Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 March	10 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Sustainable Agriculture and Resource Management

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

No WP:SIGCOV found in WP:BEFORE. source provided from social media, acronyfinder and dictionary,notice board and seminars info. Fails WP:ORGCRIT CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - google books confirms this organization exists, but doesn't provide significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rashad Nabiyev

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

Created several times, but searches suggest no indication of ability to meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. —swpb^{T go beyond} 14:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —swpb^{T go beyond} 14:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. —swpb^{T go beyond} 14:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that this person is a chairman and a first person of one of the most important Azrbaijan's company like Azercosmos shows that the person is notable and article about him must be kept in Wikipedia. --Interfase (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way here is information about Rashad Nabiyev on web-site of Azerbaijani "Independent Information Agency" (Müstəqil İnformasiya Agentliy). So, the basic criteria is satisfied: There is significant coverage of Nabiyev in reliable independent secondary source. --Interfase (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, notability is not inherited – the notability of Azercosmos contributes to, but does not automatically confer, notability on its chairman. Nabiyev's notability must be established on its own. Second, the coverage you point is not clearly independent – the bulk of its coverage of the subject are two large quotes, one from another source whose identity is not clear, and the other apparently attributed to Nabiyev himself. —swpb^{T go beyond} 20:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources with the information about Nabiyev are clear independent. By the way the web-site of Azercosmos where we have biographical data about Nabiyev is also independent reliable notable source, because it is not his own web-site and Azercosmos is not his own company, it is a government company. So, we clearly see that the basic criteria is satisfied at least by two sources. --Interfase (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All you've done is demonstrate that you have not read (or not understood) the notability criteria, which describe what "independent" means. It doesn't just mean "written by a different person". Azercosmos is Nabiyev's employer: nothing they publish about him can be considered remotely independent, by even the most generous interpretation, government or not. This is simply not open for debate. Nor have you refuted the case I made that the first source you gave isn't clearly independent–saying it is, without showing how, does nothing. You need to understand something about deletion discussions: the administrators who decide the outcome don't just count up the votes – they weigh whether the arguments are sound in the context of established guidelines. I know you don't have much experience here yet, and I believe you're acting in good faith, but please don't imagine you've offered a valid case yet. —swpb^{T go beyond} 14:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly understand notability criteria and see that there is enough information in independent reliable sources (including site of Azercosmos as it is not own company of Nabiyev) showing the notability of Nabiyev. Independent Information Agency of Azerbaijan is also reliable independent source showing his notability. You may have another opinion but I think that my arguments (I didn't just voted as you can see) will be clear for administrators as well. --Interfase (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I clearly understand notability criteria...independent reliable sources (including site of Azercosmos as it is not own company of Nabiyev)" Then no, you don't understand. Maybe you've decided not to understand. Some sources can be argued as falling in a gray area; the subject's employer is never one of them. —swpb^{T go beyond} 17:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interview of Nabiyev in English to "The Business Year" with the biography of Nabiyev. One more reliable independent source showing the notability of Nabiyev. What else do you need? The book about him? --Interfase (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way the first two Additional criteria of WP:ANYBIO are also satisfied. In 2014 by the Order of the President of Azerbaijan Rashad Nabiyev for services in the development of space industry was awared with the Progress medal [1]. As you can see the contribution of Nabiyev in his specific field was recognized by the President of Azerbaijan and he received a well-known and significant award of the Republic. --Interfase (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is a bit more convincing. I don't know if it's enough, but I'm glad you dug it up and I hope you add it, sourced, to the article. —swpb^{T go beyond} 17:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Interfase (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 06:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can see he has done some things of note, and there is at least one good RS, but he really needs more than this to establish WP:NOT. As mentioned, the fact he is a chairman of a large company, and has won a medal doesn't automatically confer notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually does. Nabiyev was awarded with the state "Progress Medal" for his signidicant contributions in the development of space industry in Azerbaijan. According to WP:ANYBIO, the person is notable if he has received a well-known and significant award or honor (Nabiyev has received such one), or has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field (Nabiyev received the award for his recognized contribution in his specific field). --Interfase (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to KZPK. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K277BS

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

A WP:BEFORE found no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:ORGCRIT CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a re-broadcaster with no significant independent reliable-source coverage it lakcs independent notability. Could also Redirect it to KZPK, if in fact that is what it re-broadcasts. Softlavender (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per NMEDIA, carries seperate programming (simulcasting an HD subchannel otherwise unheard by the listening public. in this case the HD3 subchannel) from main station (the majority of the listening public only hears the HD1 station) which makes it notable allowing it to have a page of it's own. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:09 on March 2, 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KZPK. One of the conditions that a radio station has to meet to qualify for its own standalone article is that there's at least some evidence that it's actually the subject of some reliable source coverage in its own right, beyond simply being able to show an FCC profile as evidence that it exists. The FCC profile is certainly a necessary source for some of the content that a radio station's article should contain — but it is not a sufficient source in its own right to get an article kept if no other real sources can actually be provided. Fundamentally, a rebroadcaster station like this should be a redirect to its originating programming source, not a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KZPK as per Bearcat. Not enough RS here to establish WP:NOT. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KZPK per the above. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KZPK - plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheed Pir Chandam

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

Searches have only turned up hits from Wikipedia mirrors and Facebook. There's a chance that the subject may have been real, but he certainly isn't notable; no notability or even existence can be definitively established. This seems like yet another in a long line of random articles created about local unknowns among South Asian religious figures. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete a really tough one to figure out since it's so poorly referenced (at least in English) and the subject lived 800 years ago. I don't really want to vote delete since a delete vote could be disproven with credible references, but I don't really see what else we can do (maybe a merge to the person he learned from?). SportingFlyer (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note ~~Weak Delete~~ - I suspect the building would be notable and possibly the subject as well - 800 year old shrines typically are notable. What is really needed here is someone well versed in Sindhi and Urdu to look for sources. The English variant we're using may be mangled. ~~Barring sources, this fails WP:V, hence my !vote - and I'll be amenable to changing it should any credible source emerge (which I have not been able to find)~~Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The more proper English spelling is Pir Chandram (there is a village there, road). Some sources in English do exist - e.g. [2].Icewhiz (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The building pictured is probably this one - google maps.Icewhiz (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a "Chandan Pir Hill" [3] in Sasaram which may or may not be connected (and is better known for an Asoka inscription, not for the Pir).Icewhiz (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the source User:Icewhiz found, Balochistan Through the Ages: Tribes, is referring to the same thing. That source talks about a Pir Chandram near Chhati, which is a few hundred miles away from Dakhan and Medaji, where Pir Chandam is. There are sources that mention the village of Pir Chandam, and there is a shrine there. Here is an article mentioning an Urs at that shrine. If we redirect to Dakhan or Medaji, we can mention at that article that there is a nearby village of Pir Chandam with a shrine, but I don't see that the shrine is clearly dedicated to a figure named Shaheed, but I'm not sure. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shaheed or shahid is a title here. As is Pir. A title which is self implicitly about a Muslim (and for Pir a Sufi) figure. The different locations on the subcontinent named Pir Chandam/ram/an/ran may all be for the same Pir (or not).Icewhiz (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC) If the individual has a shrine (or even possibly multiple shrines/locations) - he probably is notable and there probably are sources, quite possible non-English ones.Icewhiz (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced. The sources as listed are just the names of the individual's teachers, Bahauddin Zakariya and Lal Shahbaz Qalander, so I looked for a biography of them but didn't find one in English. There is likely to be one in Urdu, so perhaps there is mention of Pir Chandam in that. I didn't find mention of the individual in material about Bahauddin Zakariya or about Lal Shahbaz Qalander. Unless something more is found, I'm not planning to !vote one way or the other. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:GEOLAND. The small village, road, and shrine 1.65km east of Dakhan pass WP:V (news reporting, map, and a number of other sources (e.g. flood relief and meteorological). Details on the Sufi Pir (or saint) currently lack a citation.Icewhiz (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and rename. I've changed my mind. I'd support an article about the village titled "Pir Chandam". The article would basically say that the village exists, it is near Dakhan, and it has a Sufi Shrine. If the proposal is keep and rename, then I support that. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's what we've got at the moment that passes WP:V (+retaining the picture of the shrine which would be a shame to lose if unlinked). I presume this Pir is notable as an individual - but we need someone who is good enough with Sindhi or Urdu to locate sources.Icewhiz (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am very poor at Urdu, but it is usually enough if there were something available online, but I haven't found anything. Do you (or anyone) have any leads in Urdu? Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid not, and in this can Sindhi would also be highly relevant. I haven't been able to find the proper spelling for the village in Urdu or in Sindhi (and I looked - however wasn't able to find bi-lingual maps or other such sources on-line. Found lots of google-maps clones and for some odd reason google maps only has the English name on this one) - which if I had I might have been able to locate something off of.Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 06:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- as per Smmurphy and Icewhiz with the focus of the article changed to the village and shrine. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VIPRE

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

Inadequate evidence of notability . The single PCmgazine review isn't enough, and there isn't anything else here as a reliable source., nor did find anything additional. Earlier versions had highly promotional content also. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wondered when I started my search, but I think this is a case where they've changed names too often for their own good. The three top references, all of which I added, are independent coverage of the company, and we also have CounterSpy (software), which is about a product of Sunbelt Software. (See my note on the talk page for the Vipre article suggesting a merger of some sort, which pre-dates this AfD). The sources indicate that the company was originally Sunbelt Software; there's a merger and a re-founding in its history, but there are three corporate names and probably more sources yet to be found in addition to the 3 (and further reviews of the product that I didn't add). The editor with the apparent COI has been trying to make a case via accolades/distinctions; reading the reviews, that doesn't apply, but I believe GNG is met. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This anti-virus product recently was rated one of the best a nti-virus products by the premier anti-virus rating organizations.[4] From a software design/technical point of view their product is very good. However, from a marketing point of view Avast/Norton outdo them. But I think the product gets an adequate amount of industry citations/awards to merit a Wikipedia article.Knox490 (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning - Thanks for your notes and direction. The company does have a confusing history and naming conventions. The history is Sunbelt Software, GFI Software and ThreatTrack Security dba VIPRE. Although our legal name is ThreatTrack Security, we are associating ourselves with our DBA- VIPRE. www.VIPRE.com I'd be happy to help source this with our legal docs that may help. I'll look for guidance here. I don't want the page deleted if I can work with you all to source the edit requests. Jasongrantnorton (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Jasongrantnorton, legal documents are of no use; the issue of the name isn't that important in this discussion, and legal documents are, at any rate, primary. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Perhaps some of the Keep !voters can provide links to references? Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a notable company/product from the coverage, with multinational operations, and referenced in a number of industry titles. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well known in the industry and there are more references when you look for the previous names. Not a household name however. Shritwod (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the programs reviewed in AV-TEST. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Brooklyn and Bailey McKnight. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Squared (web series)

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

Nominated for deletion for not being notable enough for inclusion. There seams to be only one source other than YouTube site to support this channel WyrmVane (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grahame, this series has nothing to do with Australia. It is an American YouTube series; the founders and hosts, Brooklyn and Bailey McKnight, are American. SunChaser (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, my bad.--Grahame (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've fixed the title of the article and of this AfD: The web series is called Squared, not Squared2. SunChaser (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brooklyn and Bailey McKnight (the series founders/hosts). Squared has a (fairly brief) mention in Variety [5], People [6], and MormonMusic.org [7], but that's still not enough to establish encyclopedic notability by itself. SunChaser (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge as proposed by SunChaser. Shadow007 (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brooklyn and Bailey McKnight per SunChaser and leave the current title as a redirect. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Core worlds

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

WP:OR description of a fictional term that is nonetheless only a WP:DICDEF and not notable enough for a full article. Previous deletion discussion did not mention any sources that demonstrate notability. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable topic, no articles in the major science fiction encyclopedias and histories of the genre. The sole "reference" is a gaming manual from a licensed game company, not even from the originator of the media franchise in question. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, it's a term used, not something that's been covered. I'd like to suggest redirecting it, but it's not clear there's anywhere good. Star Wars#Setting is as close as one can get (there's a map), but it seems that any enlightening content there is gone. A simple sentence or two describing the overview of the galaxy would make it worthwhile, but that's a dark path... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that most of the history seems to be from what is now at Universe of Star Wars; that becoming a redirect is where most of the broken Star Wars core links are from. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There appears to be a rough consensus in favor of keeping these. If some articles are felt to be more questionable I would suggest renominating one or two of the more dicey ones as opposed to mass nominations which in my experience are often rejected by the community. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria at the 1967 Mediterranean Games

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

Country-by-year participations at the Mediterranean Games are not notable. These articles do not contain any text, but just medal tallies and tables giving the lists of medallists and/or details results of the events the delegation participated in. It seems some sport enthusiasts are using Wikipedia as a directory for storing sport results and statistics, a violation of WP:NOTDIR.

It should be noted that the names of all medallists are already covered at the sport-by-year Mediterranean Games articles.

This nomination is aimed at establishing a consensus on the inclusion of articles on country-by-year participations at the Mediterranean Games ‘’in general’’ – that is, in cases where they have not received any special or exceptional coverage. 103.6.159.82 (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting this for an IP who pulled it together in Draft space. I agree with the delete rational provided and support Delete all. I've tagged all pages through 1987 with AfD notices. If someone feels it is important they can tag the rest. Many of thesee pages have zero sources, many tagged as such for years. I created a subheading for discussion so no one needs to scroll through the whole list to vote. Legacypac (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and voting

Redirect all to the main articles as the county-per-year tables are not-notable (but are valid search terms). So for example - Algeria at the 1967 Mediterranean Games would be a redirect to 1967 Mediterranean Games, etc, etc. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the heading as it made it look like there's a page called "Discussion and Voting" nominated for deletion in the log. I've also removed 1 article from the nomination as it was already deleted in November. Iffy★Chat -- 09:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not for all. For example Italy at the Mediterranean Games is 14Kb and any of 13 single pages is about 7.5Kb. Then 14 + (7.5 x 13) = 115.5Kb, more that 100Kb than too large. --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing one page was prod'd successfully is useful. I've restored the heading because it makes it much easier to vote without scrolling thru so much marked up text. ~||~

Keep all - Content is valid, search terms are valid. Essentially, these are all presumable GNG passes. Carrite (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it valid? Most of the pages have no sources at all. Legacypac (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion; I'm also notifying Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Multi-sport events about this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all -- First of all, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion about this many articles. Secondly, these are obviously notable. The newspapers of each participating country obviously cover their participation in these games, so there have to be sources in the world. If someone wants to add them to the articles they will, but as per WP:ARTN only their existence need be established for notability to follow necessarily. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not right, WP:ARTN only applies to the content of articles (ie sections), where the notability of the article itself (ie the topic) is established by WP:GNG. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly reasonable to consider per WP:BUNDLE. They are all the same class of article with the same issues. Where is the coverage and why not cover these within the Games Year pages. Legacypac (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, Prince of Thieves? WP:ARTN doesn't only apply to sections of articles. That's silly. ARTN says that the notability of a subject is determined by the sources in the world, not by the sources in the article: " if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Obviously the source material exists for every single one of these articles. Hence the subject of each is notable. Hence each should be kept. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an example, anyone who says these things can be sourced, prove it by making France at the 2013 Mediterranean Games meet the WP:GNG guidelines. And no complaining, France has many newspapers, and 2013 sources are still all on the web. If this is possible, maybe we can consider the validity of these articles. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Testing out this suggestion, I've found multiple sources covering the 2013 French delegation for the Mediterrean Games and its medallists. I'm sure there's more but I'm not familiar with the French internet. [8][9][10][11] SFB 23:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DINC, Prince of Thieves. No one here has to add sources just to convince you of anything. There are sources, which you can see for yourself if you look. The default position at WP is to keep articles. The burden of proof lies on those who would delete or redirect. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really, I don't see enough coverage on the 2013 French delegation to justify an article beyond France at the Mediterranean Games and 2013 Mediterranean Games. The position is to prove to me and other editors with a similar opinion (Redirect/merge) that a set of articles is justified. It is entirely possible that this is this the case, however it would be very helpful for anyone advocating the merit of these articles to give an idea of the sources they are looking at (maybe they also speak French, non?). Purely to keep the discussion consistent, I chose to focus on what is probably one of the most notable countries, to avoid having to discuss the merits of what constitutes a reliable source in Algeria, or whether we should keep some and not others, because obviously we either keep all or done for consistency, unless someone has a workable alternative. Therefore I am mainly talking about France at the 2013 Mediterranean Games. It should be fairly obvious that I made use of google and other searches before even commenting, and I expect others have too, so again, if you have specific sources that demonstrate the merit of these articles, then identifying them is a good idea. It's very common to vaguely link to a google search as if that shows anything at all, but it doesn't help. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And Italy at the 2013 Mediterranean Games is 84Kb :O :O (I'm not the creator of the article). I think that deletion of articles like this is absurd for wikipedia :) --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to "Country at the Mediterranean Games", similar thing was recently done with Nations at the IAAF World Indoor Championships by @Sillyfolkboy:. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that if this outcome is not keep, then there is no reason to oppose a merge to the main pages such at Algeria at the Mediterranean Games, which is a topic whose notability is pretty evident. For the athletics set Pelmeen mentions, I have suggested starting at the "country @ games" level before splitting off if the volume of information requires it. For example, we'll certainly struggle to contain information on all 1500+ of France's medals at this Games on one page, and there will likely be plenty of sourcing to validate some yearly articles on that. Information on small nations like Andorra, on the other hand, would be much better served at a central page in any case. SFB 00:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My general feelings on this article type is I don't see the point of exhaustive results coverage at that venue. People will not be checking France at the 2013 Mediterranean Games to see that bronze medallist Simon Guerin was fifth in his heat, for example, or what the first set score between the 1st round France v. Egypt volleyball game was. I feel the articles would be better if they focused essentially on medalist stats, participation stats, and an addendum of athletes' final finishing positions. On that approach you could actually have one whole sortable table of results per country with columns: Athlete/team, sex, sport, event, result. I think that approach would also help fix the issue of the enormously-sized articles we have for larger events, such as United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics. I think there is an overall content and scope issue that needs addressing here that goes broader than the highlighted articles. SFB 00:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not all of the listed articles have afd notifications. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all... - the main argument in this AfD is the lack of sources in the existing articles. While this is certainly a problem, Sillyfolkboy has shown pretty clearly that this is in large part just a result of no good-faith attempt to find some. WP:V addresses whether or not something is verifiable, not verified. Outside of BLP issues, non-contentious articles being poorly sourced is not criteria for deletion, it's criteria for improvement. While some of the proposed changes to "minimise" such content so that it would be viable to have on a single article spanning many years may work for countries like Andorra, it would range from unwieldy to downright disastrous as the generalised default as is being proposed here. While I can see a case that the smaller articles might in theory make more sense at a single aggregated location, I believe that this is a case of preference rather than one of notability, and in my mind the advantages of consistency in each delegation's articles being named and formatted similarly far outweighs any advantages that case-by-case merges can give. Sellyme^Talk 17:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...and a comment - I urge everyone to remember that step one of the deletion process is very clear that attempting to improve articles should be done before an AfD, and there has clearly been no effort to do that here. That certainly doesn't overrule other Wikipedia guidelines, but keep in mind that some of the content presented here is going to look more bare than it otherwise should simply by virtue of having skipped part of the process. In addition to the sparse citations I mentioned above, I found several articles that were only seemed empty because they were straight-up missing huge portions of their intended content, which is clearly going to reflect poorly on any deletion nomination. This is something that could have easily been fixed, either by the nominator themselves, or by simply going over to WP:MUSE and asking someone who already works on those kinds of articles to improve it. While I'm not fantastic at finding sources (due in no small part to my only speaking English), filling out result information is definitely in my wheelhouse, and I intend to personally improve the holes in these articles pending the result of this nomination. Sellyme^Talk 17:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just point out that I don't doubt the current information presented here can be verified, I am just not sure that an individual country at the games in a given year is notable, in my view, France at the Mediterranean Games is notable, and 2013 Mediterranean Games is notable, and both can give overviews and tables of winners. I will point out that the individual articles can give more information, for example France at the 2013 Mediterranean Games includes all the French althletes, but is someone who came 7th in the 50 m backstroke worth mentioning? It is these non-winners that these articles are essentially lists of, since the winners can be listed elsewhere. We must then determine if these non-winners are notable purely for going to and competing in the Mediterranean Games, similar to how anyone who competes in the olympics is notable, if so, then listing the entire delegation is worthwhile, but otherwise I seriously question the merit of these articles. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the notability guidelines. It doesn't matter whether or not 6th*-placed finisher in the 50m backstroke Eric Ress is notable, because it's not Eric Ress that's being nominated for deletion. WP:NNC is very clear that it's the article that needs to be notable, not every individual piece of content in the article. So the question that determines notability in this case isn't "is it worth including non-winners", it's "did France's participation at the 2013 Mediterranean Games have significant independent coverage". As has been demonstrated above, the answer to that is yes. Sellyme^Talk 13:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. The more relevant issue is; did the limited parts of France's participation at the 2013 Mediterranean Games which are not already covered at France at the Mediterranean Games and 2013 Mediterranean Games have enough significant independent coverage to justify a third article on the exact same topic. Noting guidelines such as WP:WHENSPLIT. Bearing this in mind, it is then up to us to consider what content there is in this article, which is not simply duplicating information from other articles. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that each article was of good quality (which we should - it's our job to fix that if they aren't and not let it impact policy), the size of an article such as France at the Mediterranean Games containing all of the information available at the yearly breakdowns would be an order of magnitude or more greater than the guidelines in WP:WHENSPLIT. Nations such as Andorra may be on the bubble of WHENSPLIT, and I could at least understand the rationale for merger in that case, but I would argue that the WP:SURPRISE would favour having separate articles even then for consistency's sake. For what it's worth, as far as I can tell, the only content on France at the 2013 Mediterranean Games that is present on either of the other two pages you linked is the total medal count and standings, so it's not like these pages are a 99% duplicate with one or two lines of additional information that can't justify a split. Sellyme^Talk 18:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The non-notability of these as topics, better covered in articles about each games or about the country in many games is the primary deletion rational. The almost complete lack of sourcing is just icing on the deletion cake. We have pages on Each Games. We have pages on individual countries acoss the games. We don't need the intersection of these two pages to exist as a poorly sourced unimportant topic. Legacypac (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This deletion discussion is intrinsically flawed since many of the nominated pages don't even have AfD notices at the top of them. How in the world can we expect interested parties to weigh in if the pages aren't tagged right. I move that we suspend the discussion until nom tags pages properly, then relist so that it's up at least a week after all are tagged. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, having some of the affected articles untagged is a serious oversight. And nothing is being hurt by additional time for debate. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my comments on the nomination "I've tagged all pages through 1987 with AfD notices. If someone feels it is important they can tag the rest". Legacypac (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I forgot about that, I feel that someone having pointed it out as an flaw means it should be viewed as important and done. But the discussion here is still quite limited so relisting is not an issue. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just not tag articles and expect other people to do it for you. WP:BUNDLE states explicitly that you have to tag each article. Then WP:AFDLIST says, You must perform all three stages of the process If you're not going to put forth the effort to carry out the nomination process properly the whole thing ought to be cancelled. You should tag the other articles now, and this AfD should not be closed until at least seven days after the last one is tagged. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done 16:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Unless I missed one by accident, they are now all tagged. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You missed Tunisia at the 2001 Mediterranean Games. Would fix myself but I'm not 100% sure what the process is on notifying article contributors in mass-nominations like this are. If you're unaware of the script, User:Anomie/linkclassifier will let you see stuff like this visually without having to actually click on any of the links, it's very useful. Sellyme^Talk 18:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I agree with the reasons of others "keep all". --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one has given a reason to keep except "I like it" as far as I can see. No need to nominate the templates as they will become empty or filled exclusively with redirects and can be speedy deleted or taken to WP:TfD which is the correct venue. Legacypac (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example Italy at the Mediterranean Games is 14Kb and any of 13 single pages is about 7.5Kb. Then 14 + (7.5 x 13) = 115.5Kb, more that 100Kb than too large. And Italy at the 2013 Mediterranean Games is 84Kb :O :O (I'm not the creator of the article). I think that deletion of articles like this is absurd for wikipedia :) --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The tl;dr of the above is that it would be the right size if it only listed medal winners. The question is do we want to list all the competitors, mot of which do not have articles. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it's worth pointing out that France alone has won over 1,600 medals – and they're not even on top of the medal tally. I admittedly haven't done the maths, but I'm pretty confident that there's no way you're fitting that many medal winners into a single article without hitting the WP:SPLIT guidelines. Secondly, I'm aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument, but it's still worth looking at precedent set by other sports articles here. It's certainly very common for a tournament/event/team article to be considered notable even when almost every single individual participant is not, leaving to a page full of redlinks (or unlinked names). Canadian Masters Curling Championships, 2018 ITF Men's Circuit (January–March), Topklasse (cricket), and even other MSE articles like Mexico at the 2007 Pan American Games are articles on notable topics where the participants themselves are assumed to be non-notable. In many of those examples (I suspect the Pan American Games being the only exception), even "winning" the event wouldn't automatically meet notability guidelines, so for the events to be notable themselves we must be saying that the sum of many non-notable participants can create a notable event. I believe this to be true – a nation's entire delegation at a one of the biggest multi-sport events is certainly more notable in my eyes than the sum of its parts (each individual athlete who is participating). This matches the coverage of such events, too: most news coverage will be looking at their nation's performance each day in the Games as a whole, rather than looking at each individual athlete one-by-one. This even scales to the bigger events: I could find you tens of thousands of articles about Australia at the 2018 Winter Olympics, but barely any about Nathan Johnstone, even though he's a World Championships gold medallist.

Perhaps a better argument would be an analogy to a more direct team sport, though. A nation's delegation at a MSE is a team, after all. Should Dorchester Town F.C. only list the players that are notable, and not include those that would redlink? Or should it be based purely on merit, and only goal-scorers get listed, with other players not being listed even if they are notable? If these would remove too much content, should it get merged into List of teams competing in the Southern League with a small snippet of each team listing only its notable players? This may seem like ridiculous comparison, but setting the precedent of deleting articles because most of the individual content isn't notable brings in to question hundreds of thousands of similar end of the line articles, that are sitting right on the bottom rung of notability with few "sub-articles" to link to, and I think that everyone here would agree that the vast majority of those such articles should be largely left how they are. I suspect that in this case there's a "bias" (for lack of a better word) towards Delete because the quality of the articles is pretty terrible. For example, Spain at the 2009 Mediterranean Games seems like the world's easiest Delete vote at first glance, but they sent 249 athletes to the games (more than any nation did at the 2018 Winter Olympics) and won 84 medals, including 28 golds. If that content was well-presented it probably wouldn't even get nominated. Sellyme^Talk 19:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and @Sillyfolkboy: even if, after all, it was he who unleashed this useless mess with the merge of Greece at the 2018 IAAF World Indoor Championships and similar :D :D --Kasper2006 (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fairfield University. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Faith and Public Life

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

Recreation of an earlier deleted article, conform Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Faith and Public Life. Fails notability guidelines. The Banner talk 21:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with its parent organization, Fairfield University; not notable in and of itself. 32.218.47.51 (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and (!vote struck and modified post Bishonen's pointer. Lourdes 13:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)) Redirect to Fairfield University and not merge. This is a puff-piece on the Center and there's nothing to merge here to the main article. The parent article already contains a mention of this Center, which is more than enough. Lourdes 06:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fairfield University. I don't think we normally speedy and redirect, Lourdes, but it would make sense to protect the redirect. Bishonen | talk 12:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I see that Bish has devoured it, under quasi-G4:) (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Human Life Centre, Bhubaneswar

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

Recreated article, earlier removed conform the discussion here; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Life Centre, Bhubaneswar Still fails the notability guidelines. The Banner talk 21:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Lourdes 06:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per Lourdes. The article is indeed now "lengthened", as the author noted when recreating it, but not with details that confer any more notability, and no more independently sourced. I've speedied it. Bishonen | talk 12:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Widdershins, LLC

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

No evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Coverage appears to be mostly about the events the company arranges, not the company itself. There's some WP:1EVENT controversy about the company's ex-founder, not much else. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Events noted on this page have relevance to a fairly large pool of people. If a company page is not appropriate, can it be migrated to something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.114.12 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CORP for notability guidelines. That's all that matters here for companies. The company founder isn't notable for a single event, and that single event itself could have an article if it had significant coverage in multiple sources independent of the event. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage? I can't see any – 0 hits on GNews. The article has been reduced to a few lines, but if anything that's an improvement. "Jeff Mach Events" seems to get a few mentions, but nowhere near enough to demonstrate notability – there was a passing one in the Edison Metuchen Sentinel ref that's been removed. Current references are Facebook and a blog. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is surprising, given the discussions on the article Talk page, that it did not arrive at AfD before this. It appears to be a run-of-the-mill events business; I am seeing nothing to demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH notability, nor is that inherited from recent social media posts concerning a person associated with the company. AllyD (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable company. The founder's alleged sexual harassment may or may not be notable, but would have to be sourced according to WP:BLP and pass WP:BLP1E for that to be included. It doesn't look like it will be. So 2 reasons to delete now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT I'm a bit confused, because I thought the article was already deleted. That being said, this AFD and the responses are a bit misguided. The article was originally one specifically about notable event(s). At some point someone thought it should be renamed for the company, which is silly, because the article was about notable events, not a non-notable company that happened to run them. You can read more in the discussion here: Talk:Widdershins,_LLC#Notability_&_Advertisment_flags Centerone (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Centerone: The article had been deleted via WP:PROD, which is restorable by request. That is why it is now here. All of the contribution history is available for anyone to look at. The article is unarguably about the company, and it is arguable whether the events associated with the company are notable at all. Combining them into one article does not create notability, as was pointed out to you on the talk page. Feel free to write a stand-alone article about any of the events listed, or propose how this article can be kept. As it stands, I found it unacceptable for main article space, so I proposed it for deletion here. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I DID work on a stand-alone article. Someone else made the page about the event about the company, which it is and was arguably and quite clearly not actually about. If you actually read the talk page in depth, and the history, you would have seen a discussion on this very thing. Yes, at least several of the events, including Wicked Faire, and SPWF, amongst others, are easily and quite clearly notable. People have played games with the content. If you'll notice, I'm not actually arguing for an article about the company to be kept, I'm just trying to point out some of the article history so that people can understand the context. Centerone (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Centerone: Would you please point out which revision in the article history represents your stand-alone article that you believe should be kept? ~Anachronist (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no credible claim of notability and no sourcing in the article or found in a Google search to support a claim. Alansohn (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the company is not notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The community has generally set a rather high bar for persons whose principle or only claim to WP:N is being a candidate for public office. Consensus here reflects this. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shireen Ghorbani

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

Per WP:NPOL. We don't usually include candidates for office unless they are notable for another reason, or if their is unusually wide coverage of their candidacy. Neither appears to be the case here. – Joe (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being as yet unselected candidates in future political party primaries — even winning the primary and going into the general election as the Democratic candidate in this house district still wouldn't make her eligible for a Wikipedia article in and of itself. To earn an article now, rather, she would have to be demonstrated and properly sourced as having already been eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before she was a candidate for anything. But that's not what this article or this sourcing actually show. No prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the seat, but nothing here entitles her to already have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not only is she just a candidate, she hasn't even gotten her party's nomination yet.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NPOL: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". I don't see anything that prevents a candidate from being covered in an article, nor do they have to be notable *before* becoming a candidate. Shireen is part of a major movement this election cycle in which first-time candidates, especially women, are running for national level office. She has been covered in multiple independent sources for this, including as part of Time Magazine's coverage of this movement. The above delete recommendations do not seem to take into account Wikipedia's own guidelines. I do have a vested interest in this article being published and believe that the article is within the guidelines as stated. Sfc2018 (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sfc2018 has a COI in relation to this article. See User talk:Sfc2018#Conflict of interest. – Joe (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every candidate in any election always gets some degree of media coverage, so simply being able to show that some media coverage exists is not proof in and of itself that one particular candidate is necessarily a special case over and above most other candidates. The rule for making a candidate notable enough to have a Wikipedia article is normally that she has to have preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy — there can be rare exceptions in extremely rare cases on the order of Christine O'Donnell, who exploded to such a large volume of nationalized and internationalized coverage that her article is actually longer and cites more distinct footnotes than the article about the guy she lost to does. But simply showing three or four pieces of media coverage in her own district's local media is not what makes a candidate notable, because no candidate ever fails to have that. And just having her photo chosen by national media for inclusion in an illustration, when the accompanying text content doesn't single her out for anything more than a brief glancing mention, is not a notability claim that lifts a candidate above the norm, either. Furthermore, the majority of the footnotes here are primary sources that cannot support notability at all, such as "staff" profiles and pieces of her own writing and the routine paid inclusion death notice of her mother — the few sources here that are reliable and independent and about her for the purposes of establishing that she would pass a Wikipedia notability criterion are not enough, in either number or geographic range, to make her a special case over and above most other candidates. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The coverage beyond what we would expect normally for candidates to public office, is not really about her, it is about an alleged large scale phenomenon, and shows her as one of many people said to represent this phenomenon. Even if she gets her party nomination that would not make her default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Yahia Yousf Al Shabli

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

Another BLP with serious concerns. The most--and this is really saying something about secondary coverage--I could find on this man was this. It states he was released from Guantanamo along with others, and, to the best of our very limited knowledge of him, was not charged with anything. Some lists mention him briefly, but we are not a database for these guys, especially when coverage barely exists. And, before it is carelessly brought up, this is a collection of PRIMARY documents--nothing which establishes notability. There are several articles like these with similar issues. List of Guantanamo Bay detainees is a possible redirect. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POVFORK of Guantanamo Bay detention camp. The individual might be notable (not clear per my BEFORE he is - fairly scant coverage (there was some coverage on his release in 2017, I'm not sure I accounted for all possible name variations) - good chance he isn't individually notable) - however the article as presently constituted is not about the individual but about the detention camp. I'm not sure I'd call BLP on gitmo detainees (would depend how we view their POW (or crime) status) - but there's enough other issues that support deletion.Icewhiz (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear case of coatracking that makes the article non-workable in its current form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Helen Bayly

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

A bad case of inherited notability. Apart from giving some advice, learning to use a teleprinter, and entertaining guests, there is nothing here at all notable. It is nearly all about her husband. Derek Andrews (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Derek Andrews I tend to agree with you, checked newspapers.com and HighBeam, 0 mentions for her. There are however some book mentions at this article. I think it needs more investigation. She possibly has some notability - even as just a host for William Stephenson, Alan Turing and Gordon Welchman. I will suggest to the author of the article to clarify these book mentions. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have no policy on notability being earned as a host or hostess. If we did we would have many many more articles. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find good sources in a search. The article seems to rely on inherited notability. Sections such as "she entertained her husband's guests"... well, those do not point towards notability. Of course the times were different, but what we have here are many sources on the husband and few to none on the wife.104.163.147.121 (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references can be added to the article to reinforce notability guidelines. Hmlarson (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'd be interested in hearing the take of the article creator as to what elements of WP:BIO -- or indeed, of any notability criteria on Wikipedia -- s/he thinks the subject meets. For my money, the answer is zero. Casual mentions in other people's biographies don't cut it. Ravenswing 20:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unles sources can be found and cited that discuss her (not her husband or her associates) in some detail. It may w3ell be that there is an interesting story to tell about Bayly, but unless someone has told it in a published reliable source, Wikipedia can't be the place to recount it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bayly's role in convincing her eventual husband to pursue electrical engineering may be worth mentioning in his biography, but this is a clear case of violating the not inherited rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Delete. Article creator and only contributor nominated for deletion. (non-admin closure) WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Departments Officers featured on Live PD

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

This page was replaced by Departments and Officers followed on Live PD, as I incorrectly titled the page I nominated upon it's creation, thus it is no longer needed. Fhsig13 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fhsig13: In the future as the article creator and only contributor, you can request a speedy under G7. But in this case the page should of been moved instead of deleted, so old name would redirect to new, and page history would be maintained. Attribution that the info was original located at Live PD, also should have been shown with the original creation. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and requested a speedy delete for this. There isn't really anything to histmerge, and the lack of an and between departments/officers doesn't make it a useful redirect. WikiVirusC^(talk)

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. This is becoming an avalanche... Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Ekblom

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG, as there are no sources proving notability on the article. There are no Ghits that prove notoriety either. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is very well known as the perhaps most famous of Women preachers in contemporary 19th-century Sweden and in no way obscure in this context. I don't understand what makes her non-notable. The article has several references. This article has already been questioned in a deletion discussion, and the result was to keep. --Aciram (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider your point, but for now, I'm not withdrawing the nomination on the grounds of allowing debate. I will add a request for citations and more content, however. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I have added a little to the article; I noticed that the fact that a novel has been written about her was not in the article here, which it should have been. I thought it already was. --Aciram (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are sources proving notability, and they have been in the article prior to nomination. They just happen to be, not quite surprisingly, in Swedish.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, actually yes there are sources for this article. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 20:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Nominator badly misunderstands our criteria for deletion if they think "no sources proving notability on the article" is one of them. It is not; see WP:ARTN. Furthermore, "no Ghits that prove notoriety either" is also not related to notability. Finally, based on nom's comment above about adding "a request for citations and more content" it appears that they ought to read WP:DINC before making any more such misguided nominations. Oh, also, this article has existed on the Swedish WP since 2005 and they ought to know, right? That is, after all that, KEEP per Ymblanter. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references proves notability. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just because the large corpus of book sources covering this person are in Swedish, that is no reason to delete the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sources for notability were already in the article. Let me suggest another one, published only the other day: Anders Jarlert, "Helena Sophia Ekblom (Predikare-Lena)", in Svenskt kvinnobiografiskt lexikon (online). It even has an English version! Jarlert adds an interesting tidbit: "She is also believed to have been the role model for C.J.L. Almqvist's Amorina, 1822." --Hegvald (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not fail WP:BIO, does not fail WP:GNG, plenty of sources available, some listed in the article or mentioned here. /Julle (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG, article is already well sourced, more mentioned above, lets all go out and play in the snow. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have a snowball! - In my view the subject is notable, there are a few good sources, and since this is a 19th century published female author, seems to be of some relevance. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hi5. Redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramu Yalamanchi

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable entrepreneur. Affiliated with one blue-linked company hi5 that's only marginally notable itself. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or not independent company. The company has been acquired, and the subject does not appear to have a notable career since. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to hi5. Was not able to find any sources on this individual, but they are associated primarily with the one company and redirects are cheap. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My School System

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

Nothing notable about this local newly founded school, fails WP:NSCHOOL. Störm (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly promotional. It is difficult to assess notability here, as searches for "My School System" and "My School" obviously return many false positives. However, the article is not far off the threshold for WP:G11 in my opinion, so I suggest deleting it as an advert that does not currently demonstrate notability. If someone can demonstrate notability and wants to re-write the article from scratch, then I will reconsider my view. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blok (company)

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

Unable to find anymore coverage. Fails WP:NCORP on independence as the coverage there is purely what the company says - absolutely no analysis or secondary coverage on that. There's a mention in wired and interview based coverage in businessinsider. Article is promotional, and also excluded per WP:NOTPROMO. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tiny new company, self sourced, promotional Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Brett

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

No evidence of notability in the article. He's just a dental technician who wrote a non-notable book or two. Lepricavark (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure why this is in Deletion sorting/medicine, but I can't find any indication of notability on google. Natureium (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Natureium: I listed this there because the subject worked as a dental technician. Lepricavark (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see any sources that suggest any notability of the individual or any work that they had published. Fails to demonstrate any notability when judged against WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a book you wrote published does not on its own make someone notable, and nothing else is even remotely close to giving notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG or any plausible SNG rationale for authors. Carrite (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Larraz

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

Article consists of a few basic personal details and the track listings of a couple of albums but nothing suggesting notability. WP:BEFORE searches find nothing in English which could be used to establish notability, though I suppose sources may exist in Spanish. Neiltonks (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First of all, the state of the article is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not it should be deleted. See WP:ARTN. Second, it's obvious that there might be sources in Spanish. So obvious that not to have checked for sources in Spanish violates WP:BEFORE. Third, in fact there are tons of high quality sources in Spanish, which is why the subject of this article meets the GNG and the article should be kept. Just for instance, consider this from El Pais, which, according to our article on the paper, is the second most read newspaper in Spain. And this from El Mundo, also a pretty big deal. Here is one more, but really, a GNews search in Spanish, which should have been done before nomination, will settle this question completely. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, spanish wp has had an article since 2007 with no issues and a good no. of sources that could be used in the wpenglish article, btw, WP:GNG states "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." and WP:NONENG - "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia (although prefer english)", may i suggest that if the nominator, in future, has concerns with an article about a non-english subject, that they bring it up on the relevant language wikiproject talkpage so that editors who are proficient in the language can consider it? Coolabahapple (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the English Wikipedia article is terrible, but virtually all her chart success (both solo and with her band Olé Olé) was in the 1980s, so there's no information on the internet – you can see she's had one minor hit in recent years [12] but in the 1980s she was a big singing star in Spain, with no. 1 records... you'd need to get hold of a copy of Francisco Salaverri's Solo Éxitos (1959–2012) book to check her 1980s chart positions. And her subsequent television career, both as an actress and as a presenter, is well documented in the Spanish Wikipedia article. Obviously she wasn't that famous outside the Spanish-speaking world, but there's a passing mention of her here in Billboard in 1988, for example, which mentions her success in Latin America as well – I think it's safe to say that if she was famous enough to be mentioned in Billboard in an article about Spanish musical talent, the Spanish media of the 1980s will have plenty of articles on her, it's just a case of finding print media from the era. Richard3120 (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article could use expansion and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Number of references are available in Spanish Wikipedia article as mentioned above. Hmlarson (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sole pro-Keep comment is not persuasive whereas the two favoring deletion are. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khaki Tours

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

Notability not established. Of the the two articles, one only mentions the subject in passing, and the other seems very tourism focused. Also, the creator of the post seems to have a COI. Theredproject (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please include this notice in Tourism-related deletion discussions.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a couple more references, while also finding lots of newspapers with brief mentions about the group. All of them largely focus on the city and the variety of tours they offer than the organization's structure. MT Train^Talk 08:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Whatever the nom means by "notability not established," it's clear from the first two sources cited in the article that this company passes the GNG. Those are [13] and [14] in case future editing changes the order. Also, if editors of the article have COIs, there are other means of dealing with them. That is absolutely not a reason for deletion. Finally, as far as I know there's no policy against using sources just because they're "very tourism focused." If I'm wrong, let me know, but I don't see how one could reasonably expect sources on tour companies not to be "tourism focused" to some extent. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--nowhere close to passing GNG i.e. garnering non-trivial coverage in multiple RS.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The brief notice items describing particular tour events are no more than the typical coverage obtained by any start-up in that business domain. Nor does the passing mention of the company as one among several organisations involved in a piece of heritage restoration amount to significant coverage. Nothing indicates this to be more than a run-of-the-mill company going about its business: fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Disgaea#Recurring characters. Consensus clearly favors restoring the redirect. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disgaea characters

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

Redirect was restored by an editor, but page is still unsourced fancruft. More of a fit for Wikia. Such a page could probably be notable but requires a complete rewrite with citations from reliable sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - This is certainly a notable topic. Etna and Prinnies already have dedicated entries. But this article is pretty much all cruft, with some bad writing included. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Large mass of unsourced fancruft, most non-notable characters who definitely do not have this level of detail and coverage. Belongs on Wikia. Essentially, restore to redirect for the same reasons as before. Since being unredirected, zero substantial changes or sources have been added. -- ferret (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Overly detailed info better suited for a Disgaea Wikia, and mostly unsourced too (which would help its case some if it were). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disgaea is a popular video games series and should be put in a draft instead of being deleted Jabunra (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)JabunraJabunra (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter if it's popular, they need significant enough coverage from reliable sources instead. A Draft changes nothing as the same problems would forever exist. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can't say that complete sure on what just said I believe it should be put in a draft Jabunra (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)JabunraJabunra (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect - I have no real objection to a redirect, but I'm doubtful that this is "a notable topic". Nearly all of the characters in the article are sorted by the individual game they appear in, and most of the sources in the series article itself deal strictly with the individual games, which suggests to me that if we are to have coverage on Disagea characters not notable enough to have their own article, it would make the most sense to put it in the articles for the individual series installments.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I don't think it should be deleted - it's a long running series noted for its odd-ball characters, so I imagine something could be written up on it, but I'm pretty sure 99% of the current article is unusable, so I don't think keeping or draftifying makes sense either. Redirect for now, but no objection to someone spinning it back out someday if someone wants to actually write an encyclopedic article about it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Restore the 2015 redirect by Czar to Disgaea#Recurring characters. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Miethke

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

I can find zero coverage of the subject in indepedent reliable sources. Looks like an advert that we've been hosting for the last 7 years. SmartSE (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe Forbes or some stuff in German(?). I re-categorized the AFD from Fiction to Biographical. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough indepth coverage in reliable 3rd party sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: little participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mag Ari

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

Moving on from some "nothing but a name" cases, we have another Somali "town" that geonames says is a "locality", and yes, the coords take you to yet another blank spot on the map. Searching gets more hits than usual because "mag-ari" seems to mean something in Tagalog, but once again there's really nothing but a vaguely located name on a map, with no indication of what's there, except that it isn't a town. Mangoe (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V due to complete lack of sources and there being nothing at the supposed place listed on geonames. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oboow

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

Another "I got nothin'" Somali town, part of a run by one of the usual blocked users. No coords, no cite, and geonames doesn't know about it. Mangoe (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete geonames normally lists places that don't exist, but in this case, there's not even that. fails WP:V due to there being no indication of it's existence. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eleonora Rossin

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

Contested prod. Despite a concerted effort, and asking a number of experienced editors who are good at article rescue, I am completely unable to find any reliable and independent sources for this person whatsoever. The one source I added from Google News is actually a press release, and the book Oltre l'arcobaleno appears to be self-published. A shame as it superficially looks like a notable topic, but our verifiability policy cannot be ignored. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At least two of the Italian sources referenced in the article cover her in some detail.--Ipigott (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're press releases. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ipigott are there any Italian sources? I wasn't able to turn up much of anything in English. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After reading the article's talk page, I've changed my keep to delete. The article seems to be bogus.--Ipigott (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above - fails N and appears to be more of an efforts to promote her Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find adequate verifiable sources in English, Italian or French. Also, someone machine translated this from another language, which was also the reason why the article was deleted in French Wikipedia ("Usage d'un traducteur automatique: Passez par votre brouillon"). There seems never to have been an article in Italian wikipedia, so chances are it's a machine translation of a WP:COPYVIO from elsewhere. Not sure what the legal status is on such translations. Fiachra10003 (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sinopoli didn't conduct that piece that year, - just one example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comprehensively fails GNG as well as the alternative criteria for composers, authors and music performers. Note that a user on Italian Wikipedia with the same name as the subject created the article "Eleonora rossin" three times in 2009. It was deleted all three times [15] — the first two as "blatantly promotional", the final time as "test page, nonsense, or stupidities". It was created a 4th time on Italian Wikipedia as "Eleonora Maria Rossin" by the same person who created the article under discussion here and likewise deleted as blatantly promotional [16]. She may have been in something performed in the La Fenice theatre, but certainly not for the opera company. She does not appear anywhere in the La Fenice Archives. If she did appear with Valentini Terrani in The Grand Duchess of Gerolstein at the Festival della Valle d'Itria in 1996, it must have been in an incredibly minor role. Observe [17] nor is she listed on the Dynamic recording which lists the full cast. Two of the "references" were deceptively, and I am tempted to say intentionally, misleading. I have corrected them. There is no such publication as NewsSpettacoliEventi. The page is actually notiziabile.it. There is a respected publication, Giornale della Musica, but the site linked in the ref is actually notizie-news.it. Like notiziabile.it, it is basically a PR platform. Voceditenore (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verifiable references can be added. Hmlarson (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article full of bogus information--Jeanambr (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is so full of patently false information that it borders on being a hoax. Here are just a few examples (some of which have been subsequently corrected or removed by me):

Claim: appears on the recording "Pietro Mascagni: Cavalleria Rusticana , with Claudio Abbado, 2000" - There is no such recording
Claim: "In 1997, Rossin made her debut appearance at the La Fenice in Venice in the role of Maddalena in Rigoletto." – La Fenice burned down in 1996 and did not re-open until 2003. She is mentioned nowhere in the La Fenice archives under any date. According to the La Fenice archives, Sinopoli never conducted Rigoletto there
Claim: "She published in 2014 for Feltrinelli Italian Edition the book titled La musicoterapia nelle mente e nel corpo" – patently false. It was self-published using ilmiolibro.it. Feltrinelli merely listed it on their book-selling site where they specifically state the publisher as "ilmiolibro self publishing" [18]
Claim: "Rossin is the niece of Giuseppe Sinopoli and Lucia Valentini Terrani" – zero evidence of this apart from her own claims [19] and information added to the Italian and English Wikipedia articles on Valentini Terrani by two accounts closely associated with this article, e.g. [20], [21] [22]
Claim: "Rossin has performed at the Vienna State Opera, Chicago Lyric Opera, Fujiwara Opera of Tokyo, Kennedy Center of Washington and the 2005 Aix-en-Provence Festival, in the role of Santuzza in Cavalleria Rusticana, conducted by Giuseppe Sinopoli" – the Cavelleria Rusticana claim is patently false. It was not performed at the 2005 Aix-en-Provence Festival at all and there is zero evidence for Rossin having performed in any of the other opera venues mentioned.
Claim: "she made her debut with Lucia Valentini Terrani in Offenbach's The Grand Duchess of Gerolstein at the 'Festival della Valle d'Itria' at Martina Franca" – almost certainly false; she is listed nowhere in the cast for the live recording [23]

A further example of the nonsense... In the article "Enzo Ganassi" is listed as the conductor for two of her videos. However on the videos she posts and her website this person is listed variously as "Renzo Grassi" [24] or "Renzo Degrassi" [25]. I can find no evidence of the existence of either a conductor or a director by any of those three names.

Yet more nonsense... "she began composing for Japanese cinedma [sic], and has been the only female composer for the music of Anime giapu Seraphim Prologue of Mamoru Oshii, with the nickname Burondo sakkyokka". Seraphim Prologue is a book of manga, not a film with a soundtrack. Moreover, one of the accounts associated with this article added that spurious "information" to Mamoru Oshii [26]. Meanwhile, the IP 93.36.166.58 which geolocates to Turin where the subject has a music school, added yet more spurious information to Mamoru Oshii filmography [27] (there is no mention whatsoever of her on IMDB for the two other films to which she had been added as "composer"). The IP also added completely spurious claims to Rossin being the niece of Anna Moffo to the Italian and English Wikipedias [28] and here [29] as did this article's creator [30].

In short, nothing in this article can be trusted. Given that, and the multiple attempts at recreation on the the Italian Wikipedia, I highly recommend salting both under this title and under Eleonora Maria Rossin. Voceditenore (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I usually tend to try and save an article, but in this case, I did not find any reliable source and reading those available, I had the feeling they were self-promotion. Elisa.rolle (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nimki Mukhiya. Consensus is not to have a standalone article. Redirecting rather than deleting, because redirects are cheap. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumika Gurung

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

There aren't enough sources on the web which shows the notability and coverage of her shows. All the sources are either spam or unreliable. I can find no evidence that this person meets the inclusion criteria and has no actual in-depth coverage about the (questionably) notable films/shows in rs. Xenon One (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is worth she was the lead on the Hotstar tv channel (Netflix's India version possibly?) in series Nimki Mukhiya, where she started as the lead in 180+ episodes, over 2 years, which is lot in anybodies copybook. I suspect she probably has a fair amount of coverage. Some coverage certainly. scope_creep (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hotstar is not a TV channel, it is a website and nor it is the Netflix's Indian version. The first episode was aired on 28th Aug 2017, it is not even 1 year old. @scope_creep Xenon One (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is proper clarification. Thanks. Xenon One, I might give you a bstar for prompt work. In that case, I shall post. scope_creep (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @scope_creep I'm very much new to Wiki, but I'll learn new things and then you might give me then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenon One (talk • contribs) 13:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Early stage actor failing to assert WP:NACTOR. Very very new. No coverage outwith routine branding and early stage marketing. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Please note that the show Nimki Mukhiya airs on Star Bharat which is a part of Star India not on Hotstar. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 13:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still non notable. Far too early in the ladies career to have an article. Clearly non notable. scope_creep (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @GSS Hotstar is the Website (app also) of Star India only and on the premium version of Hotstar, all shows of Star India airs simultaneously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenon One (talk • contribs) 18:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nimki Mukhiya, a TV serial in which she plays one of the protagonists. If not that, then delete. Either way, WP:TOOSOON applies. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Famous Company

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

Zero coverage in mainstream reliable sources to indicate that WP:CORP is met. SmartSE (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found a little coverage, but it all adds up to brief mentions, routine announcements, or unreliable sources. Definitely fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreliable sources, promotionalism. Not so famous! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A small agency using wp for an advert. Szzuk (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Fails WP:CORP. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GHSS Ottapalam East

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

This school seems to fail the criteria set out at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - no sourced claims of notability, indeed no refs at all (although a good seasoning of peacock language). I'm not very conversant with school notability; please assess. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G11. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Lo'Waist Gang at si Og sa Mindoro

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

50's Philippine movie; can't find any reviews or substantial coverage at all. (although I approve of the charmingly innocent "plot summary" :]) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - plenty of passing mentions & download sites but no real information about the film: Noyster (talk), 10:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as promotional. MT Train^Talk 12:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spiorbit Pvt Ltd

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

Not a notable company. Could not find any valid refs for the same. Does not meet WP:ORG. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hama revenge massacre

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

Not notable, heavily biased, and mostly unsourced. The few sources that do exist are unreliable ones. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete alleged chemical weapons attack, but the one source doesn't support what the article says. The only party mentioned in the source as blaming Russia for the event is a news agency affiliated with Islamic State and therefore not independent. I can't find anything better which supports what the article says: as with many events during wars, it's very hard to find reliable reports of what actually happened. Take out the unsubstantiated bits and there's nothing left which is worth keeping. Neiltonks (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing does not justify a stand-alone article. Anything that is actually reliably sourced can be covered in larger article on the Syrian Civil War.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Hau

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's eligibility (notability) criteria. Extremely limited career. Severely lacking content and multiple reliable sources. WikiMeWiki (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -mere appearances in a show/ movie that is notable doesn't make the subject notable. Notability can't be inherited as per Wikipedia policy regarding such a subject. Xaxing (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: voted from a blocked sock shouldn't count so more input required please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the creator of article related to the subject of the article? User:Enoch Gilbert

Delete. A few minor roles does not a film star make. --Calton | Talk 15:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Altasciences

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

Article about a pharmaceutical company, not referenced to any reliable source coverage about it for the purposes of satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH: the references here are a business directory, a self-published press release, two primary source websites of non-notable industry awards that receive no media coverage, and one article which namechecks the existence of one of this company's subsidiaries a single time without actually being about it in any substantive way. Furthermore, the editor who originally created this keeps trying to revert-war it back to her preferred advertorialized version, strongly suggestive of a conflict of interest. There's simply not enough legitimate sourcing here to get it over WP:CORPDEPTH, and Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on a nn company; does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run-of-the-mill company with no apparent claims to notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or promotion and is not a yellow pages or directory, references fail the criteria for establishing notability and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 13:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Entertainment P4

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

Unsourced and no indication of satisfying NCORP or CORPDEPTH. MT Train^Talk 13:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Opinions (and !votes) appear to be all over the place. If there is a desire to renominate I suggest waiting a while given this is the 4th shot at deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest cities by area

AfDs for this article:

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

Underdeveloped article (list) dated from June 2017. Seems that nobody is interested in developing it. We can't keep such poor articles in our encyclopedia. WP:TNT XXN, 17:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I will be very happy to contribute to it.

Thanks CrayonS (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I've added two cities, including Shanghai and Melbourne.

I will not let this list go without trying my best to improve it.

Thanks CrayonS (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of largest cities which could have area added as extra columns in the table Andrew D. (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of largest cities which essentially covers the same topic. It's quite disappointing that this is the 4th AfD on this article and very little had been improved. Ajf773 (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

@Andrew Davidson I strongly discourage merging since the columns of List of largest cities are based on population, not area in square kilometers (or km²). Instead of discussing about deleting and merging, why don't you help contribute instead? The subject on it is easy.

Also, I am very much interested in contributing to the article.

Thanks CrayonS (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I take the point which CrayonS makes and have updated my !vote accordingly. I still reckon it will be best to develop one page, rather than maintaining two separate ones. Andrew D. (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Thank you.

I think it might be appropriate to merge it in. Since it is a WP:TNT situation, we could do that to get more attention from contributors. I agree about merging it though, but I don't know too much about these list pages.

Also, it isn't that hard to contribute to because you can just copy the area from a city's Wikipedia article (an act of pure laziness).

It is definitely not a delete.

Thanks CrayonS (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a well-created article on this topic would inevitably run into problems with city-county consolidation. This list is necessarily arbitrary. (exactly what I said on nomination #2) power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. List of largest cities is just a summary article of three lists: List of cities proper by population, List of urban areas by population and List of metropolitan areas by population. Many of the same cities pop up in slightly different order in all of those lists, which is why summarizing them in one table is useful. The biggest cities by area would be a completely separate set – for example, the biggest city in the US by area is Sitka, Alaska with a population of less than 10,000. You wouldn't expect it in a list of biggest cities that can be sorted by population as well as area. I think a list of biggest cities by area would be quite welcome as a separate article. After all, we've had a separate list for US cities by area since 2004 and it looks fine. This one just needs (a lot of) developing. Jafeluv (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Keep is my opinion.

@Jakeluv I agree with you very much.

Someone once told me about the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but you can't apply that to an argument on a 2004 page :)

The page does need a lot of development, if we will stop WP:TNT.

Also, instead of nominating this article for an AfD and do textbook work, we could have been contributors to it instead to avoid this from happening.

All these people in this discussion could have being adding to it more right now.

Thanks CrayonS (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable list. Totally different than a list by population, so separate list. And these cities do get coverage for their size surely. I did some minor work on the article back in August, restoring an entry someone deleted and adding a reference to it. Someone might come along eventually and add to it. Dream Focus 18:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hello. Keep for me.~~ I think we just need to contribute to it. Like @Dream Focus says (that HTML!), it is a notable list and it does have coverage. Thanks CrayonS (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Removed double vote by CrayonS[reply]

Redirect to List of cities proper by population. This page already has a table with an area column and it's sort-able. So one click gives you cites sorted by area. Details there for 100+ cities, why duplicate all this here? Teraplane (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of these cities are listed there. Wouldn't be room for all the tabs of information. Dream Focus 23:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this article/list is silly, how is the "cutoff" decided? 10,000sqkm? 1,000sqkm? 100sqkm? ie. if i add Boston that has an area of 232.14sqkm, if/when it is removed what legitimate argument to remove it ie. backed up by sources, can be made? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Redirect to List of largest cities. MT Train^Talk 06:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List in sad state, but the claim that it is redundant with List of largest cities has been convincingly debunked above.--cyclopia ^speak! 00:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some sources about the subject I posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest cities by area (2nd nomination):

Lincoln Van Doren, Charles; McHenry, Robert, eds. (1971). Webster's Guide to American History: A Chronological, Geographical, and Biographical Survey and Compendium. Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster. p. 764. ISBN 0877790817. Retrieved 2017-06-12.

The book notes:

city area in sq. mi.

Jacksonville 827

Oklahoma City 648

Los Angeles 463

Houston 453

New York 320

Kansas City, Mo.* 316

San Diego 310

Dallas 295

Phoenix 248

Chicago 224

Fort Worth 200

New Orleans 200

San Antonio 183

Memphis 180

Detroit 139

Atlanta 131

Philadelphia 129

Columbus 116

Seattle 99

Denver 98

Milwaukee 97
*On October 1, 1968, Jacksonville, Fla., city proper became coextensive with Duval County (827 sq. mi.).

Parent, Milena M.; Chappelet, Jean-Loup (2015). Routledge Handbook of Sports Event Management. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. p. 278. ISBN 1135104301. Retrieved 2017-06-12.
The book notes:

Edmonton is the capital and largest city in the province of Alberta with a metropolitan population of 1,159,869 over 684.37km², making it one of the largest cities, by area, in North America.
Schwartzman, M.T. (June 2005). "Ashore on a Shoestring: Economical Tips for Pioneering Passengers in the Inside Passage". Cruise Travel. Lakeside Publishing. ISSN 0199-5111. Retrieved 2017-06-12.
Wright, John, ed. (2002). The New York Times Almanac 2002. New York: Routledge. p. 398. ISBN 1135455864. Retrieved 2017-06-12.
The book notes:

In 1968, the population jumped to more than 500,000 when it was consolidated with Duval County, and Jacksonville became one of the largest cities by area in the U.S.
Black, Toban; D'Arcy, Stephen; Weis, Tony, eds. (2014). A Line in the Tar Sands: Struggles for Environmental Justice. Toronto: PM Press. p. 32. ISBN 162963039X. Retrieved 2017-06-12.
The book notes:

For instance, it is estimated that over 700 square kilometres of land—roughly equivalent to the size of Calgary, one of North America's largest cities by area— has been directly disrupted by tar sands mining since the start of the industry in the late 1960s.
Kreuzer, Terese Loeb; Bennett, Carol (2007). How to Move to Canada: A Primer for Americans. New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. 97–98. ISBN 1429906251. Retrieved 2017-06-12.
The article notes:

Edmonton sprawls over a 259-square-mile area, one of the largest cities by area in North America.
Konvitz, Josef W. (1985). The Urban Millennium: The City-Building Process from the Early Middle Ages to the Present. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press. p. 92. ISBN 0809312018. Retrieved 2017-06-12.
The book notes:

He recognized the difficulties in using maps of questionable accuracy and acknowledged the problem of defining the limit of a city. Nonetheless, he was able to reduce his results to several classes of cities, by area: very large cities in excess of 2,000 arpents, such as Peking or Rome, or between 1,000 and 2,000 arpents (5–15 km²), such as Lyon or Florence; large cities, 300–1,000 arpents (1.5–5 km²), such as Brussels, Strasbourg, and The Hague; medium cities, 70–300 arpents (0.35 km ²–1.35 km²), such as Liège, Cadix, and Amiens.

Cunard (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of largest cities. It already has a much larger and better maintained table of cities and can be sorted by area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teraplane (talk • contribs) 00:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Such a list is inherently subjective because the definition of "city" varies so widely between countries and even within a country. It might make sense to list cities in this way in a jurisdiction where the definition is consistent, but a worldwide list is just a horrible pit of WP:OR. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, Merge, or Redirect to List of largest cities: Delete is the first choice as there is No notability for a standalone article. This AFD needs an admin closure for sure. The outcome depends on close attention to policies and guidelines as well as other criterion, and not just a head count. Any !vote except "keep" actually means editors deem a stand-alone article not appropriate. "Merge" and redirects" sometimes causes confusion and they should not. This is the 4th nomination with one deletion and an "article champion" has not emerged. The possibility of Wikipedia:POTENTIAL is negated by the lack of notability. In this case, the target article for both merge and redirect is either List of largest cities or List of cities proper by population. There are three !votes for a redirect to List of largest cities and one for List of cities proper by population. There is one merge !vote for List of largest cities. There are four !votes for delete (including my first choice). A summary would be of fourteen !votes nine consider the article not worthy of stand-alone status and five think it deserves to remain. I have serious concerns with the comments "...summary article of three lists...", so it is appropriate to have a fourth summary list? Now we need a new "Category"? What about "Also, it isn't that hard to contribute to because you can just copy the area from a city's Wikipedia article (an act of pure laziness).". If we have to "copy" Wikipedia content to another article that should be a red flag of original research, that has continuously been mentioned. There are four references and a general source and all can support content but none of the five sources advance notability and that is a criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Paige Renkoski

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

No evidence of notability. Another tragic but tragically common disappearance (about 2,300 Americans are reported missing each day). No evidence of any lasting outcome, such as a change in a law as a result of the case, that indicates that this is any more than just a run-of-the-mill disappearance case. References are typical news reports or routine coverage; not indicative of this case being any more notable. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nom is correct that most missing person cases are not notable. However, when missing person cases continue to receive fairly wide coverage on their 25th anniversary (and for a few years around this date, and throughout) - which is the cases here - they generally are. [31][32] [33] [34][35][36][37] Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per continued coverageas presented above. Notable and relevant sources. BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is only nominally a "missing person" case, because the body has not been found. There's no real dispute that it's a kidnap-murder. As a crime story, it received widespread and continuing media attention. Kestenbaum (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine cold case. WP is not intended as a cold case database, the governing policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SIGCOV ongoing 25 years after she was reported missing. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the current sourcing, this topic passes WP:GNG. Lonehexagon (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- There's nothing special about this case. Sure, its tragic, but nothing out of the ordinary. The media always digs up cold cases in hopes that there will be a new lead (and I think that's a good thing). However, we can't have an article on every crime or disappearance that been featured on America's Most Wanted or the Investigation Discovery channel. It easy to say that there's been recent coverage, but you have to look at the context of that coverage. It's routine, its not as if there has been new developments in the case or its considered the crime of century.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, the standard here is not "crime of the century" it is WP:NCRIME, which this article meets. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:BLP1E should apply too because technically we don't know for a fact that she is dead.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not applicable because all recent coverage has sentences like these from 2011: "has been missing and presumed dead for 21 years...", 2011: "used ground-penetrating sonar and cadaver dogs to search rural areas in Livingston County for a possible burial spot for Paige Renkoski", and, 2017: "Dual memorial planned for missing woman and her mother on Feb. 2".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One could still claim WP:BIO1E - however we are covering the event (Disappearance(X) of... (or some other X should it develop)) - and not the BIO itself - BLP1E/BIO1E would be a valid call for Paige Renkoski, not for Disappearance of Paige Renkoski. Icewhiz (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable presumed crime; nothing stands out about this one. An example of the missing white woman syndrome not suitable for the encyclopedia. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per K.e.coffman and DGG. This is, unfortunately, a routine case of which there are a dozen a dime. --Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the question at AfD is not: Do we perceive this crime as a "routine case," the question at AfD is, do sources support notability as per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCRIME with INDPETH coverage that has CONTINUED for many years in reliable, independent sources? E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Missing person's case of local interest covered by all too common news stories: "Still missing XX years later...", "In Memoriam...", etc. Saying this coverage is anything, but periodical and routine is ignoring how the news generally functions and the lack of any actual substance to the case. We are not a database for missing persons and should not even try to be, especially when this is the product. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that sources are not local, she is discussed in considerable detail in a book by Clifford L. Linedecker (a journalist and author of quite a few true crime books in the 1980s and 90s who can certainly support an article,) the book was published by a major New Yorrk house (Macmillan Publishers (United States)). She is also discussed in several other books on crime. It is important not just to look at the description of the crime, but to assess the sourcing. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory you have to know by now that I look into your statements for accuracy. The book you are trying to pass off, Death of a Model, is about an entirely different person; Paige's case is noted for some similarities. As for the "several other books", this is the only one I found in a search that mentions her at any considerable length. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do me the courtesy of not twisting my words. I wrote that the book "discusses her in some detail", which it does, it is obviously about a different young woman. Book searches return varying results even when the same search term is used, this is just the way gBooks works. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Revisit: other gBook hits appear to be trivial/routine.[ [User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At best you can describe it as a footnote. Five mentions of her name in a 277-page book? Please. And present these other book results so we can determine how much discussion there actually is on her. Should be simple if you are receiving different results. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fact check Your assertion is factually incorrect. In fact, Clifford L. Linedecker's description and discussion of Renkowski's is extensive and fills a 4-5 page section of the book. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCOV ongoing 25 years after she was reported missing. Is there really a question here. BabbaQ (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD has been relisted twice. Considering that, and the fact this discussion is more than lazily saying "per GNG/SIGCOV", I think your question is answered.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take your battleground attitude somewhere else. thanks. BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Targeting the editor, not the argument. That is actual battleground behavior BabbaQ. Do not ask a question and get upset when the answer is not to your liking. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an encyclopedia, not a repository of missing white woman syndrome cases. No sign of any WP:LASTING significance, as the nom has pointed out. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an encyclopedia, not a police blotter or accumulation of "True Crime" stories. NOTMEMORIAL. Carrite (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as one of Michigan's longest running cold cases. Info added to lede. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CAI Networks

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

Fails WP:N and WP:CORP. No coverage in independent sources outside of directories. No inherent notability. Brycehughes (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is based on only source. Not notable. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 05:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I had tagged it for {{notability}} 4 years ago and it has not been improved since then. DMacks (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Herojale

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

An object example of why it is so frustrating trying to sort these Somali place names which were created en masse. We have no coords, and the name we have doesn't give any hits. The UN document cited is not obtainable, so I cannot tell what it might have said. Geonames doesn't match it exactly, but it names a "Hero Caralei" which might be a different transliteration— except geonames says it's unverified, and you guessed it, there's nothing at the coordinates given. Mangoe (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just one source in ref. but fail to access "404 Page not found". Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 05:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything close anywhere of note: OSM, Somali wikipedia, Google. SportingFlyer talk 06:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing, fails WP:V. Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deep per nom. If it was a verified settlement, it would be different. There's no evidence of such. --Oakshade (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luugudeey

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

No cite, no coords, no geonames hit, nothing but mirrors of us, apparently: this Somali "town" is more hopelessly unverifiable than usual. Mangoe (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the other ones were at least questionably verifiable. There's nothing to this one. SportingFlyer talk 05:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fail WP:V, no sources, nothing to show it exists. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Therese Emma Caraher-Gilbert

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

Declined PROD. Non-notable subject lacking significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Previously deleted after discussion in 2007. Article creator a possible conflict of interest. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please state what is considered to be reliable sources and the article is not a conflict of interest User: Enoch Gilbert 04:11, 9 March 2018 (NZDT)

Are you related to the subject of the article? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but let's say that I wasn't and was a fan and created the article, would you call it a conflict of interest? Me being a member of her family should not be a problem. I am looking for the appropriate reference. User: Enoch Gilbert 04:38, 9 March 2018(NZDT)

You need to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me on COI, but lets go back to where i said if i was a fan, would i be able to create this article? It is not a public harresment for the subject of the article has approved of the idea. User:Enoch Gilbert 05:08, 9 March 2018 (NZDT)

@Enoch Gilbert: Please see WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Reliable sources generally include newspapers, magazines, and other sources with editorial oversight (so we can be reasonably sure the information in them is true). See identifying reliable sources. Fan made websites such as this one, or other self-published sources, are not considered reliable. zoomaruba.com is a directory entry, neither reliable nor significant coverage. The St. Ignatius News appears to be an extremely local source. The Family Life magazine article you've added[38] appears to be the only source with any significant, independent coverage, but it looks like more like a human interest story: people usually don't get into encyclopedias because they take their family traveling. More sources of this caliber would allow for clearer indication of notability. If the Mrs. New Zealand pageant is notable, than there is a potential claim to notability. Quality sources are key. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No real WP:RS and while researching, there was no NZer at Miss World in 2006 the year she was suppose to have represented us Miss_World_2006#Withdrawals and the user who wrote the article got the wrong place, it was in Poland, not Russia. Calls the other stuff into question. NZFC^(talk) 05:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NZ Footballs Conscience: Note that Gilbert was apparently Mrs. New Zealand, not Miss New Zealand. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BLP fail. Not yet notable. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 05:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG after a source search turned up no WP:RS. SportingFlyer talk 05:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NMODEL or WP:ENT. Too soon for an article. Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - How many reliable sources do i need to suite the conditions? Please list problems that need to be fixed. Is it possible to put it on the back burner as in making it not public? Trying to find the Campbell live interveiw with Marie Therese (Mrs New Zealand) and Jaquie Brown video as a possible referenceUser: Enoch Gilbert 07:47, 9 March 2018

More than one reliable source is needed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for a description of this process. This discussion will last for at least 7 days to reach a consensus. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OVERCOME Legacypac (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete absence of significant reliable sources. The only person arguing for keep seems to be a relative of the article subject. Need I say more?104.163.147.121 (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references listed aren't even linked from any in-text citations, and the subject clearly isn't notable. I would also agree that there are WP:COI issues. Sparkyb10123 (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I would like to add that the article’s creator is her husband. I know because he created an article for his family, which was deleted, that basically was just a list of all the family members. I think this article should be treated similar to a vanity autobiography except in this case by proxy. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MensanDeltiologist: Article creator is not subject's husband — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.229.248.166 (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2018‎

comment according to one of the sources, Enoch is her son not her husband. Canterbury Tail talk 01:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Slick

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

Non-notable. Long standing Redirect to a group was recently removed. Legacypac (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I'm reverting it back to a redirect, as Draft:Eric Slick (musician) exists. _{Vermont | reply here} 01:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I've retarged this page as a redirect to his current band and redirected the draft that was not going to be approved, to the same band. Legacypac (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. An avalanche... Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation 4 games released on disc

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

Very redundant as it includes every game from the main List of PlayStation 4 games page and it only focuses on a trivial thing that is almost never (in 99% of cases) mentioned in the game's article itself. Consensus a while back on the Nintendo Switch games article was to not include this sort of information as a column in these sorts of lists, so it shouldn't exist as a standalone list either. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - While I agree it should be added to the main list as a column, it has also not been added yet. Until it is actually added, either by you or someone else, I think the list serves some purpose._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus was to not include this sort of info in these types of lists, as a column or checklist. Are you sure you read me correctly? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you're following the nomination correctly - your stance suggests going directly against the nom. Sergecross73 msg me 04:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete Sorry, misread the nomination. In that case I vote delete per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We aren't a collector database. TarkusAB^talk 02:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - many past discussions have shown that we don't even want to track this as parts of other lists, let alone stand-alone lists. Not only do they get into WP:NOTGUIDE/WP:NOTCATALOGUE territory, and often a WP:V issue - there's sourcing for all the blockbusters, sure, but in practice, many of the smaller games don't. Sergecross73 msg me 03:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely pointless. I understand the posibility of having Network exclusive games, perhaps, as they are games that would not have a classic retail release, but this is silly and fails WP:NOTCATALOGUE Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it's that important, why not just tag it in the main list? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as highly trivial per nom and all above. Similar lists (such as "download only") should also be deleted. Lordtobi (✉) 18:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bit of a snowball at this point, but NOTCATALOGUE, redundant with other lists, etc -- ferret (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. TheDeviantPro (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Lepricavark (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. MT Train^Talk 12:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NBA marketing

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

This article appears to be WP:OR in the claim that the NBA "has a large social media audience" based on a personal evaluation of raw follower counts, and also WP:PROMOTIONAL since it serves only to promote a company's social media channels. There is no utility in merging or redirecting this into NBA as all the functional information of this article is already contained there and the term "NBA marketing" is probably not one someone is likely to search. Chetsford (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I would have just tagged this with speedy delete, honestly. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suborno Bose

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken to locate said sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability not established Dreamspy (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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