THC Science

< 14 May	16 May >

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. Per A7 and G11. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syntasoft[edit]

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

Defunct company, no notability. The only references within the article are to the dead website of the company. No coverage in independent sources. DferDaisy (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - DferDaisy Please just flag it speedy delete. We don't need to go this route with something clearly not verifiable. ChalkDrawings33 (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing better than Wikipedia mirrors and a download site found in searches. No claim or evidence of notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's games may or may not be notable (they had a bit more coverage, though probably not suitable reviews) but, of course, WP:NOTINHERITED applies and there was bupkis all to support Syntasoft. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable and fails WP:Corp. Kierzek (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I looked for sources on the WP:VG/RS search and just in general, and I couldn't find squat. Nomader (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Snow - could we get an admin to have a look over, since it seems to be distinctly falling one way, rather than just wait pending a pile on. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete Snowball's chance in hell of surviving. wikitigresito (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All Is Well (EP)[edit]

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

A non-notable recording by a notable artist. AllMusic lists it but has no info: https://www.allmusic.com/album/all-is-well-songs-for-christmas-walmart-exclusive-mw0001901307 I can't find any RSes that discuss the album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this was even marginally discussed in RS, I would support a redirect. But, really, with just lyric and CD databases, even a redirect is unnecessary for this entirely unnotable EP.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dami adenuga[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. The refs are trivial and unreliable. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : http://punchng.com/i-slept-at-the-fuel-station-to-fulfil-my-dreams-dami-adenuga/ | is a verified source. it does not fail WP:GNG but needs more source for verification, article can still be improve. --Peperu662 (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User account "Peperu662" is a newly created account, and has no edits outside the nominated article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is an easy one, when someone is a social media publicist, it is not unusual for their names to return search results, but for them to be regarded as notable; they themselves must be the subject of independent in-depth discussion in reliable sources. Can't find anything demonstrating that here. The Punch interview is not independent, and the content of the text doesn't show continued notability. There is also a strong possibility of WP:COI, and the article doesn't show WP:NPOV. HandsomeBoy (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any secondary independent WP:RS sources either. Fails WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firdaus Ramadhan (footballer, born 1993)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BLP, WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTY as he didn't play in the top division (note: PSBL is in top division only in 2012 and he is anyway playing not in first team but U-23). Do not confuse with Firdaus Ramadhan Quek157 (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:36, 16 May 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) 14:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parent rogic theorem[edit]

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

This appears to be a hoax. The cited publication by Parent and Rogic does not exist, and there are no references to this theorem or its supposed authors anywhere online. There is a Kevin Paul Parent at McGill, but he teaches accounting. CataracticPlanets (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if the authors and the paper exist (for which I have no evidence) it would still be an unpublished and uncited preprint, too soon to have attracted the secondary-source coverage necessary to make this topic notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax created by forking our article on Holevo's theorem, filing off the serial numbers, and attaching spurious new names. Needless to say, the third listed source does not exist in any form. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't quite fathom the motivation for a hoax of this sort, but I don't need to. XOR'easter (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally labelled this as a hoax after not understanding a sentence in it, and then not finding the last reference. Anyway Holevo's theorem says that the classical information is n bits, so saying it is bounded may be true, but so trivial, that it would not even be mentioned as a lemma. The name should have had capital R but no need to worry if it is getting deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Agree that this appears to be a hoax article based on Holevo's theorem. There even seem to be artifacts in the hoax article that correspond to failures to copy-paste bits of the original. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Evidently copy-pasted from Holevo's theorem including "which is specified in the following [1]". Zero sources to verify the theorem. Delete under WP:DEL6. Sam Sailor 12:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillization of chemical nomenclature[edit]

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

The Cyrillization system outlined in the article is completely unsourced original research, and may in fact be entirely fraudulent/a hoax, as two different editors have pointed out on the article's talk page. The previous AfD was closed as Keep because it was bundled together with several other articles on Cyrillization which were deemed useful. So, resubmitting this on its own for comment. CataracticPlanets (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This looks like a no-brainer: in the previous AfD, every contributor either explicitly urged deleting this particular article, or urged keeping a subset of the articles excluding this one. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the examples in the table, the "cyrillized" chemical name does not match the actual chemical name used for articles in languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet; for example, adenine in Russian Wikipedia is w:ru:Аденин, not "аденіне" as given in the table. Therefore, I can't see this as anything but original research. ChemNerd (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remo (band)[edit]

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

Nominating as non-notable musical act. Half the citations are for the band's own website, and the chart history citations lead to a completely empty chart history on Billboard. In fact, the only Google result I get for "Remo the First Album" is for a Wikia page, presumably set up by the band itself. Firebag237 (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND. Sourcing is a joke and zero viable third-party coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Rural Touring Forum[edit]

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

This article was created by a representative of the event's ticket agency. All sources are churnalism, PR pieces reprinted uncritically. No evidence it meets WP:GNG. Aside: as part of its target audience, I have never even heard of it. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unambiguous advertising, ~~undisclosed~~ incompletely disclosed paid editing in violation of our WP:Terms of Use. The paid editor has refused to make proper disclosure, but is apparently happy for us to know that he is the Wikipedia contact for any issues or questions for TicketSource Ltd.

This appears to be exactly the sort of advertisement masquerading as something else ("... not identifiable as advertising to consumers ...", likely to "... mislead consumers into believing [it is] independent, impartial, or not from the sponsoring advertiser itself ...") that is considered "deceptive" – and thus illegal – in the United States under rules laid down by the Federal Trade Commission. Wikimedia projects are governed by American law. We do not tolerate promotion of any kind, and we certainly cannot tolerate promotion that may be illegal.

Oh, and it does not come close to satisfying the requirements of WP:NCORP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: The creator of the article properly discloses the employer, both in the username and on the user page. This isn't a case of an undisclosed paid editor.

Not exactly, Anachronist – the user has disclosed a connection, but at the same time seems to be trying to maintain that he is not a paid editor. See for example "Those not familiar with how Sponsorship works, we are in fact giving the Fringe money while still doing voluntary work like keeping up this page". I suggest that that is considerably less than fully transparent. But yes, you're right, there's been some disclosure; I've changed "undisclosed" to "incompletely disclosed" in my post above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of his userpage says "Employee at Ticketsource". That is sufficient disclosure. Whether he wants to make contradictory statements is beside the point; the disclosure has been made. Ticktsource (the organization) may be doing voluntary work for Cardiff Fringe; that's irrelevant. He's a paid employee, editing within his area of interest, as directed by his employer. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The editor shouldn't be publishing in main space. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - You can strip out the promotional and still have a short, concise page about a UK Charity that probably meets notability. No justification for a page that big. Not sure what the author's COI's has to do with anything. ChalkDrawings33 (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Wikipedia is not an advertising platform, and the fact that being written by a PR means there is no non-spam version to roll back to. Hence WP:TNT. Guy (Help!) 07:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unambiguous advertising. ChalkDrawings33, strip out the content and you're left with a WP:NOTDIR which is still an advert. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Fringe[edit]

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

Created by a COI editor representing the ticket vendor, no credible assertion of meeting WP:GNG, the few sources are churnalism and teh googles provide nothing better. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Guy (Help!) 17:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a business directory, nor free webhost for ticket agencies ☆ Bri (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. Articles by COI editors should be submitted for review via WP:AFC, not posted directly into main space. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing significant coverage. Neutrality^talk 02:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Wilderness Safety[edit]

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

Unsourced and per WP:DEL#8 and WP:DEL#14 (WP:NOTDIRECTORY). I had added PROD to the article which was endorsed by John from Idegon stating that it had been deleted twice before. PROD was removed by GiantSnowman due to the article being "previously deleted by this method, needs to go to WP:AFD". So I've added the article here. Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and salt. Nothing but an advertorial. John from Idegon (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - John from Idegon Could use some cleanup, but NOT entirely promotional. Will assume meets WP:GNG because no one here is suggesting otherwise. ChalkDrawings33 (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- ChalkDrawings33, the nomination clearly claims a failure to meet notability (that's what DEL#8 is). John from Idegon (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - purely promotional: WP:NOTDIR. Not a mainstream 'school' and certainly not a high school for which we have certain precedents for keeping. Fails GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely promotional. Natureium (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete - clearly promotional without notablity. Quek157 (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Tolmie[edit]

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

WP:BLP, referenced only to his own primary source profile on the city government's own website with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him shown, of a person notable only as mayor of a city with a population of just 33K. This is not large enough to hand a mayor an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just because he exists -- at this size of city, a mayor needs to be more notable than the norm, such as by having an unusual volume and range and depth of more than just local media coverage or by also passing NPOL #1 for having served in the provincial or federal legislatures. (Every other past mayor of Moose Jaw who actually has a Wikipedia article got it for that latter reason, rather than getting it because mayor per se.) Simply being a mayor of a small city is not an automatic guarantee of a Wikipedia article in and of itself, but I can't find any evidence of the nationalized coverage it would take to make him a special case. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not promotional. Bearcat - I'll bet there's 33,000 people who think it's notable. ChalkDrawings33 (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for Wikipedia's purposes is not measured by how many people might have heard of him — notability lives or dies on the depth of reliable source coverage about him in media that can be shown to support an article. "Not promotional" is very definitely not all that an article has to be to get kept: what it has to be is well-referenced to sources that get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's a two-sentence article, so I conducted a WP:BEFORE search. He's mentioned in local Moose Jaw articles, but they're only mentions one would expect from someone who had a local governance position. Not otherwise notable, with many other articles being about other people with Fraser Tolmie in their name. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 00:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and as documented at WP:POLOUTCOMES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not keep articles sourced only from a city website. Being mayor of a city this size is clealy not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adiken[edit]

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

PROD removed with "suggest merge instead". There is no cited info to merge. Searching indicates this company existed from 2002-2006 when operations ceased. Certainly not enough coverage for WP:NCORP MB 17:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this ministub has not been expanded or referenced since it was created in 2006, nothing referenced to merge. If someone wants to write a properly sourced article suggest they can go through AFC and they would deserve the full creator credit 19:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mursal Zulfikar (footballer)[edit]

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

I can't find verification that this footballer has played a game in a professional league per WP:NFOOTY. ... discospinster _talk 16:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I recently PRODded the article, but the PROD was removed by the article creator, with no reason given. Giant Snowman 17:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's easy to verify he plays for Aceh United FC,[1] which is Liga 2. Curiously, the Liga 2 (Indonesia) article says it is fully professional, but it is not listed on WP:FPL. However, this cited article seems to say he played for PSAP Sigli when it was still in Liga 1 (Indonesia), prior to relegation. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:52, 16 May 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) 14:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Fahlevi[edit]

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

I can't find verification that this footballer has played a game in a professional league per WP:NFOOTY. See, e.g., this database. ... discospinster _talk 16:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:36, 16 May 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) 14:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Raul Gomez[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - not even close to meeting WP:NMMA PRehse (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither reference is independent and neither get anywhere near to establishing notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MMABIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:NMMA. There's no evidence of notability. or significant coverage. Papaursa (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Khashakyan[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Appears to be a run-of-the-mill mixed martial arts contender who hasn't yet got into the top flight. Fails WP:NMMA Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator - not even close to meeting WP:NMMA.PRehse (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no top tier fights so WP:NMMA is not met. There's also a lack of significant independent coverage to show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable MMA fighter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that there are enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PaGaLGuY[edit]

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

No decent coverage in reliable sources other than a reproduction of a PR-piece, originally published in TOI concerned mainly with it's MBA-school-ranking-list.Hindu Business-Line and Medianama are almost-always typical PR-stuff. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - 3rd time we've had to discuss an article that's been recreated, I recommend deleting it and salting it and the name it was recreated under on the 2nd nomination. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator's comments. Norcaes (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 08:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry gang, but just because this this the third nomination doesn't mean that it should be deleted. The first nomination was closed as keep, the second as no consensus. The sources seem to be on pace with what we seek to have for WP:GNG. This third nomination seems to violate WP:FORUMSHOP to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to rebut my arguments but with substance.And, kindly read the policies, you're citing.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clearly we disagree. Try a little WP:AGF. BTW, WP:GNG is a guideline, not a policy. Look there, I've read it... --Paul McDonald (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I too learnt from the first time that re-litigating an AfD after around 3 years is forumshopping.AFAIS, WP:CCC is a policy....~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, consensus can change. As I have previously stated, I see no reason for that change. We disagree, that's all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        By the way, the word "year" is not present in WP:FORUMSHOP nor is any other time period mentioned.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just cleaned up the article and added more sourcing. There is also coverage in the Hindu Business Line [[2]], but mostly for the events already in the article, so no need to WP:DUPCITE. Meets WP:GNG in my opinion. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To clarify: PaGaLGuY.com survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PaGaLGuY.com in March 2006 and was kept as "No consensus". It was, however, deleted in July 2006, the deletion log does not make it clear exactly by which DP. The article was re-created eight years later in 2014 under the current title, PaGaLGuY, and it survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PaGaLGuY as a "keep" in 2015. And a pretty clear "keep" that was. I do not see anything has changed in regards to meeting GNG. Sam Sailor 12:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination was made on the basis of there being no reliable sources - that's no longer true. We now have coverage from The Times of India and the Economic Times, and just enough to meet WP:GNG. Does the nominator want to withdraw the nomination, or do any of the others who voted delete based on the original poor sourcing want to change their votes? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep 1, 2, 3, 4. Marvellous Spider-Man 18:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gekko (optimization software)[edit]

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

I found no substantial and independent coverage of this software to meet WP:GNG, once I excluded from a Google search a couple of phrases shared in common on a number of websites (suggesting promotional copy) and a mining company in Canada. Largoplazo (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are the editors willing to consider other sources besides Google? Gekko publications have a longer history of publication in the scientific (rigorously peer-reviewed) literature. The Gekko name was not used during the development of the software (similar to how Intel has a different name for chips when in development than in production). The NSF Award page (https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1547110) gives several references:

Eaton, A.N., Beal, L., Thorpe, S., Hubbell, C., Hedengren, J.D., Nybø, R., Aghito, M.. "Real Time Model Identification Using Multi-Fidelity Models in Managed Pressure Drilling," Computers and Chemical Engineering, v.97, 2017, p. 76. doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.11.008
Beal, L., Clark, J., Anderson, M., Warnick, S., Hedengren, J.D.. "Combined Scheduling and Control with Diurnal Constraints and Costs using a Discrete Time Formulation," FOCAPO / CPC 2017, 2017.
Beal, L., Park, J., Petersen, D., Warnick, S., Hedengren, J.D.. "Combined Model Predictive Control and Scheduling with Dominant Time Constant Compensation," Computers & Chemical Engineering, v.104, 2017. doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017.04.024
Beal, L.D., Petersen D., Pila G., Davis, B., Warnick, S., and Hedengren, J.D.. "Economic Benefit from Progressive Integration of Scheduling and Control for Continuous Chemical Processes," Processes, v.5, 2017. doi:10.3390/pr5040084
Mojica, J.L., Petersen, D.J., Hansen, B., Powell, K.M., Hedengren, J.D.. "Optimal Combined Long-Term Facility Design and Short-Term Operational Strategy for CHP Capacity Investments," Energy, v.118, 2017. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2016.12.009
Petersen, D., Beal, L.D., Prestwich D., Warnick, S., and Hedengren, J. D.. "Combined Noncyclic Scheduling and Advanced Control for Continuous Chemical Processes," Processes, v.5, 2017. doi:10.3390/pr5040083
Udy, J., Blackburn, L., Hedengren, J.D., Darby, M.. "Reduced Order Modeling for Reservoir Injection Optimization and Forecasting," FOCAPO / CPC 2017, Tuscon, AZ, 2017.

Additional references are more recent:

Beal, L.D., Petersen, D., Grimsman, D., Warnick, S., Hedengren, J.D., Integrated Scheduling and Control in Discrete-time with Dynamic Parameters and Constraints, Computers & Chemical Engineering, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2018.04.010
Hedengren, J.D., Brower, D.V., Wilson J.C., High, G., Witherow, K., New Flow Assurance System With High Speed Subsea Fiber Optic Monitoring Of Pressure And Temperature, Symposium 4 Pipelines, Risers, and Subsea Systems, ASME 37th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2018/78079, Madrid, Spain, June 2018.

Logan Beal (Gekko creator) and I were editors on a new special issue book that was recently published that highlights developments in this area from multiple contributors:

Hedengren, J.D., Beal, L., Special Issue: Combined Scheduling and Control, Processes, 6(3), 24, doi: 10.3390/pr6030024, 2018. http://www.mdpi.com/journal/processes/special_issues/Combined_Scheduling

A few additional contributions may appear soon but are currently under peer review or development:

Facebook internet drone design is generated by Gekko: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3086&context=facpub
Petrobras (in Brazil) is developing improvements to distillation with Gekko (see bottom of http://apmonitor.com/do/index.php/Main/ProjectLab):
Statoil is developing improvements to heat exchangers with Gekko
University of Utah is developing Gekko for energy system optimization of district energy system
Self-balancing robots with Gekko: http://apmonitor.com/do/index.php/Main/InvertedPendulum

The notability will continue to improve as additional independent articles are published. The peer review process and publication can take a while for any new contribution but it is currently on track to have a substantial body of references by the end of 2018. Perhaps this would be a better target for creating a new Gekko page on Wikipedia but it seems that there are many other Wikipedia articles in this area that have many fewer citations. See, for example, many of the software packages that are listed in the Mathematical Optimization Software list at the bottom of the Gekko (optimization software) page on Wikipedia. I understand that new articles need additional scrutiny but the Gekko article is clearly ahead of many of those that already exist in terms of citations in the academic literature. I will update the Gekko article to include additional citations to meet the notability requirements.

Jhedengren (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publications about a product by the people whose product it is aren't independent sources and, therefore, contribute nothing to a finding of notability. Also, the fact that a product has users is not an indication of notability, just as the fact that a business has customers, and lists them, isn't an indication of notability. Establishing notability for this encyclopedia isn't like establishing one's credentials for marketing, in grant applications, or for the benefit of organizers and attendees at conferences at which one hopes to present. Largoplazo (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this discussion and your insights. The package was publicly released in 2018 and the adoption and peer review process is generally slow. One additional example of notability of Gekko is that it is used for advanced control education modules in the Temperature Control Lab (Google search: temperature tclab) that is used by many universities and individuals. The number of users suggests that additional independent publications are forthcoming, to further strengthen the notability. It is understandable that these are discounted because these specific references are not yet citable. My point is that Gekko is gaining significant notability in industry and academia and it will likely have many more citations in the near future, especially because it is free and open-source with novel capabilities.

However, I believe that Gekko already has sufficient independent sources to establish notability. One thing to clarify is that I'm the developer of APMonitor, not Gekko. Logan Beal developed Gekko and it is his product although I am his research advisor. Logan is completing his PhD studies and will be joining a company later this year. I suggest that article sources that don't list Logan are independent of the product developer, especially those where I am not the principal author. The common outcomes for page deletion listed in WP:COMPOUTCOMES suggests that "programming languages are usually kept, additionally, if they are well-cited in peer-reviewed computer science literature". However, the justification for this Gekko page deletion is lack of Google search results. I propose that (1) this page deletion request be removed or (2) the deletion request is delayed and then the deletion request removed when additional independent citations are added in a couple months. I respect the decision of the editors if this page is deemed not sufficiently notable and will be glad to add the page again when additional citations are added and notability is strengthened. Jhedengren (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify: You are not an independent source. As for expectations of future coverage, you are correct in your assessment that when the time comes, then it will be time. Please see WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Largoplazo (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that your quip on your user page sums up your qualifications for notability: "If Google returns fewer results for you than it does for me, you probably aren't notable. :-P". I'm not sure how many Google search results are returned for your name, but I think it is a mistake to ignore a significant body of peer-reviewed publications and base notability only on a Google search for "GEKKO Optimization". The peer review process helps to establish novelty and there are several independent examples of notability. I would appreciate a second editor's opinion on this before the article is deleted. Jhedengren (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, notability for Wikipedia requires source(s) independent on the article subject. Papers written by authors of this software aren´t independent sources and so give no notability. Pavlor (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Gekko should pass the notability requirement, especially in comparison to some of the other software packages listed. Many of the articles related to optimization software only list sources that are from the software authors including Artelys_Knitro, FICO_Xpress, Gurobi, IPOPT, Pyomo, SNOPT, and TOMLAB (as of 1 May 2018). All of these are very notable but it appears that the standards for independent citations on Wikipedia has improved. This won't be a problem for Gekko - I can add additional citations that are independent. Jhedengren (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That other articles are as bad is without doubt no valid reason to keep this one... If you can provide independent reliable sources, that would certainly help. Pavlor (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added references 15-24 as other notable mentions of GEKKO. I can give additional references, if needed.

15. Mittleman, Hans (1 May 2018). "Decision Tree for Optimization Software". Plato. Arizona State University. Retrieved 1 May 2018. Object-oriented python library for mixed-integer and differential-algebraic equations

16. "Solver Solutions". Advanced Process Solutions, LLC. Retrieved 1 May 2018. GEKKO Python with APOPT or BPOPT Solvers

17. Everton, Colling. "Dynamic Optimization Projects". Petrobras. Petrobras, Statoil, Facebook. Retrieved 1 May 2018. Example Presentation: Everton Colling of Petrobras shares his experience with GEKKO for modeling and nonlinear control of distillation

18. "APMonitor Google Group: GEKKO". Google. Retrieved 1 May 2018.

19. "Computational Science: Is there a high quality nonlinear programming solver for Python?". SciComp. Retrieved 1 May 2018.

20. Kantor, Jeff (2 May 2018). "TCLab Documentation" (PDF). ReadTheDocs. University of Notre Dame. Retrieved 2 May 2018. pip install tclab

21. Kantor, Jeff (2 May 2018). "Chemical Process Control". GitHub. University of Notre Dame. Retrieved 2 May 2018. Using the Temperature Control Lab (TCLab)

22. Hedengren, John (2 May 2018). "Advanced Temperature Control Lab". Dynamic Optimization Course. Brigham Young University. Retrieved 2 May 2018. Hands-on applications of advanced temperature control

23. Sandrock, Carl (2 May 2018). "Jupyter notebooks for Dynamics and Control". GitHub. University of Pretoria, South Africa. Retrieved 2 May 2018. CPN321 (Process Dynamics), and CPB421 (Process Control) at the Chemical Engineering department of the University of Pretoria

24. "CACHE News (Winter 2018): Incorporating Dynamic Simulation into Chemical Engineering Curricula" (PDF). CACHE: Computer Aids for Chemical Engineering. University of Texas at Austin. 2 May 2018. Retrieved 2 May 2018. Short Course at the ASEE 2017 Summer School hosted at SCSU by Hedengren (BYU), Grover (Georgia Tech), and Badgwell (ExxonMobil)

Jhedengren (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too weak. Some are user generated content (GitHub), the other (24) doesn´t mention GEKKO at all (not even counting it is an advert for courses)! Pavlor (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The course content references are to give an idea of the users of the TCLab that uses GEKKO. I can remove the TCLab references, if needed, but I think they give an idea of how GEKKO is being used. Here is the current distribution map of users: http://apmonitor.com/pdc/uploads/Main/tclab_users.png The CACHE new article from source (https://cache.org) was published by Tom Edgar (UT Austin) for a session that was held at the American Society for Engineering Education in summer 2017 where we introduced advanced control features of the software with TCLab. It is not an advertisement for a future course. All of the course content is freely available as well. GEKKO is the name that was coined with the software release in Jan 2018 with the public release. Many of them do not mention "GEKKO" because the name is associated with the later public release. Before that, it was beta software with no official name. There are additional references that I can add soon. For example, Facebook is open-sourcing their trajectory optimization for HALE aircraft (Internet drones) soon that is based on GEKKO. Jhedengren (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doorbin (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band with no coverage, despite having a few "blue linked" members (also of questionable notability.) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayeem Hossain (talk • contribs) 14:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The band has been covered by reliable sources as can be seen in the reference section. Band members not having blue link simply means that the band members are not notable as individuals it does not mean that the band is not notable. The band has won notable awards, has released albums, and have received coverage is third party reliable sources.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure that is significant coverage?

The first link is their own non-functional website

2 is an interview

3 is primarily an interview

is done by a freelance editor, the equivalent of an op-ed

makes no mention of the band

CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - insufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. Being nominated for awards does not confer notability. Primefac (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Low participation despite being relisted three times, but I think the argument that the article does not meet notability guidelines is correct. Donald Albury 13:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Triton Troupers Circus[edit]

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

Article does not include a single reliable source and is written like an advertisment by an obviously conntected editor. The page was previously deleted in November 2007 by @Carlosguitar but subsequently recreated by the same user just a few days later, with no improvement on the previous deletion criteria. Topic fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH and lacks proper COI attribution on the talk page (WP:DISCLOSE), and thus should be deleted. Lordtobi (✉) 07:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
>> I've added a "connected contributor" block to the talk page as per your requested. Don't confuse being an expert on a topic with having a conflict of interest. - Bedno added 19:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Page does need improvement, neutral writing tone, and a better structure, but I don't think it deserves to be deleted. Despite the lack of reliable sources, judging from the information (and images) available, I think they are relatively known and I am going to cast a vote on that notion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JenniferCraigCarter (talk • contribs) 11:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note for reviewer: The above comment's author is/was a suspected sockpuppet with questionable points made to various COI'd AfD discussions, which appears to be the majority of their edits. Lordtobi (✉) 14:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unconvinced that the local coverage in the press page is sufficient to pass WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the volunteer earnestly trying to meet Wikipedia guidelines to provide introduction and history on the amazing and long lived local institution that is Triton Troupers Circus. I've overhauled this page several times already at editor requests. I'm at a loss at this point as to how a robust set of references including offsite links to decades of photos and pages of press clippings and even a governmental honor, somehow doesn't demonstrate significance. I am open to specific suggestions or arbitration. Please forgive my novice editor skills, I hope I've posted this correctly. Bedno 25 April 2018
- I don't think this robust set of references counts as much more than WP:SPS and some press releases, which are not WP:RS and do not pass WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

REVISIONS PLANNED, PATIENCE APPRECIATED. (Thanks Szzuk for relisting.) I've prioritized overhauling this entry *yet again* for neutral tone and other guidelines mentioned. But I again assert that this page is no differently written than ANY of those listed on your Circus_school page for example. And as a volunteer organization it's fundamentally not "written like an advertisment(sic)". Frankly the isolated critics seem oddly opinionated and vitriolic, but I'll incorporate their feedback anyway. Bedno added 19:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Circus school is a terrible article to use as excuse, just look at it: It is an introductory sentence followed by a bulleted list of exemplary circus schools, there is no real content there. What makes it worse is that only the list entries are sourced, and not all of them, and those that are sourced are sourced using the homepages of the cirucses in question. It'd rather be another deletion candidate than a reason to keep TTC. Also, any article can be written like an advertisement, commercial or not. Reading the articles gives the impression that the circus is the best circus, most popular circus of the U.S. and that it employs many world-famous artists, neither of which appears to be the case. I've cleaned the article up a bit, but that just scratched the tip of the iceberg. Stripping the article off unreliable references only leaves one Chicago Tribune citation (here's another also), which is not enough to pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia.

Let alone that Google only finds 100 (yes, 100) results when searching for the circus (this might be due to regional restrictions, but even in Europe, 100 is way too low), a quick search returns practically only YouTube videos, Facebook pages and events lists, no press coverage, especially no subsistantial coverage. The only source I could find is the one linked previously, and that is not subsistantial either, just routine coverage. Please review WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, and you will quickly realize that the article has no grounds to stay on Wikipedia. The circus might be for a good cause, but it is just not notable for Wikipedia, sorry. Lordtobi (✉) 22:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting Lordtobi's vitriol: a Google search finds >16,000 mentions, not "100". Even fully quoted (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22triton+troupers+circus%22) returns more than 2000 relevant results. And there's TWO DOZEN press clippings covering decades (http://tritontrouperscircus.com/clippings) which you've dubiously invalidated to claim "no substantial coverage." Why the lies? Please stop harassing this page.Bedno (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't lie about anything, and you do not need to accuse me of that either. I literally received 100 results ehen searching for it on Google. As I pointed out, this might come from regional restrictions (no one has ever heard of it in Germany) and Google's irrelevancy algorithm. Hoewever, even your given 16K is far less than what a notable topic of this length usually has, thiugh ultimately Google result counts do not make for notability establishment anyhow. Lordtobi (✉) 05:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I searched Google for "Triton Troupers Circus" I got 97 unique hits (ignore the 12,000 hits notice at the top of the page, page along to the 10th page of 10 hits). That includes YouTube videos, Wikipedia and Wikimedia pages, and promos/announcements of appearances. Bedno, please remember to assume good faith. - Donald Albury 22:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH, one article in the Chicago Tribune is not enough to pass.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Halfway (EastEnders). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Clay[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. From what I can find out the actor has had a few roles in television. However, with the exception of EastEnders, all these roles only appear to be for one episode and do not appear to be notable roles. Of the two films he has appeared in, one was classed as a short film, the other he played a sale sign man, again neither would appear notable. I've also searched the stage plays he's been in and not really found anything on Google. I would assume if they were notable parts the search engine would have found something.

I suggest either deleting the article or redirecting it to Halfway (EastEnders). 5 albert square (talk) 12:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems right here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. - JuneGloom07 Talk 18:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for the same reasons as above. Soaper1234 - talk 19:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no option for "marginal keep". But according to the consensus here, there should be. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hertford British Hospital Charity[edit]

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

Poor source. Not notable. Siddiqsazzad001 </Talk> 17:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have just moved this article to Hertford British Hospital. The basic history is - Notable British Hospital in France for 100+ years - the hospital gets absorbed into French Health System and disappears - what is left is a charity of no importance. The article is now about the hospital. Szzuk (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ - Per WP:NHOSPITALS, I can only see one trivial independent source. I search the net but are just routine mentions, news neither. If there are any more sources, I will be willing to change the vote. Quek157 (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment- what to do with the redirect as this page is moved during this Afd, the redirect should also be deleted if this is deleted. No one cares to give anymore sources??? --Quek157 (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Weak Keep English Millionaire of Paris - and the Hertford British Hospital sounds like it might be a decent covering source. If anyone can find access bonus points await.

Access on that might be tricky, but anyone with either direct or library access should be able to get to Lancet - HBH in Paris (1), Lancet - HBH in Paris (2) or most encouragingly Lancet Vol 1 Part 1 - with encouraging snippet view. I despise trying to make a !vote on notability when there are potential sources in the offing, so any details much desired Nosebagbear (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched mine to a weak keep - however if someone could get some better access that would be greatly appreciated. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

weak KeepRemoved my delete vote upon discovery of new sources (which is what I am waiting for), but will need someone to read or access those sources, prima facie case of notablity is established, promising development --Quek157 (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC) with these sources a marginal keep can be established, this is already relisted 3 times and no need a fourth --Quek157 (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus to keep. This indicates that we probably won't delete these lists outright merely just because they contain redlinks, but that editorial cleanup efforts such as unlinking red links, merging, referencing, etc. may continue subject to editorial consensus. Individual lists that are deemed unverifiable can still be renominated. Sandstein 07:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of the Mossi state of Gwiriko ‎[edit]

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

See here. Enigma^msg 20:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also lists of red-linked articles:

Keep all. And for that matter, I'm not at all convinced that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rulers of the Gurma Mossi state of Pama was correctly decided, despite the unanimous comments for deletion. The sole argument here has been that lists consisting exclusively of redlinks are eligible for deletion. I'm not sure that's the case. WP:CSC states that one of the criteria for inclusion for a stand-alone list is: "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." Rulers of recognized regions unquestionably meet the notability criteria, and these king lists are verifiable; they might have somewhat poor sourcing at the moment, but there are entire books on the topic of African rulers. So then we're faced with the question of whether the lack of articles in this topic requires the list deletion. The same guideline document has something to say there, too: "'Creation guide' lists—lists devoted to a large number of redlinked (unwritten) articles, for the purpose of keeping track of which articles still need to be written—don't belong in the main namespace." (emphasis mine). That's transparently not the purpose of these lists, and that's the only place in the list guidelines where I can see "everything is red" as a cause for deletion. Rather, these lists comprise redlinks nearly exclusively due to systemic bias. If all of the kings in List of rulers of Wales were redlinks, it would not stop that from being a valid article. Now, there's something to be said for handling these differently. Perhaps including the individual states as sections in a list of rulers of the Mossi people, for example, but that's an editorial determination, not a cause for deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Correctly deleted" means on Wikipedia whether procedure was followed, not whether you personally want it deleted or kept. Enigma^msg 00:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not correctly argued then, if you'd prefer. The policy-based arguments at that AFD were "per WP:LISTN", but the policy on stand-alone lists doesn't set any requirement at all that entries must be blue-linked (and is very different from the policy on disambiguation pages in that regard). That aside, the "everything is a redlink" argument doesn't stand here across this full set of articles. Wobogo, Naaba Koom II, and Rawa (Mossi) are bluelinks (from the Wogodogo and Yatenga lists); the former has considerable content. Naaba Baongo II was at one point a (very bare!) stub, redirected to Wogodogo Monarchy, which—if this article set is retained—should be merged into List of rulers of the Mossi state of Wogodogo (and includes further content and references). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong keep~~ - I agree with Squeamish Ossifrage, both on these articles and on List of rulers of the Gurma Mossi state of Pama. Enigma, would you consider at least draftifying that now deleted article if I (we?) promised to fill in some redlinks before restoring it to article space? Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection. Where would you like it moved? Enigma^msg 03:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about, Draft:List of rulers of the Gurma Mossi state of Pama. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm striking my vote for now. I'm trying to figure out what, for instance, is the "state of Piela". Some of these entities may be provinces or regions in Burkino Faso and some may have been states in the Mossi Kingdom, but it isn't clear to me that all of them are. I'll try to look at it more closely tomorrow. In the meantime, feel free to draftify the Pama list; Pama was for sure a significant Chiefdom in the eighteenth century and while I haven't looked into who its leaders were, such information may be source-able with some effort. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done By the way, I tried to read up on these regions on my own. Interesting note is that I didn't see them mentioned in Burkina Faso. Enigma^msg 05:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Our coverage of this entire topic area is beyond terrible. Burkina Faso needs some work at summary style for the information spun off to History of Burkina Faso; the only link to Mossi Kingdoms is in an image caption! Not that the Mossi Kingdoms article is in great shape, but it's something. These lists under discussion now are the lists of rulers of the various Mossi Kingdoms. Wogodogo, Tenkodo, and Yatenga were the most politically important and best-studied. With a little work, I think I can write sourced stubs for a good bit of their king lists. Most of the rest of the lists are the ones currently titled "Gurma Mossi state". The Gurma people are related to the Mossi, but technically separate. Sources tend to bundle these Gurma-majority kingdoms with the Mossi ones during the Mossi Kingdoms period. All these were sovereign, but showed various measures of deference to Wogodogo. As far as the Gurma kingdoms go, Nunga (=Nuga, =Fada N'Gourma) is by far the best studied and documented. A lot of sources just concede that there were [some number] of other kingdoms, but either give them no coverage or a cursory naming. I'm less confident in the ability to write valid articles for their kings. A special mention goes to the last one of of these, List of rulers of the Mossi state of Liptako. That's actually a list of the rulers of Liptako, a Gurma-majority kingdom that overlaps modern-day Burkina Faso, Niger, and Mali, and which appears to be considered distinct from the Mossi Kingdoms by most scholars. There's a lot written about Liptako, and I can (and will, hopefully today) clean that list up and source it appropriately. That said, it'll need a title change at some point. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, following the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rulers of the Gurma Mossi state of Pama, it is established that these lists most likely fail WP:LISTN given that most of the names are non-notable and exist as just duplicates of lists found elsewhere online. Ajf773 (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so for the satisfaction of notability under these articles, under WP:LISTN, we need either grouping discussion or at least most of those mentioned within to have independent notability. I don't have many access rights when it comes to either JSTOR or google books, but if anyone does, at least a quick glance at African States and Rulers and Historical Dictionary of Burkina Faso (I'd like to note on that one, it's pretty detailed, and very detailed on a good few - not a direct failure on WP:DICTIONARY; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 12:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Returning to the Liptako list Squeamish Ossifage mentions, one book (Irwin, Paul. Liptako Speaks: history from oral tradition in Africa. Princeton University Press, 2014) discusses exactly this, with a king list in table form on page 84[3] (If you don't have access to Project Muse, WP:TWL offers free accounts to Wikipedia editors!). Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have a question for anyone, especially @Squeamish Ossifrage: Going through these, and starting with Gwiriko, it looks like some (most/all?) of the kingdoms discussed don't have pages themselves. When adding sources, I find I am more interested in creating a page for the state/kingdom/chiefdom than only cleaning up these lists. Further, a list like these would be a good starting point for such a page. I'm not terribly impressed by the names of these lists, for instance the "Mossi state of X" formulation seems inaccurate in some cases. Rather than renaming them to something more appropriate and creating a separate page about the state/kingdom/chiefdom I propose as a part of updating, moving (not leaving redirect?) these pages to pages about the states/kingdoms/chiefdoms themselves. So I would like to move List of rulers of the Mossi state of Gwiriko to "Kingdom of Gwiriko" without leaving a redirect. Alternatively, the list could be renamed to "List of rulers of the Kingdom of Gwiriko" and a new page on the kingdom be created; but the page on the Kingdom itself wouldn't really be so long that a separate article on the Kingdom and King list is really necessary.

Note that currently the pages as they are are referenced to http://www.rulers.org/burktrad.html, which doesn't meet RS standards, I think. As such, I don't feel tied to the word "states" if they are given other names in more RS. Anyway, I'm not in favor of renaming pages during an AfD, but am going to be bold and edit pages with that end goal in mind. Let me know if you have a strong inclination for keeping the list as a list rather than recasting the list as an article about the kingdom itself. Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I got to pick how we handled this, most of these kingdoms should be discussed in Mossi Kingdoms, a historically important topic where our article is reprehensible. The Gurma kingdoms weren't ethnically Mossi, but they're still "Mossi Kingdoms" so far as historians go. So that's probably where I'd start. Now, there's actually a LOT written about the Mossi Kingdoms period, so I imagine that—even if we merge much of this in, rather than covering each individually—we'll eventually want to spin off a List of kings of the Mossi Kingdoms. Or something like that. The notable exception is the content in List of rulers of the Mossi state of Liptako, which is just... sloppy. Rulers.org doesn't likely meet RS standards (although it's sole editor does try real hard), but even it doesn't say that Liptako was one of the Mossi Kingdoms; just "related" (which is true, it was a neighboring region). If we want to be pedantic, there was a Mossi (okay, actually Gurma) kingdom in what later became Liptako, but that was called Koala, and isn't what the list contains. For what it's worth, fixing the Liptako content is what I'm currently working on, by rebuilding it from scratch with better sourcing. Expect a List of rulers of Liptako within the next day or three. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that you more or less do get to pick how this is handled, as there are few editors in this area. Basically, the outcome of this AfD is likely to be keep, merge (to the list of kings of the Mossi Kingdoms perhaps) or no consensus (given our protests and the nature of the articles, I doubt we'd get a lot of delete !votes going forward). I don't know who else will work to clean these up (the original editor, User:JohnArmagh, is still occasionally active but didn't take part in the previous AfD); so at that point you, I, and whoever, can move the pages or turn them into redirects as we like. I'm working on Gwiriko along the lines I described - anyone watching that page should also watch this AfD, so by explaining my reasoning here and getting feedback, I feel like it is fair if I am bold with moving/redirecting as I think is best after the AfD (so long as we aren't using redirect to perform out-of-process deletions, such behavior is generally good for the project). You can do what you like with Liptako, I'll keep an eye on it and try to help if I can. If you don't mind, we can let each other know if we are moving on to another of these so we don't overlap our efforts too much. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. They were sloppily created years ago and no one was ever interested enough to clean them up, including the article creator (who was notified of this AfD and the last AfD but didn't bother to weigh in), so if you have interest now, you do have carte blanche to do as you wish with them. Enigma^msg 00:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've created List of rulers of Liptako as a replacement for List of rulers of the Mossi state of Liptako. The AFD'ed version's title is badly inaccurate (Liptako was never a Mossi state), but there's probably noting wrong with turning it into a redirect to... what I hope is a pretty acceptable contribution to the project. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a plausible search term so it doesn't make sense as a redirect, and there's nothing there worth salvaging, so I'll delete it after this AfD if there's no opposition, given that it's been supplanted by a superior article at a different location. Enigma^msg 20:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to Keep unless each list can be merged to an article on the state that they ruled. However the red-links should be delinked to discourage the creation of stub articles, which will never get expanded on each of them. Such a merge might well be a better option. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some of these can be sourced to reliable sources (such as Africa from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century, I'm not convinced all of them are. Naaba Kango (on List of rulers of the Mossi state of Yatenga) has a page and a half in that book. The only reference currently doesn't seem particularly reliable, and it doesn't list its own sources. Moving to draft/userspace might be the best option until these are cleaned up and verified for accuracy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to get some work done on the Tenkodogo / Wogodogo / Yentaki lists, but it's slow going... especially because scholars in the field seem to have, shall we say, a slight disagreement about the chronology of the entire region. One proposed chronology sets Oubri's founding of Oubritenga in 1182; a competing proposal sets the date circa 1485 (and add or subtract another 100 years for the minority opinions). I'm trying to track down more recent publications to ascertain the current state of scholarship on the topic and see if the 300-year discrepency has been resolved in any way, but most of the historians working in the field write in French and don't publish in the US. I read enough French to manage, but source access doesn't move quickly, and there's only so much I can do. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fr:Royaume mossi entry has a Wogodogo/Ouagadougou list with a source. I agree this is an area where the references may be contradictory. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've unilaterally redirected List of rulers of the Mossi state of Wogodogo to List of rulers of Wogodogo – a content fork I created with better referencing, better structure, and better list-policy compliance – and struck it from the list. The new article is not perfect. Most importantly, I'm waiting on a source to arrive via interlibrary loan to incorporate the alternative (15th century) chronology. And at some point, I'll go through the list and add meaningful notes to the various entries; a lot of these are going to get their own articles, too. Anyway, the redirect is probably not strictly copacetic under the AFD rules, but cleaning this topic area up is the important part. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while not all the lists of rulers are sourced well enough, I expect there is enough (French-language) references to source everything. There definitely is enough to source articles about the regions as a whole; renaming List of rulers of the Mossi state of Yatenga to Yatenga (Mossi state) would make it possible to add some (sourced) background info, while removing red-links to rulers that can't be sourced to anything other than rulers.org . power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per User:Squeamish Ossifrage. I do not see any rationale here based on policy that warrants deletion. The Mossi Empire and kingdoms were important not to mention powerful kingdom in Africa with several notable kings. Even the great Mansa Musa, Emperor of the Mali Empire recounted the threats that he received from the Mossi - to the Arab notables when he made his hajj to Mecca. Should we also delete List of rulers of Wales, List of British monarchs, etc? Why are African articles being nominated on foolish grounds? Red links does not warrant deletion. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No good reason for deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage has already greatly improved two articles. Srnec (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GetAmped[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. All current sources are primary (official sites and a press release) or unreliable (MMO Huts). I looked for WP:VG/RS-approved reliable sources using the Reliable and Situational custom Google searches and found a handful of very trivial mentions and more press releases. This game does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. (Note:I will be nominating GetAmped2 for the same reason.) Woodroar (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a problem of having web sources which are a) predominantly English and b) which have survived since original release of the game in the early 2000s, given that 4Gamer (and IGN) indicates that the game was popular in Korea in 2006 (in an article for another game, mind you, but it's being used as the "here's what this game needs to beat") with some 11M users. GamesIndustry indicates the game is named "SplashFighters" in English-speaking countries, and under that name I see not a lot either (press releases and announcements, nothing treating the work with significance). There's a page (looks like an advert) in GameAxis. Here's a mention of the Chinese publisher. I think there's something notable here, but none of the sources available indicate it. That said, the developer has a page here at CyberStep, so, redirect as a viable search term. --Izno (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to developer CyberStep. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap and a preferable alternative to deletion. czar 02:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was deleted previously and I see no arguments to reverse that decision.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proteus Conversational Interface[edit]

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

Ten year old stub that's gotten no development in that time. Unreferenced, except in a vague external-links way. Borderline WP:A7/WP:G11. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A ten-year-old WP:SPA article on a project whose domain is archived, and which seems to have left little trace beyond Wikipedia mirrors and a Geocities page. Happy to revise my opinion if some WP:RS evaluative coverage can be found, but as things stand this fails WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - SPA, then we will not have COI. No sense of WP:CORPDEPTH. --Quek157 (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Balete,_Aklan#Education.No clear keep votes (with the only keep saying it is also okay, but firstly preferring a merge). Selective merging to be done in history. Nomination withdrawn as per WP:ATD (non-admin closure) Quek157 (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Balete Aklan[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT, why not just expand Aklan#Universities_and_colleges. Don't even have to redirect as not much usage. Merger is a blur as all unverified and will just cause the page to decline in quality. Quek157 (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd flip that around and move the colleges and universities to this list, also simplify and trim the list to notable entries without such a complicated table, perhaps with a government listing to back it up any entries. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

do try, when done do ping me here and I will see if I will withdraw my nomination --Quek157 (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the list down to the high schools and it's small enough to move back to Balete, Aklan. If there aren't any colleges or other notable schools to add, then I would recommend Merge to Balete, Aklan. The region has about 28 thousand people so it should have a college/university maybe? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF:why not just copy the small list over as it just a list anyone can make, not much of attribution issues, with the copy summary as copied from the page and initial page will become a redirect. how's that?, so end with a redirect?Quek157 (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think we want to have list-articles about high schools, perhaps in lieu of individual articles and AFDs. This one covers a private academy plus 5 public high schools, surprising to me for a town/city of 28,000. Is there a larger-area list-article that this could/should be merged to? Just "Keep" seems okay too. --Doncram (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the town's article can include the list as it stands. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If no objection, this list will be added to the list in the town article and I will keep it as a redirect if there need be can be "resurrected", target will be Balete,_Aklan#Education which is now empty and this is the main article, clearly the article is not that long that we need to split right?, either copy / paste then histmerge or selective merging from history. --Quek157 (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, my town of 200,000 only have 1 pre university as well as around 20 secondary schools. So it's not surprising.Quek157 (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of pornographic actors[edit]

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

Unnecessary list. Only three itens. Only link is the template {{Pornography}}, where the three items in the list already exist. Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eh - Looks like there are 7 titles that could be listed here. Reasonable navigational list maybe. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe yes. Redirect to Lists of actors may also be a good idea.Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the category does the job & a stand-alone page is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upkeep Maintenance Management[edit]

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

fails WP:NCORP notable WP:CORPDEPTH. Mostly routine stuff including churnalism. nothing of interest found in a before search Dom from Paris (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this obvious undisclosed native advertising. MER-C 14:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, and it is irritating when they do it with links and some "sources", makes it ineligible for A7 and they wrote in a way that escapes G11. --Quek157 (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, fails WP:NCORP.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13 (Zeitoun novel)[edit]

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

Could find nothing to suggest this book passes WP:GNG. One of the top serch returns was the Wikipedia page for 13....not very promising whether you are superstitious or not. TheLongTone (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Note to nominator TheLongTone, there are certain kinds of topics where simple-minded web searches just aren't useful. You tried searching for "13", and were drowned in references to other kinds of thirteen? Well, I searched for the author, Zeitoun, and had no trouble finding other reviews. I included some of them in the article. Geo Swan (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aren't both GNG and WP:Notability (books) relevant when evualating the notability of books? Criteria #1 says: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." The guideline requires at least two and the article now has three. Geo Swan (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did a number of searches. I am far from conviced by the references. The Quill & Quire ref is solid I agree, but the independence of the second seems questionable and the third is fundamentally about the author. And the world is littered with people who were included in 'ten to watch' type articles & who have subsequently sunk without trace.TheLongTone (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone:, you write: "...but the independence of the second seems questionable..." but you don't explain this concern over its independence. Here is what WP:Notability_(books)#cite_note-independent-3 says about indepence: "Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book." Robertson is a literary guy, who, among other things, reviews books. His work was sufficientlly well respected that a publisher decided to publish a collection of his reviews. Forgive me, but it seems to me that, the only way you could argue his review did not measure up to the notability guide's definition of independence would be if Robertson worked for Zeitoun's publisher, or was related to Zeitoun. Is that what you meant? How did you establish Robertson was not independent from Zeitoun's publisher?
With regard to your comment: "...the world is littered with people who were included in 'ten to watch' type articles & who have subsequently sunk without trace." Well, this discussion shouldn't be about Zeitoun's personal notability, but rather about the novel's notability. I'll tell you what, if someone starts Mary-Lou Zeitoun, and someone else starts Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary-Lou Zeitoun I'll look forward to reading your arguments Zeitoun isn't notable there. I suggest those arguments are off-topic here.
If you are arguing the Globe and Mail reference doesn't measure up to the guidelines requirements, can I draw your attention to what WP:Notability_(books)#cite_note-subject-1 says? It says "The 'subject' of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment." Well, the Globe and Mail devoted a short paragraph to Zeitoun, and a longer paragraph to the novel. Is that one paragraph what the notability guideline means by trivial treatment? Is the coverage of the book a mere entry in a list? No, it is more than 100 words -- ie not a "passing mention." Geo Swan (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hi TheLongTone, not sure what search terms you use and why you had problems searching doing a gsearch for this, with books i enter its name "by" the author "book reviews", ie. for 13: "13 by Mary-Lou Zeitoun book reviews" - page 1 of the gsearch has a Now Toronto (yes a freebie city only paper but still...) review - "Teen Dream - Most impressive is Zeitoun's ability to paint the reader a full picture of Marnie's world while still giving us a disjointed sense of her disappointment, a remarkably accurate sense of what teen life was like -- so full of piss and vinegar just looking for a pot.", page 2 of the gsearch has two reviews from Books in Canada - "First Novels - The prose is economical, the language concise, the depictions right on." and "At 134 pages, 13 is a short book and yet, a fully developed novel, with a multi-dimensional plot.", so with the G&M, Q&Q, and these it looks like enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oh, and heres another one from Exclaim! magazine - "The only flaw is that being set in 1980 and by dwelling on Marnie's Lennon obsession, it's obvious from the beginning that the book's climax will in part be triggered by Lennon's assassination and the death of Marnie's idealism. But Zeitoun successfully avoids melodrama and any trace of sentimentality or nostalgia; her first-person voice is entirely convincing, and despite the novel's obvious time setting it speaks to universal and timeless teen angst.", oops, and i forgot to put in Keep as meeting WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as clearly meeting WP:NBOOK criteria 1. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a rule, I'm profoundly unconvinced that any novel's article ever needs to exist before the writer who wrote the novel has an article — there can never be any such thing as a novel that's somehow notable despite being written by an author who isn't, because any notability claim that gets a novel over NBOOK by definition also gets its author over NAUTHOR — but this does plainly have the critical attention needed to stave off deletion, with the nominator's problems caused by searching for the general "13" (in which this would obviously disappear beneath waves of other usages) rather than the more targeted "13 Zeitoun" that would find the right stuff. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oyster Protocol[edit]

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

Advertisement for newly-established, minor, non-notable business. Entirely sourced to advert/tech blogs. No decent independent sources or in-depth third party WP:RS coverage that is even near to passing WP:NCORP or WP:GNG, just press releases and advertorial. See also WP:Articles for deletion/8base. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. essentially advertising. DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another article going around our G11/A7 CSD. --Quek157 (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a recent start-up, containing and supported by text describing the proposition. No evidence of attained notability whether by WP:CORPDEPTH for the company or WP:NSOFTWARE & WP:GNG for the product. AllyD (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwill Industries of the Southern Rivers[edit]

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

does not meet notability, orphan and COI tagged for three years. We don't have any other articles of local Goodwill franchisees, nor McDonald's... Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per WP:CHAIN, individual franchises are not notable by themselves.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CHAIN....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. For the record, I think the half dozen largest branches nationally might be notable. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cityflyer Routes A21 and NA21[edit]

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

Unsourced, non notable bus route(s). Almost entirely written as a travel guide Ajf773 (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete- what need this page when we have Cityflyer_Route_A21 (also under Afd). As per reasoning there, fails notability, plus not guide. what fares Quek157 (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even Cityflyer Route A21 doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline. Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur Quek157 (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it's been nominated too. Ajf773 (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTGUIDE Acnetj (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. apparently my error DGG ( talk ) 15:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reid Travis[edit]

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

Not my field, but does not seem to meet the requirement for athletes. DGG ( talk ) 09:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NCOLLATH "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." Travis was a high school All-American and multi-time major conference first team player. Searching google, I see a number of national outlets have covered his career in detail.--TM 10:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG with coverage such as this and this and this. Rikster2 (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sigh ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Free Melania[edit]

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

Useless trivia/gossip. Not encyclopedic in the least. — JFG ^talk 09:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment/Pending~~ Weak Keep - so I needlessly spent 15 minutes checking notability/sigcov before realising that that wasn't the deletion basis being used by Nom. I'm tempted to say that it isn't either trivia or gossip. The latter is that the cause of the movement may or may not have been created from gossip, but is a full discussed meme/concept, by actual news articles over a reasonable length of time. It isn't trivia given the level of coverage with reasoned analysis on it and any relation of free melania on Trump. I feel that trivia/gossip basis for deletion must be fairly clear.

This leads to why I am pending rather than going keep - nom is correct to point out these grounds for the article as it stands - it reads as gossip and wouldn't appear to add anything. There is easily available data that goes far beyond ceasing to be trivia/gossip - but this article hasn't yet done so. Normally I would be tempted to argue that WP:COMPLETE should mean it remains, but with regards to an article primarily about a living person, I feel a good case can be made for improvement being necessary to remain. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pending additional detail to be added to clarify as non-trivial/gossip, I feel weak keep is the correct position. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- its clearly a cultural meme, supported by the source material. Sadads (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (article creator) per GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to an appropriate section of Protests against Donald Trump.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging only really makes sense if it couldn't satisfy notability, which it can. That it is a protest against Trump doesn't mean it should go under. If it is too trivial/gossipy then it doesn't belong in wiki at all.Nosebagbear (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Should this be notable? No. Is this notable? Yes, by dint of repeated and lasting media coverage. It seems that in issues related to Trump, coverage turns the trivial into notable leading us to Trumpedia - so unless some adds an appropriate clause to WP:NOT (e.g. silly trivia related to the sitting US president is not notable until LASTING is established by coverage persisting 2 years after this term) - it merits an article.Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Records[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Article has been mostly untouched since 2010. — TORTOISE WRATH 09:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only issued a single notable record in 1987. WP:NOTINHERITED. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: certainly fails WP:NCORP, and in any case I'm not convinced this article isn't a hoax. There is no sign of this Pioneer Records having released a Dizzy Gillespie album – the 1987 concert was broadcast by the BBC but doesn't seem to have been released on CD until 2000, by BBC Music. The 1989 concert at the Festival Hall was originally released by the Enja label. The other band and their EP mentioned in the article don't appear to exist. The creator's only other edit to Wikipedia was to insert a joke edit about Chuck Norris in another article. There have since been a couple of other Pioneer Record labels started up to release dance music, but they have nothing to do with this supposed label. Richard3120 (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newsclick[edit]

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

Fails the rigor of WP:NCORP.One news-article do not maketh encyclopedic notability.~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: what's Z? samee converse 10:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies...Twinkle API has been behaving crazily since morning and seems to have digested the nomination statement.Please wait......~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲_水 09:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP. FITINDIA 18:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, only one source covering it and that one is a large part quotes from the company; not enough sources or depth for CORP/GNG Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 12:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inshorts[edit]

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

Fails the rigor of WP:NCORP.Flooded withnews about funding stuff.Typical churnalism-practicing-sources. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲_水 09:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP. FITINDIA 12:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, can't find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Asha News. Consensus that content doesn't belong but possible search term, so deleting and redirecting. —SpacemanSpiff 07:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jhabua news[edit]

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

Seeking a redirect to Asha-News(which may be another non-notable channel), for now.Nil coverage in other reliable sources. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable references for claims made, seems promotional. Norcaes (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲_水 09:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggesetd per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Citizen (India)[edit]

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

Well.....A lot of eminent personalities have written pieces on the website.Nothing more, nothing less.And, zero mentions in reliable sources apart from some brouhaha over some spotlight grabbing stunts w.r.t to the Tarun Tezpal rape-case. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator's comments. Plus, seems to be some bias in rebranding widespread criticism as a rise to 'prominence'. Any other facts on the page are simply referenced to the publication itself. Norcaes (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲_水 09:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Attila (metalcore band). Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack to a Party[edit]

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

I cannot seem to find reliable indepth coverage--not even an AllMusic review. There is discogs and music download sites but those certainly do not count toward GNG TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. London Hall (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A different and more notable album by the same band has also been nominated for deletion, but this early release really has no significant coverage beyond basic listings of its existence. Its release can be mentioned as a brief historical fact at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I can't source it either, but a redirect to the artist article at Attila (metalcore band) seems to me to be a fair, policy-based outcome per WP:ATD-R. What do fellow editors (TheGracefulSlick—London Hall—Doomsdayer520) think? Sam Sailor 08:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲_水 09:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: Sorry for the delay. I have been a frequent participant in album AfDs for the past few months and have noticed that this recommendation is becoming more frequent. As you said, it's a fair policy-based solution and I have no problem with it for sketchy album articles in general. But while redirects are cheap and easy, so is reversing them, and instead of just eliminating the data we leave open the chance for someone to bring it back into the light again and again. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: No worries. Alternatives to deletion is an often overlooked part of our deletion policy, and redirects from albums to e.g. an artist article or a discography article are so common we even have a specific WP:RCAT for these cases: {{R from album}}.

I can't see anything in the article history that suggests we would have edit warring over a redirect. No need to cross bridges before we come to them. And should a problem arrise, a typical scenario would be an IP editor restoring the article without better sourcing, then a simple solution would be to put the redirect under WP:PCPP and eventually WP:SEMI, should the problem persist. In retaining the article's history rather than deleting it, we not only comply with deletion policy, we also comply with editing policy, and leave a little window open for someone to source the article adequately, rather than start from scratch.

Even if a case was made for deleting the current article for whatever reason, a Delete and recreate as redirect !vote would be more logical rather than just Delete: this title typically got 20–30 daily views in April, and if it did not exist and someone requested it at WP:AFC/R, I would not hesitate with creating it as an {{R from album}}. Sam Sailor 17:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: Well explained as always, but a question remains. This collection of policies appears to be so well established that it might as well be the outcome for most, or all, album AfDs. So why have discussions? If someone decides an album article should be deleted, when they hit "XfD" (or they start it manually), should the system just tell them to redirect to the artist's article and see if anyone reverses it later? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: We have these discussions, I think, because Twinkle makes it far too easy to hit XfD, and does not come with a reminder saying "Before nominating an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion" the same way the edit notice does. I am sure a function could be added to Twinkle that searched for e.g. {{Infobox album}}, found the value in the |artist= parameter and suggested a redirect. Should we make a joint effort to propose such a function at WT:TWINKLE or WP:VPT (or whereever the best venue is)? But until then I think we should try to raise awareness about WP:ATD by participating in the AFDs listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs. (That is very much a reminder to myself.) ... Perhaps you would reconsider your "delete" !vote in this discussion? Best, Sam Sailor 07:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Attila (metalcore band) as per WP:ATD-R. A reasonable search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evolver Music Inc.[edit]

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

Non-notable company with no sources provided to back up claims. Tinton5 (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non.notable label, fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You state the company has released award winning albums but you failed to provide any information regarding these awards. If they do exist please provide the name of the awards and sources to back them up. If you can't I feel the article needs to go Freetheangels (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲_水 09:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly put award-winning and corrected since Betty Moon was actually nominated for multiple awards while on A&M/Universal records. This is now fixed, and all citations, links and relevant stats have been added to back the relevancy of the label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbobbradley123 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Betty Moon: fails WP:NCORP and WP:NMUSIC. I can only find ten releases by the label, all of which are Ms Moon's own output. Of the references added by Mrbobbradley123, two fail to mention Evolver Music at all, three are simply "released on the Evolver Music label" passing mentions, and the only even vaguely noteworthy reference is the Soundgirls blog, in which Ms Moon writes her own article and uses it to plug her label, so it's a primary source. No evidence that this label has any notability beyond its founder. Richard3120 (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like another case of a self promoting company (links at bottom use words like "official") --Sau226 (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Islamictube[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲_水 09:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - there are multiple significant sources (some given in article) that have a small amount (4 or 5 lines, usually) on Islamictube, with a high repetition of data between them. There are also a couple of books that give a couple of lines on it. It all seems to come together to form a number of strong mentions in reliable sources. Because a large number of weak notability sources is still weak, it remains delete (especially since it is functionally the same couple of duplicated paragraphs), but it only needs a bit more to be a weak keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To me, the article's promotional tone fails NPOV. I don't find a clear way with existing sourcing to write an encyclopedic article with improved neutrality without primary sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of DART Bus Routes[edit]

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

Unsourced list of routes, no evidence of notability. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIR Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIR.MB 03:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect delete page as per norm, per WP:NOTGUIDE but for WP:CHEAP can we redirect to Dallas_Area_Rapid_Transit#Buses as possible search target WP:ATD --Quek157 (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Kassel[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced and semi-advertorial WP:AUTOBIO (creator = User:JeffKassel) of an actor. While there are notability claims here that might qualify him for an article if they were properly referenced, the article claims nothing about him that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to clear WP:GNG -- but all I can find on a Google News search is a few glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, not coverage that's substantively about him for the purposes of helping to establish his notability. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article lacks anything even close to a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R⁺ 08:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per no WP:RS found at WP:BEFORE, should be a BIOPLOD. --Quek157 (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 04:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thrillophilia[edit]

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

I fail to see any significant and/or non-trivial coverage in reliable sources.Typical news about aspects of funding and/or promo-interviews and/or PR-releases.Fails WP:NWEB and/or WP:GNG. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 08:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R⁺ 08:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. FITINDIA 13:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 04:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RummyCircle[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWEB as well as WP:NCORP.No non-trivial and/or significant coverage in reliable sources. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 08:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More comments neede
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R⁺ 08:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP. FITINDIA 13:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Momoko Hosokawa[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since February, with no improvements. Concerted searches on the net in English find only trivial mentions already cited in article: that she wrote these two plays and died in a plane crash. That's it. I tried searching in Japanese, but found nothing, not even a confirmation of the kanji of her name. This is not enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR, though if someone can find sufficient print materials, I will withdraw. Michitaro (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't find the coverage to be trivial. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain? To prove notability, there needs to be significant coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail" (WP:SIGCOV). None of the sources cited--and none that could be found in net searches--do that. They offer nothing more than "A Japanese woman died at age 28 in a plane crash after writing 2 plays." Nothing about her birth, education, career, her writing style, approach to theater, specifics of her death, etc. Even her real name is unknown. Nothing. You cannot create an article from that. Michitaro (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Available sources say very little about her, as described above. Search finds nothing more.104.163.159.237 (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R⁺ 08:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hellointern[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Some references have been addedsince the previous Af d. But almost all ofthem are at best advertorials--disguised press releases of the sort so common in Indian newspapers. The article in Economic Times, is not a press release, but it covers several such enterprises, with just a mention of this one among the others DGG ( talk ) 08:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As you say, thinly-disguised advertising. Deb (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If someone is going to spam the English Wikipedia, they should at least do it in English. Dr. Vogel (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement. Barely notable. Previously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellointern -- Alexf^(talk) 11:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per my earlier AfD, although two additional refs have been provided now, one of which is a blog, another the ET piece which is rather trivial. Also, this is nothing more than paid COI without the declaration and willful violation of our requirements. —SpacemanSpiff 11:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably should have been G11'd. Promotional article lacking notability. Natureium (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Aho[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted in February 2018 - no more notable since then. Fails WP:BIO. References are routine announcements. Promotional article. There are interviews with a DIFFERENT Mike Aho at Vice and Hypebeast. Edwardx (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aho may well be an excellent executive producer, director, writer, but my searches fail to produce the sort of WP:SIGCOV needed to pass WP:ANYBIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R⁺ 08:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. By the looks of it, it's an autobiography or COI-based editing; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Host Healthcare[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH just a regular nurse staffing business nothing remarkable here. Should have been AfD'd not sent to Draft where we can't as easily have a deletion discussion involving notability. Legacypac (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R⁺ 08:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete yep fails NCORP, obviously here to give visibility. I've informed the creator, Ksands7 about the oblibation to disclose paid editing. I am not anticipating an answer as they have not edited since March but we'll see. Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, fails GNG and WP:NCORP (and WP:SPIP) HighKing⁺⁺ 17:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoyan Mok[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER B dash (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Winners of Miss Hong Kong are generally considered notable. Google News search is replete with in-depth biographical coverage: e.g. [4] [5] [6] from different news outlets in Hong Kong and different years. Deryck C. 16:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets the WP:GNG criteria with plenty of independent coverage. It does not matter if she was a minor entertainer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edelweiss Cheung[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER B dash (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG with http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2008-07/23/content_6868870.htm http://www.womenofchina.cn/html/report/93908-1.htm (lifted from xinhua the major news agency in China) and still in the news a decade later: http://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/people-events/article/2109677/miss-hong-kong-2017-juliette-louie-and-four-other Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ENT & coverage is shallow and incidental. Insufficient to build an NPOV bio. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Finally, there are reliable sources available now. E.g.:

http://scmp.com/lifestyle/fashion-beauty/article/2146391/miss-hong-kong-pageant-runner-who-was-big-winner-when ,South China Morning Post (since 3 day ago) http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2008-07/23/content_6868870.htm ,China Daily http://english.sina.com/p/1/2008/0720/172356.html ,Sina english — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.50.214.138 (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added reliable sources in Main article and re-create new version and wiki style.

.. 74.50.214.138 (talk)

Keep. Thanks for brushing up the article. Deryck C. 16:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lauran De Winter[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. The majority of his work is in short films, can only find blogs and interviews as sources. Rogermx (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R⁺ 07:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When the article itself says an actor is best known for a film with a redlinked title, that's a bad sign. There is no indication in the article or in any searches that there has been any significant notice paid or that this actor's roles have had any impact. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Eleison Group[edit]

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

Delete No indications of notability, most of the article promotes the founders and the services, entirely promotional, fails WP:SPIP. References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R⁺ 07:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. Promo 'cruft to the point of being G11 eligible. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Blue Feather[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage to carry him over WP:GNG in lieu. The strongest notability claim here is winning an award ("Indian Summer Music Award") that is not major enough to pass NMUSIC #8 in and of itself; while this tries to drag the word "Grammy" into things to make him sound more notable, he was not a Grammy nominee in his own right, but merely a session musician on somebody else's album (which is not a notability freebie at all). And performing at "numerous nationally advertised powwows, festivals, and churches" only counts as a pass of NMUSIC #4 (touring) if media produce and publish editorial content about the tour (e.g. concert reviews), and is not an automatic pass just because touring has been stated. But the only sources here are a blurb's worth of content about him in an overview article about one festival, and a brief glancing mention of his existence in a press release about a new age seminar. This is not enough coverage to make him notable, but the article claims nothing about him that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R⁺ 07:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of significant coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2012 TVB Anniversary Awards[edit]

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

An event is not notable, fails WP:GNG B dash (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per precedence of 2005,2007,2017 versions. No need any relishing and merger decision. per admin take, please request userify option to good standing user if any user will try merging. Here the copying comes again.Quek157 (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2011 TVB Anniversary Awards[edit]

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

An event is not notable, fails WP:GNG B dash (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per precedence of 2005,2007,2017 versions. No need any relishing and merger decision. per admin take, please request userify option to good standing user if any user will try merging. Here the copying comes again.Quek157 (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2010 TVB Anniversary Awards[edit]

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

An event is not notable, fails WP:GNG B dash (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per precedence of 2005,2007,2017 versions. No need any relishing and merger decision. per admin take, please request userify option to good standing user if any user will try merging. Here the copying comes again.Quek157 (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2009 TVB Anniversary Awards[edit]

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

An event is not notable, fails WP:GNG B dash (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per precedence of 2005,2007,2017 versions. No need any relishing and merger decision. per admin take, please request userify option to good standing user if any user will try merging. Here the copying comes again.Quek157 (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2008 TVB Anniversary Awards[edit]

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

An event is not notable, fails WP:GNG B dash (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per precedence of 2005,2007,2017 versions. No need any relishing and merger decision. per admin take, please request userify option to good standing user if any user will try merging. Here the copying comes again.Quek157 (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Reynolds (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Next to no discography, and only coverage is in a niche blog and that was after his death, which does not establish notability. Mentioned in passing in other sources. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added a link to the entry about the subject in Chilton's "Who's Who of British Jazz", which shows a presence in a standard reference but I am dubious whether an entry there is sufficient for WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: appears to be a noted musician, who had his own band. The sources in the article and per GBooks search ([7]) are sufficient to justify a stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R⁺ 06:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RedGirraffe[edit]

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

Promoting of new minor business. Glorified with business listing and opening news. No indepth independent sources to pass WP:NCORP, no evidence of notability. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:NCORP; promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R⁺ 06:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, fails GNG and WP:NCORP, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion either. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paymentsense[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP. They generate a lot of PR coverage from conducting surveys but the company itself receives no coverage. SmartSE (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'm inclined to go with nom - they receive a lot of mentions in various places, but only a few meeting WP:SIGCOV, including the actual Financial Times ref. The other bits are fasttrack working with the FT, and their paragraphs on each company on the list come across as more like advertising rather than reliable sources. Nothing else cropped up in my WP:BEFORE sweep. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More comments needed to form a consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R⁺ 06:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A run-of-the-mill company with no indications of notability. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Božidar Novak[edit]

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

I'm not clear on what the claim to notability is here. This is basically a resume and I'm not finding any substantial sourcing. Perhaps there are sufficient sources in another language, but as is, this article doesn't seem like it needs to exist. Marquardtika (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needing more comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R⁺ 05:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Beir[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actor, specializing in guest appearances on television serials. Quis separabit? 02:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a whole bunch of minor appearances does not add to notability. We have a lot of articles like this that need to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needing more comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R⁺ 05:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I would close this as delete, but no one has addressed the concerns expressed by the article creator, and evidently aren't inclined to do so. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Scanlan[edit]

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

Speedy deleted before, now time for a full AfD. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Legion M is of marginal notability, so hard to see how Scanlan could be notable. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA, who has been repeatedly warned for COI editing. Edwardx (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Promo 'cruft. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I would like to address these two comments: "Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources" - citations from his page include Variety, NBC News, USA Today, Forbes, and LA Times.

"run of the mill businessman" - Paul has founded two companies which have secured hundreds of millions in funding (see MobiTV and Legion M pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_M, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_M) and are working to shape the technology and distribution models of the entertainment industries. MobiTV was the first company to stream live television to mobile devices, which is certainly a notable accomplishment. He is currently President of MobiTV.

Additionally, Paul's co-founder in Legion M and MobiTV (Jeff Annison) has a Wikipedia page that is very similar in source material and length, and his page has no comment for deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Annison. Alexanderson89 (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R⁺ 05:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Wild[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with minimal local news coverage (all from the same source Community Impact Newspaper, mostly brief mentions in the "Local Events" section and the one article about the Wild signing a lease to play in the H-E-B Center, which they have since lost) and a few WP:ROUTINE game coverage from other teams. The article seems to have been created with "presumed notability" as they claim they are professional, however, there is no guideline for such a claim in WP:NORG (specifically WP:ORGSIG) and we must judge on GNG alone. As this is currently a travel-only team that played a single home game (of which, I can find no independent coverage from against a semi-pro team), it is either WP:TOOSOON for significant coverage or possibly just not notable. Yosemiter (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. 10^Eleventeen 16:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not enough opinions to form consensus...Leaning delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R⁺ 05:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with Theories of urban planning.

Radical planning[edit]

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

This article is a theory within urban planning and urban theory. I recommend that it be merged with urban planning under one of the subsections. For the AFD reasoning, this article only has one source and that source is WP:UNDUE academic research. It is not notable enough to have a stand alone page at this time. The existing page has been around for some time, it at least needs some secondary sources to not be WP:PROFRINGE. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R⁺ 05:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — F R⁺ 05:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep. I'm not really familiar with urban planning / urban theory concept at all, so my ability to evaluate sources in the content field is poor. That said, Google Scholar returns a lot of hits on the topic, some of which (~~here, for example~~ pdf link not so much working, but this article) seem to be quite independent of the originators of the term. Radical planning also appears to have been discussed here, in The Oxford Handbook of Urban Planning. I don't doubt that our current article has undue weight problems (and, in general, is just a lousy little stub). But I don't think this is a WP:FRINGE topic at all; fringe theories don't get section-level coverage in Oxford University Press books. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the link to the first source "Insurgent Planning" is broken. I personally would love to have the range of all planning theory on wikipedia, but WP:ISNOT a compendium of lesser or vague urban theory terms, nor is it a place for cutting edge ideas or practices (and there are many, trust me, urban planning is a field of acronyms, ideas, theories, practices many of which are not widely accepted). WP:OR applies to the first source. The second may be helpful but it is aspirational and based on WP:OR sources rather then being specifically encyclopedic. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not interested in wading into this field of study. But I do think that an Oxford-published book cannot possibly constitute "original research" as we use that term in Wikipedia: a policy which prevents editors here from engaging in original research themselves. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Publishing publishes a number of different books, that doesn't make them wholly devoid of original research. In fact if you read the passages, you would note that the authors base their specific phrasing not in general, but based on three very specific research papers. A summary of original research is just that, still research. Let me give a contrast when I go search the American Planning Association's website^[1] for radical planning I don't get anything related to this topic. Sure there are research papers that reference it but it is not generally as notable or used in common parlance like rational planning or synoptic planning.Randomeditor1000 (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep — if merging is an acceptable (or even preferred) outcome, then we shouldn't be discussing this here. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allauddin Siddiqui[edit]

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

Notability? ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 04:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close No argument for deletion advanced. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - there is an argument for deletion, not eligible for proceedural close , notablity (i.e.lacks GNG), sad is that no other explanation given. --Quek157 (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete founding a television station is not enough to show notability, and the article clearly fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Union School District, San Jose. czar 03:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Union Middle School[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability through reliable third-party sources. JTtheOG (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Union School District, San Jose This looks like it was created by students or alumni there, given the in-school nicknames listed and internal details about its renovation, not to mention "their jerseys are proudly displayed in the school gym" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Union School District, San Jose, per Angus. Only addition to make is nominator could have done so boldly. John from Idegon (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Union School District, San Jose per standard practice according to policy. AfD nominators should be aware of this policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poletik[edit]

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

Article about a YouTube series, referenced only to its own self-published content about itself with no evidence of reliable source coverage about it shown at all. As always, WP:NMEDIA does not confer an automatic inclusion freebie on every bit of media content that exists -- notability depends on it being the subject of coverage about it in media other than itself. Bearcat (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence in article of in searches of any significant coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bahati Remmy[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Appears to be WP:ONEEVENT Meatsgains^(talk) 03:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable early career journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to delete it... It has the links.. Check at the bottom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasaijaivan (talk • contribs) 04:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIP. Brand new journalist. Not notable scope_creep (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add, no sources, all OR, and likely vanity. The purpose of this page seems to be personal PROMO. Agricola44 (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:BEFORE, "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" before nominating an article for deletion. A quick Google search shows several examples of significant coverage in secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG. She is a very popular journalist and was arrested live on TV;^[2] an incident that was widely reported. I have added these to the article.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] She's also won awards from NBC.^[8] Lonehexagon (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Website Search. American Planning Association https://www.planning.org/search/?keyword=radical+planning. Retrieved 17 May 2018. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://press.vosd.tv/video/t_9EZOMN9JpMU
^ http://matookerepublic.com/2017/01/09/nbs-journalist-bahati-remmy-in-fear-as-mysterious-man-stalks-spies-and-threatens-her-at-jinja-court/
^ https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/uganda-media-crackdown_us_56d5d6f5e4b0bf0dab33808c
^ https://hrnjuganda.org/?p=2557
^ https://www.howwe.biz/news/entertainment/10906/i-was-man-handled-and-sexually-harassed-by-police
^ http://press.vosd.tv/video/t_FuC6TqCIAds
^ http://enewsug.com/journalist-bahati-remmy-rewarded-big-at-nbs-tv/

These seem mostly to be videos and websites. The NBC "awards" are self-described as: After having Lunch with the CEO Kin Kariisa , I walked away with three awards and three Certificates of recognition. I have been awarded for being the most Daring reporter, Best person of the week and NBS TV Personality in other media. I have also won A cash prize, and a Dinner Voucher for two. You can't, with a straight face, be proposing that these demonstrate notability, right? Agricola44 (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 15:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pur (Belgaum)[edit]

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

No notability demonstrated in the article whatsoever, only one source listed, and the entire article comes out to one sentence (not including a sparsely-populated infobox). - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 01:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DEFACTO--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @ZfJames: Legally recognized human settlements are notable per WP:GEOLAND regardless of size. 2011 census says a population of 587.[8] • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gene93k: I wondered if there was a rule like that somewhere, but I didn't see it in the books. Thanks for pointing it out! Show me as requesting discussion closure. - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 14:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP Nomination withdrawn per WP:SKCRIT. - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 14:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pavle Stanimirovic[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:NJOURNALIST and most importantly WP:ANYBIO. John from Idegon (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This article certainly fails WP:PERPETRATOR, but the fellow has a lot of media coverage... I'm somewhat conflicted, but I say 'delete' because there is not a lot of coverage that isn't incidental (i.e. he happens to be referenced as an 'expert' on a specific crime group in a few articles). - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 01:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, my thought exactly. There's a clear failure of notability due to his criminal history, a clear failure of notability pertaining to him being an author and all other coverage of him is simply name checking. There is nothing even faintly resembling coverage in detail in multiple reliable sources, totally independent of the subject. John from Idegon (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Being called an "expert" in some interviews doesn't make one notable (Just because a show calls you an expert doesn't make you one). Interviews about famous people etc don't do it. This is someone who hovers near notability, but isn't there. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being called to comment on some news program, absent significant coverage of himself, is meaningless. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brookfield, Connecticut#Arts and Culture. czar 02:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brookfield Library[edit]

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

small library, does not meet WP:ORG. In particular, it does not clear the WP:AUD requirement. Rusf10 (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does this not meet inherent notability because it's part of NRHP? SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, looks like it's non-contributing to that list. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The former Joyce Memorial Library was apparently located in the old town hall building on Whisconier Road which is part of the Brookfield Center Historic District (Brookfield, Connecticut) and now the historical society/museum. [9][10]. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good point. I wouldn't say that qualified it then, this isn't an article about that building. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else think it might be appropriate to mention that old location and its history and architecture as part of the history of the library within this article?

ɱ

(talk) · vbm · coi) 19:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's a good bit of history for sure. I just want to make sure we don't fall under the assumption that adding that bit of information means it's notable. Just because it was once in a building that later became an historic site won't help this page with its AfD. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but if this article is given substantial enough information on the NRHP contributing property (enough to make it virtually dually about the current location as the NRHP former location), then it should, as mentioned above, be inherently notable.

ɱ

(talk) · vbm · coi) 20:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because at that point it's better and more accurate to make a page just for that building. No one looking for information on "165 Whisconier Rd" is going to think to look up a wikipedia article of the library that was housed in it decades ago. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, If there is enough sourcing to create a separate article about the historic building, I would not oppose it. The subject of this article is the town library which has not occupied that building in over 40 years.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. Here [11] is an old era photo that shows the old town hall with a "Joyce Memorial Library" sign over the front door.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge to town, as usual for local institutions. There's no indication of particular notability , and most of the article is devoted to their hopes to get voter approval for a new building,-- WP:CRYSTAL is therefore relevant also. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some material, sources (Hartford Courant) on history of the library to town of Brookfield, Connecticut, there is not quite enough sourcing to keep. Feel free to ping me to reconsider if 1 or 2 more good sources are found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to town article. Neutrality^talk 03:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'll agree with the rest with regard to the conversation we had above. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC) (same dynamic IP user as commented above).[reply]
Merge per WP:SNOW and WP:CHEAP. If the library building was over 100 years old, I'd support keeping it, but it's not. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Website Search. American Planning Association https://www.planning.org/search/?keyword=radical+planning. Retrieved 17 May 2018. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[2] ttp://press.vosd.tv/video/t_9EZOMN9JpMU

[3] ttp://matookerepublic.com/2017/01/09/nbs-journalist-bahati-remmy-in-fear-as-mysterious-man-stalks-spies-and-threatens-her-at-jinja-court/

[4] ttps://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/uganda-media-crackdown_us_56d5d6f5e4b0bf0dab33808c

[5] ttps://hrnjuganda.org/?p=2557

[6] ttps://www.howwe.biz/news/entertainment/10906/i-was-man-handled-and-sexually-harassed-by-police

[7] ttp://press.vosd.tv/video/t_FuC6TqCIAds

[8] ttp://enewsug.com/journalist-bahati-remmy-rewarded-big-at-nbs-tv/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

Syntasoft[edit]

All Is Well (EP)[edit]

Dami adenuga[edit]

Firdaus Ramadhan (footballer, born 1993)[edit]

Parent rogic theorem[edit]

Cyrillization of chemical nomenclature[edit]

Remo (band)[edit]

National Rural Touring Forum[edit]

Cardiff Fringe[edit]

Center for Wilderness Safety[edit]

Fraser Tolmie[edit]

Adiken[edit]

Mursal Zulfikar (footballer)[edit]

Reza Fahlevi[edit]

Luis Raul Gomez[edit]

Alfred Khashakyan[edit]

PaGaLGuY[edit]

Gekko (optimization software)[edit]

Doorbin (band)[edit]

Triton Troupers Circus[edit]

Tony Clay[edit]

Hertford British Hospital Charity[edit]

List of rulers of the Mossi state of Gwiriko ‎[edit]

GetAmped[edit]

Proteus Conversational Interface[edit]

List of schools in Balete Aklan[edit]

Lists of pornographic actors[edit]

Upkeep Maintenance Management[edit]

13 (Zeitoun novel)[edit]

Oyster Protocol[edit]

Goodwill Industries of the Southern Rivers[edit]

Cityflyer Routes A21 and NA21[edit]

Reid Travis[edit]

Free Melania[edit]

Pioneer Records[edit]

Newsclick[edit]

Inshorts[edit]

Jhabua news[edit]

The Citizen (India)[edit]

Soundtrack to a Party[edit]

Evolver Music Inc.[edit]

Islamictube[edit]

List of DART Bus Routes[edit]

Jeff Kassel[edit]

Thrillophilia[edit]

RummyCircle[edit]

Momoko Hosokawa[edit]

Hellointern[edit]

Mike Aho[edit]

Host Healthcare[edit]

Hoyan Mok[edit]

Edelweiss Cheung[edit]

Lauran De Winter[edit]

The Eleison Group[edit]

Douglas Blue Feather[edit]

2012 TVB Anniversary Awards[edit]

2011 TVB Anniversary Awards[edit]

2010 TVB Anniversary Awards[edit]

2009 TVB Anniversary Awards[edit]

2008 TVB Anniversary Awards[edit]

Stan Reynolds (musician)[edit]

RedGirraffe[edit]

Paymentsense[edit]

Božidar Novak[edit]

Fred Beir[edit]

Paul Scanlan[edit]

Austin Wild[edit]

Radical planning[edit]

Allauddin Siddiqui[edit]

Union Middle School[edit]

Poletik[edit]

Bahati Remmy[edit]

Pur (Belgaum)[edit]

Pavle Stanimirovic[edit]

Brookfield Library[edit]

Leave a Reply