason there should be two articles, and one of them would fail GNG otherwise. ConCompS talk 19:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment - Anyone who thinks this article should remain in existence needs to do something about the issues I have raised on the article's Talk page. The article is a mess. If no-one has anyone interest in improving its quality, this article MUST be deleted. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I looked at the myriad of issues you raised at the talk page, but needing improvement is not a cause for "this article MUST be deleted". Thanks for your feedback though. -- LaserLegs ( talk) 16:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

But you didn't do anything about the problems (which involve most of the rrticle). Nor has anybody else done anything. You may be the only other person who has even looked at the Talk page (nobody else has commented) and nobody is fixing the article. So it seems nobody really cares about it at all. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Merge into 2018 North American heat wave.... I see no legitimate reason for a separate article for Eastern Canada. PK T(alk) 12:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge into 2018 North American heat wave, having this as a separate article isn't notable enough. Felicia (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete for the same reasons given at the AfD for 2018 North American heat wave, fails the WP:10YT and is nothing more than WP:ROUTINE weather coverage. If this article is kept it should be merged into 2018 North American heat wave, but to reiterate, I think such an outcome would be in error per WP:NOT. -- Millionsandbillions ( talk) 16:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge into 2018 North American heat wave. This article fits perfectly as a subsection of a parent article. Newslinger ( talk) 20:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

2016 North American heat wave

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

Apparently this was not a heat wave; summer is still a thing. Poorly sourced, non-notable event. — JFG ^talk 07:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Full AfD list of non-notable heat waves: reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1955 United Kingdom heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 British Isles heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 European heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 North America South and Eastern heatwave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western North American heat wave (2nd nomination): N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Southwestern United States heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2014 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 South-Eastern Australian heatwave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Swedish heat wave: Y Kept; should be expanded and renamed 2014 Scandinavian heat wave
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 American Northeast heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Southern Europe heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Eastern Canada heat wave: Merged
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 North American heat wave: No consensus

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Last updated 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC). reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - This is why it is best to wait for quality sources on these news events. If they come, we have a quality article; if we do not, we do not waste time discussing the notability of summer weather. Win, win. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 05:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete: a search revealed no meteorological records or human impact covered by multiple reliable sources. ~ KN2731 { t · c} 11:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. In the age of climate change, it's very likely that almost every year will always be able to claim that some part of the world set new summer heat records at some point during the northern and/or southern summers — and it's certainly true that every summer always has a stretch of days that are hot enough that even if they're not quite record heat, are still hot enough somewhere that somebody deems it a "heat wave". But it takes much more than that to turn a hot summer into a noteworthy heat wave — namely, it takes significant effects referenced to reliable source coverage that supports the significance of the effects, and not just the ability to single-source the fact that somebody declared that a heat wave was happening. But this is referenced to just one routine weather report stating that a heat wave was on its way but had not yet hit at the time of the source's publication, which is not enough to make a "heat wave" notable in and of itself. Bearcat ( talk) 18:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Hot weather is just hot news while it's hot. After that, it stops even being news. It was certainly never a plague, or presented as one. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. Looks like just another WP:INDISCRIMINATE weather article with standard weather reporting. Nothing that really passes WP:GNG. As always, simply being reported about in news sources doesn't automatically make something notable. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 15:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Per nom GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 19:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge - Merge into List of heat waves. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 21:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Nashville cast members#Deacon Claybourne. As per the usual process in such cases. Content can still be merged from history. Sandstein 08:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Deacon Claybourne

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

1. Article cites no secondary sources.
2. Content is simply plot summary. Joeyconnick ( talk) 06:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 06:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 06:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 06:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 06:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 06:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 06:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Merge with article on Nashville (2012 TV series). I am not sure the character is notable enough to warrant a stand alone article, and merger might make Wikipedia easier to follow. Vorbee ( talk) 08:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Redirect to List of Nashville cast members due to lack of significant coverage. I think this would be a better alternative to a merge to the main show article. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Nashville cast members#Avery Barkley. Sandstein 08:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Avery Barkley

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

1. Article cites no secondary sources.
2. Content is simply plot summary. Joeyconnick ( talk) 06:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 06:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 06:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 06:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 06:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 06:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 06:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Redirect to List of Nashville cast members due to lack of significant coverage. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Nashville cast members. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Gunnar Scott

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

1. Article cites no secondary sources.
2. Content is simply plot summary. Joeyconnick ( talk) 06:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 06:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 06:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 06:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 06:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 06:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 06:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 06:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Redirect to List of Nashville cast members due to lack of significant coverage. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Redirect - Due to the lack of secondary sources and the fact this is basically a plot summary. I suggest deleting the history first to avoid quick re-creation. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 20:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Wrong forum. See WP:MERGE for how to propose and to carry out mergers. Sandstein 08:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

De La Salle Canlubang

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

There are two articles of this school. This one has not been updated since 2017, and the other one is updated. Said article also has the current name of this place. CriticismEdits ( talk) 06:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

For clarification, this article has the new name, just that it has updated its history. This article’s history section looks like it has been copy pasted from an outside source. CriticismEdits ( talk) 06:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 06:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 06:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment If the old school and the new school differ significantly in what they did, retaining the two articles would be best. A school does not ease being notable when it closes down. Alternatively, the information on the old school could be integrated into the new school's article, and then the old school's article could be replaced with a redirect to the new school. Neither option requires deletion or discussion here. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 06:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

They’re both the same school. Additionally, De La Salle Canlubang is their former name; likewise, it is not an alternative name. CriticismEdits ( talk) 07:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Speedy close and follow the Wikipedia:Merging procedure. I don't see why we are here; this should simply have gone for a merge discussion. The key is this sentence from the article: "In 2012, the administrations of De La Salle University and De La Salle Canlubang approved the integration of DLSC to DLSU, becoming the DLSU Science and Technology Complex." This means that De La Salle University also needs to be merged into the new article. I would emphasize the 'merge' aspect. It will take much work to ensure that no important content is not lost. Just Chilling ( talk) 12:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Maybe we should at least merge both of these articles (De La Salle Canlubang and De La Salle University Science and Technology Complex) to the main article. Is it possible? CriticismEdits ( talk) 02:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
- That is a likely solution but the problem is that this is the wrong forum. The reason for using the merge procedure is to get the attention of the appropriate editors. The University editors, for example, may not be aware of this discussion. Just Chilling ( talk) 14:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Karl Sandoval. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Sandoval Guitars

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

No references nor real suggestion that the company, rather than its founder is notable Rathfelder ( talk) 20:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 04:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - I would redirect to Karl Sandoval as plausible search term, but we may have to evaluate Sandoval's article himself as well for notability. Aside from that, source searches all turned up as a bust - I couldn't find anything to establish notability independent of Mr. Sandoval, or, notability in general. Red Phoenix ^talk 04:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Karl Sandoval - a lot of this article appears to be about him, rather than the company he founded. Vorbee ( talk) 08:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Happy with a redirect. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keitarō Iketani

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

Rationale borrowed from my previous similar AfD of Keizaburō Saeki, which itself was largely borrowed from Cckerberos (courtesy ping) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideki Kasai. Keizaburō Saeki, Hideki Kasai, and this currently-nominated article are all identical bot-created articles.

To quote Cckerberos: "This article is a generic stub, generated by a bot in 2007. It makes no specific claim to notability; it appears that similar stubs were created for every photographer listed in 328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers, all with the format "Name (years) is a renowned Japanese photographer" (compare the nominated article with Gen Ōtsuka, for example). Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography states that the sole criteria for inclusion in the book was to have a single photograph in the museum's permanent collection at the time the book was published. That doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE."

In addition to Cckerberos's excellent commentary, I'll note that I've done as thorough a WP:BEFORE check as possible for an English-speaker: Google searches of both the English and Japanese order of the English transliteration of his name, and of the Japanese name. The results for the English names were pitiful. The results for the Japanese were hardly better: for the most part they were trivial mentions in books about the history of photography. Japanese Wikipedia has no article about this person, so there are no sources to be borrowed from it.

In the absence of reliable sources, we cannot verify that this person is notable, so the article should be deleted. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 16:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 16:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 04:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - Not really much here to say, other than listed as a "renowned Japanese photographer". Appreciation to the nom for using WP:BEFORE thoroughly. Unless someone can present more sources that seemingly don't exist at this point, however, there's not enough here to meet the WP:GNG. Red Phoenix ^talk 04:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Richard Laymon. Content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 07:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

One Rainy Night

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

Non notable, unreferenced book from the 1990s. There doesn't seem to be any sources talking about the book other than some blog or WordPress sites. aNode (discuss) 03:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Richard Laymon as plausible search term if someone is looking for this book - if the title hasn't been disambiguated by now, I'll assume it's not going to be more plausible as a redirect elsewhere. As it stands on its own, a quick source check doesn't seem to indicate much to establish notability independent of the author. Red Phoenix ^talk 04:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 06:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Merge with and redirect to Richard Laymon - this article is only three lines and three sentences long, and a merge should not prove too difficult. Vorbee ( talk) 07:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge with and redirect to Richard Laymon - agree with others for merge and redirect. -- Jaldous1 ( talk) 15:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Oppose. I agree that deletion of this article would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because the page could be merged and redirected to the author. However, I should point out that there are sources, and these need to actually be examined, as they might establish notability. Simply searching for the name of the book is not much good, because that is not how search engines work. A "quick check" is a complete waste of time. Even this takes several pages of results to yield this. Try instead searches like: [35] [36] [37] [38] etc. Some of those results look like book reviews. James500 ( talk) 19:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
- James500, I parsed the links you posted. When I did a "quick check", I checked for books as well and everything in the WP:BEFORE toolbox, including HighBeam Research, which has an article on Laymon with one paragraph about the book and that's it. What you have in the books links are some brief mentions of One Rainy Night for its concepts, but about a paragraph in two books and just a passing mention in another. There's not a book review actually there, and passing mentions aren't enough to establish notability of the work. If there are book reviews, that's good, but we can't just assume there might be as a hypothetical. I need to see them, or my opinion to redirect the article stands. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  - The passage in Gauntlet appears to be a (short) book review. Books Magazine [39] and Hispanic Books Bulletin [40] certainly both contain book reviews. NBOOK doesn't require more than two sources and it specifically states that two normal book reviews (or something similar) suffice. James500 ( talk) 00:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 03:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Red Shoes (Choctaw chief)

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

DELETE. The article on Red Shoes, the Choctaw chief of the 1740's, is so full of unsubstantiated opinions that it reads like a junior high school essay. The article is poorly sourced, and has very few actual facts surrounding the subject. Considering that no one has added to its text in six years it seems fair to say few, if any, would miss this article. Catherinejarvis ( talk) 20:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Procedural Note This AfD nomination was missing its template, and was not trancluded in the daily listings. I have added the template and listed it. Please consider the time of this comment as the start time for closing purposes. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. Article needs some cleanup but Red Shoes is definitely notable. See Encyclopedia of Alabama ("Renowned Choctaw war leader Red Shoes, who hailed from the western division, opened trade with British fur traders based in South Carolina in the 1740s and ignited the Choctaw Civil War when he killed some French traders." [41]), American National Biography Online [42], or the South Carolina Gazette of January 4, 1739. - Station1 ( talk) 06:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep - meets WP:ANYBIO for being "part of the enduring historical record" Jmertel23 ( talk) 10:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep. Per my BEFORE there are multiple high grade sources covering this individual. Deletion is not cleanup. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep The article needs to focus more on sources, needs a better intro to show why he is actually notable, and a general rewrite, but Red Shoes is clearly notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep. His notability is clearly established. And that's what AfD is here to determine. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 18:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Beepi

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

Never was notable, ; originally presumably intended as promotional before the company failed. Started by a single purpose account, continued by a paid editor. See the adjacent afd for the article on the company's founder. Even had the firm been moderately suscessful, it would still not have justified 2 articles. Trying to write to write an article on both a founder who is at best very borderline notable and the company which is at best very borderline notable is almost always an attempt to use WP for advertising. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep Notable company based on the press coverage already cited in the article. Whether or not written by paid editors or with promotional intent, this article is quite informative and hardly has any hint of promotion. "Even had the firm been moderately suscessful ..." we decide to keep company articles on basis of notability rather than being successful. 106.208.71.185 ( talk) 03:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

— 106.208.71.185 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete: does not meet the new and improved WP:NCORP. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
- @ K.e.coffman: So according to you, things like [43], [44], [45] and [46] don't count as "significant RS coverage", and instead are "passing mentions" or "routine notices"? Btw i have no COI here. 106.208.95.156 ( talk) 18:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per DGG and Fails WP:NCORP. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 21:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete as per above. No indications of notability, references are not intellectually independent and fail WP:ORGIND, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 02:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Ale Resnik

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, and presumably originally intended as promotional. At this point , the article seems to be about how he failed to raise money for his entrepreneurial activities. Created by a paid editor in the period before hislatest company failed. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 05:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 05:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 05:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 05:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 05:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 05:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete a non-notable businessman. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment: First, this article already was reviewed at WP: AfC when it was created, as I had a WP:COI. The independent reviewer found it notable to begin with, when it had less sourcing. [47]. Next, under WP: Notability (people), the success or failure of the article subject in their business endeavors isn't a policy factor, so far as I can see. Indeed, "notability is not temporary"; if he was notable during Beepi's existence, he's still notable. WP:NTEMP. The notability policy also says if depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, although trivial coverage of a subject by secondary source doesn't count. Here we have both some in-depth and some non-trivial coverage of Resnik in several reliable sources, such as MIT Technology Review (Spanish) Univision, LaNacion, MIT Technology Review, PulsoSocial, Wired, Business Insider, New York Times. Since he was raised in Argentina, some of the more in-depth coverage here is in from tier-one sources in Spanish (e.g. Univision, La Nacion, MIT Technology Review (Spanish)), which can be read via Google Translate by non-Spanish speakers. - BC1278 ( talk) 18:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278 reply

Just as article that has been deleted through the AfD process can be recreated and stay up for good on the basis of a new consensus (or benign neglect), so an article that was assessed as worthy to stay up by an editor can be brought down through the AfD process. Two-way. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is in passing, WP:SPIP and / or not independent of the subject's company. Being named "Top Innovator Under 35" etc. is an insufficient claim of significance. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ K.e.coffman: There is a long article about the subject in MIT Tech Review, accompanying his being on that "35" list. The article is what counts toward notability, not the list. I ask that that you please don't discount sources just because they are in Spanish. There are several other extended profiles of the subject in tier-one Spanish-language press. Univision, LaNacion, PulsoSocial. That is four in-depth profiles of the subject from tier-one sources. The other references I mention in this discussion, in the comment immediately above, are not in "passing" -- they talk about his personal background in some way. Wired, Business Insider, New York Times Each one need not not have the depth to confer notability by itself under WP: Notability (people). Multiple sources can be combined. BC1278 ( talk) 15:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278. reply

Delete as per nom. The sum total of his career section is a failed company. The awards section is very odd when you search for "Global Young Jewish Leader" the only hits are to sources that quote the subject. One would expect an award supposedly given by the state of Israel as is claimed in the article to have some reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails ANYBIO. Dom from Paris ( talk) 16:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per nomination. Does not WP:ANYBIO. Does WP:PROMO. - The Gnome ( talk) 22:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 06:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Value Research

AfDs for this article:

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is routine notices, passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP. Created by Special:Contributions/Tabletop123 as part of a walled garden, which includes the CEO: Dhirendra Kumar (businessman), also currently at AfD.

First AfD closed as "delete" in 2016. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. I was suspicious about the notability from when it was first made. Does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for companies. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 09:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep. ValueResearchOnline is one of India's most trusted/referred/searched financial portal. Many leading newspapers, publications, websites and TV channels refer to and seek data from VRO and it's ceo Dhirendra Kumar. Below are few links to India's leading business magazines, websites and channels which lends VRO's expertise:

-- Tabletop123 ( talk) 14:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete The coverage needs to be about the company. All these links are just articles by the company's CEO. -- Whpq ( talk) 01:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
- Disagree, most (not all) the links above are by the company's CEO. The company's CEO is an active major contributor to the portal but if one visit's the site https://www.valueresearchonline.com, one will realise not 'all' articles are by the CEO. I would ask fellow wikipedians to take a detailed view and investigative the subject more.-- Tabletop123 ( talk) 23:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete a run-of-the-mill business, doesn't meet WP:NCORP. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 04:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete as per above. Run-of-the-mill coverage, mostly containing commercial output of the firm as opposed to in-depth coverage of the firm. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 02:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Alec Knight (actor)

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The award listed is scene-related. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 05:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 05:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 05:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete does not pass WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO as the award is scene related which is excluded Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete No depth coverage WP:GNG Act345 ( talk) 16:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. Only claim of notability is a scene-related award. Also dubious sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 19:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per PORNBIO & GNG & all that shizz. – Davey2010^Talk 21:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 02:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Alex Salcedo

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

No significant discussion of this person in reliable sources. Google search on his name comes up with a lot of social media and blog mentions, but nothing that satisfies WP:GNG or WP:BIO. ... discospinster _talk 00:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Not finding any reliable sources to back up notability under WP:ANYBIO. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 02:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 05:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 05:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 05:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 05:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Fail WP:BIO. scope_creep ( talk) 12:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete due to lack of reliable, independent sources CataracticPlanets ( talk) 02:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete a non-notable person. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

References

References

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook