Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Jon Peters (pitcher)

Jon Peters (pitcher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested prod because the person says the sources are reliable. Giving them the benefit of the doubt (I didn’t check), but for the sake of the argument let’s say they are right, I believe that is irrelevant. From every sports related deletion discussion I have seen, peters fails all the major criteria for notability that I can remember. The lead sentence indicates he is known as a high school phenom. His college athletic career is not discussed. And he has yet to play pro. To me that screams non notable. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly fails
  WP:GNG, and it's an interesting one: Peters was the only high school baseball player to be on the cover of Sports Illustrated until at least 1997, per one of the sources there. Four out of five sources are Sports Illustrated as they did follow-up articles on him, as he never made a large impact after high school. The other is a two- or three-sentence LA Times article for setting a high school pitching record. There are also other sources out there which do look-backs on teen sports phenoms. I don't think it gets him past WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV, but it's certainly a more unique AfD than your average minor leaguer. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Three articles exclusively about him in Sports Illustrated plus two other sources that mention him borderline satisfy GNG IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep It's never going to be a long article, but I found enough sources outside SI to document his (short) career. As an all-time high school record holder (which record, I understand, still stands) he's someone who shows up in the record books even at a below-pro level. Mangoe (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was going to go weak keep due to the limited scope, but the look back on the other teen sports phenoms puts it over for me. Its an exclusive list and looks like there is sustained interest in those subjects. That gives it more of a lasting coverage feel that pushes me to keep. RonSigPi (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets
  WP:GNG based on significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ~Kvng (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete.. the keep remarks above seem to be based entirely on one sports illustrated article and its follow up.. Seems like a clear case of
  WP:1E. There isnt any content on the page and it seems like very little can be written about him so clearly he is not notable. A high school wins record by itself means nothing.. we don't know what the quality of the opponents his high school played against.. if it was a fairly weak amateur league that doesnt mean much... If he was that great a prospect he would have been drafted but apparently never was.. there is nothing even about him playing in college. Spanneraol (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Excellent point. He may very well been a huge fish in a very tiny pond.MensanDeltiologist (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So a 53 game winning streak is a single event? That doesn't seem right to me. Just because the subject's glory days were limited or the glory was due to tiny pond doesn't make him unnotable. It was still glorious and reliable sources reported on it as such and there has been some followup reporting. ~Kvng (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially yes since the claim for notability revolves around one SI article and pitcher "wins" are too dependent on other factors that its not that big a deal anymore. It's still the only thing thats been reported on him so yes it qualifies as one event ("the win total") and thats it. Spanneraol (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with

300 win club and one of the three metrics in the Pitching Triple Crown). Even under the modern baseball philosophy of wins meaning less than WAR, in the 1980s when the subject played wins were still a big deal. Also, while the pond may be small, it appears the team won several state titles, so at some point the competition was strong (and 4A is a large school division). All this is academic. Multiple pieces in SI and the cover in the 1980s, when the magazine was a BIG deal, give us a lot of coverage. The retrospective from Mental Floss gives us multiple sources and lasting coverage. GNG met. RonSigPi (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

It's still articles about one thing.. the win totals.. not about him in any sort of significant way. high school stat records are rarely cause for articles. Spanneraol (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I don’t read SI but I have flipped through it in places like doctors’ offices. Is the coverage in one of those short paragraphs where they highlight people for whatever reason or was it an in depth article? Or even one paragraph about him in a larger article, say about high school athletes? The answer makes a difference. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about the "Faces in the Crowd" section. This reference [7] (already in the article) is not a Faces in the Crowd blurb. In general, magazines have feature stories on what they put on the cover. RonSigPi (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:SIGCOV but there's a lot of distance between the examples given there but it is clear that the coverage does not need to be about the subject to contain significant coverage of the subject. ~Kvng (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I’m not sure I totally get what you are saying but if I do, then I can only say this: Say there is a cover story about another hot high school pitcher this summer and the Magazine makes a one sentence that the author hasn’t seen anyone that interesting since ________ . Well, IMHO that confirms nothing more than _________… caught their attention I would hardly say it is a ringing endorsement of their prowess.

• Keep coverage is substantial. Article should be expanded with SI's followup piece on injuries and career following his win streak. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The level of coverage here appears to rise to the level needed to meet
  WP:GNG, albeit barely. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep
  π, ν) 21:15, 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.

User:Sylvia.Plath07/Philatino

:User:Sylvia.Plath07/Philatino (edit | [[Talk:User:Sylvia.Plath07/Philatino|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats) :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Delete: The original article page was deleted five times then userfied and deleted again per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philatino. It sits here untouched 8 years later and the editor has made just 1 edit since then, to this page in 2011. It is highly unlikely there will ever be any improvement to bring to notability. ww2censor (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Jean Carper

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

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

Unreferenced, promotional, and text pasted from https://www.stopagingnow.com/about_us/jean_carper Rathfelder (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added sources, and believe she may meet

• My complaints are answered, so I'm happy to withdraw. Rathfelder (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to pass
  WP:GNG for "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Lonehexagon (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:56, 8 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) 00:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Software

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

)

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

nn. tagged since mid-2017. Refs are PR, interviews and company's info, ie no solid scondary sources. Also, no special achievents claimed. Just a regular software mill.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed. No notability or independent sources. Wqwt (talk) 21:10, 5 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.

Bhagyashree Mote

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

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

I don't see how she manages to pass

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under
  WP:G11 - definite case as it currently only serves to publicize a person. Requires substantial rewrite if not deleted. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• More evidence needed. Wikipedia covers such a vast area of content that no-one, however avid a deletionist, can say for certain. In such cases I feel the deletionist should check whether any regular editors specialise in Indian regional tv performers. Through long experience I have accumulated a list of co-editors whose interests correspond with mine, and I check with them to see if they agree with the deletionist. Please note I am not including vanity biographies here (eg Mark Daines is an exceedingly good bloke from Basingstoke etc") as usually they contain basic formatting errors. This article though looks "Wikipediary" so we need to do more research. Bashereyre (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable for her role in the Priyanka Chopra film Kaay Re Rascalaa and the TV series Prem He. The problem of English sources covering Marathi-language pop culture being of crap quality is a universal one in this area which has nothing to do with her notability: it needs a cleanup tag and attention from a Marathi-language speaker, not deletion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case it has evaded your memory, you need to provide sources.~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The English sources (checked against other sources) make clear that she held major roles in a notable film and a notable TV series (at least); beyond that, the article needs the attention of a Marathi-speaker due to the poor-quality of the English-language sources about the whole field. Mass nominating entire fields of people with a copied and pasted explanation and no individual inquiries as to their actual notability is systemic bias in action. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • A detailed reply may be viewed over here.In short, I don't buy your assumptions.I'm quasi-proficient (~Babel 2/3) in Marathi and did not manage to scrape anything non-substantial, barring non-reliable interviews and trivial name mentions.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes
  WP:NACTOR as has prominent roles in films and television as shown in sources such as Times of India Atlantic306 (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Reliable sources devoting her non-trivial coverage, please!~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A single reference doesn't cut it. If the reference were available, they would be put in, and removed for being non RS. Most of them are routine coverage, that are generated by early branding and marketing efforts. There are no genuine references, that talk about the lady herself, outside the branding. The lady has only been working for two years effectively, and the pattern for actors who are trying to get into the industry, is try it for several years, then if the succeed they stay. There is no evidence that she has left that intial stage. Until there is some some work that effectively establishes here notable, then she is not suitable for Wikipedia. Fails to assert
  WP:NACTOR
  .

I don't see any evidence of notablity for significant in multiple notable film, nor a large fan base or cult, nor a unique or innovative contribution to the field. I see an early stage lady actor, who is starting her career, with very stage early marketing efforts providing most of the coverage. Also fails to assert WP:SIGOV scope_creep (talk) 13:15, 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.

Muhammad Abdul Malek

Muhammad Abdul Malek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability?

• Keep. Reasonable notability: director of "an institution for higher Islamic research and education", founder of magazines, quite a few books.
  talk) 17:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is written and sourced poorly, and upon first glance it seemed like a notability issue. However, the sources do seem to come from a variety of unrelated sources, some governmental while others from large institutions of learning, and the subject's educational background appears to be international (Usmani and Abu Ghuddah are highly respected and not only by their own sects, which is a sad rarity). I'd say the subject passes the notability test and also contributes to a critical area: the overwhelming majority of articles created on South Asian religious figures are about non-notable subjects in an attempt to generate attention via Wikipedia. When a legitimate attempt is found to write an article on a notable subject in good faith, then there is a serious contribution to a subject area which is lacking. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. It seems that he is notable. --nafSadh did say 22:19, 8 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gauri Kulkarni

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

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

I don't see how she manages to pass

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one of the thousands of actresses whose articles need to be deleted, mentioned in another currently ongoing deletion debate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Struggling to even confirm she exists beyond cast lists of her one film, gets lost in a Google search amongst other non-notable people of the same name. Would have no objection to recreation if a Marathi-language speaker turned up enough to establish notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only one prominent role so does not pass
  WP:NACTOR yet, may pass in the future Atlantic306 (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mat Martin

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

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

The article's subject has requested deletion; I don't believe he is notable enough to warrant our disregarding his request. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. BLP request, page averages 1.5 views per day. Szzuk (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as requested
  π, ν) 21:18, 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) 18:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Balagokulam

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

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

I PRODed this a long while ago; the PROD was removed by an editor later indeffed for socking. I am still unable to find evidence that this organization meets GNG. There are mentions of the name in news sources, but these are mentions only, and frequently refer to organisations other than this one. Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  WP:GNG, not referenced. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. The only reference I can find is an article on a media site called Samvada, and I don't know if that's a reliable source. There are articles on the organisation's own site which I can't read, but on balance I would still say delete. Tacyarg (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of notability.
  talk) 17:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Tomoe Hanba

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

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

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

Japanese dubs of foreign media are not considered to be notable. Subject is not shown to have any notable roles in any notable series. Article is inadequately sourced in JP Wiki as well. MizukaS (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I am probably not up to date on the standards for this, but the first character that was unlinked in her non-dubbing section was
  Etna (Disgaea), which has its own article. This leads me to believe there may be other "notable roles in notable series" that aren't expanded upon in the current version the article. Dekimasuよ! 19:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Her character is listed third at
  Popolocrois (anime)#Luna (Lunattress Andolink) says "main character in the second series." Again, I don't know anything in particular about these series. Dekimasuよ! 19:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep: Hello, I think I found the news references from Google search both in our language and Japanese, there is no reason to want to delete the article without having any precedent of the work done by the Japanese voice actress Tomoe Hanba. First, we should translate from Japanese Wikipedia to get valid references. 148.0.108.191 (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you list the news articles here? Do they show significant coverage? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IP 148.0. is Special:Contributions/148.0.103.156 evading a block. Binksternet (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2018

Binksternet believes that I was evading the block for this anonymous ip recently banned for a year, I do not know what you're talking about, I was correcting these celebrity articles when he does not let me explain about the case of the Japanese voice actress Kikuko Inoue only the internet restarted me in a matter of minutes before.. 148.101.32.39 (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are the same editor that got blocked as Special:Contributions/148.0.103.156. You keep edit-warring on Japanese voice artist articles, for instance this reversion you performed today. You got noticed for edit warring in the first place, then the IP was blocked as a proxy. To me, it appears as if you have tangled with AngusWOOF for four years over your edit warring at Kikuko Inoue. Looks like you got blocked as Therainbowsend, Wooeyparks and Kyleoconnor. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Her anime work isn't that notable - supporting characters at best. However, she is a regular in the Disgaea series, and has mentions in several video game articles. [8] [9] [10] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If something like that, for example: [11] [12] [13] [14] and apart from saying that he has no notable role, well I did not find any reference about her anime work but I found something Hanba participated in the Japanese dub as additional voices in the anime Azumanga Daioh which was not accredited. [15] 148.0.117.206 (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't do much in the way of anime/VA stuff, so I don't know if I'll give a stance or not, but I thought I'd note that voicing
  Etna in the Disgaea series would be a...less-than-minor role, at least. It's a long-running, relatively popular worldwide video game franchise that's been going on 15 years. She seems to be used as a mascot of sorts for Nippon Ichi Software, though I have no idea how prevalent this VA is in the character's in that area. Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Has voiced many significant roles, which passes
  WP:ENTERTAINER for voice actors ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.") Lonehexagon (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

What are her notable roles? I'm only seeing Etna in Disgaea listed. Was she a major voice in other video games? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per
  WP:ENTERTAINER. per Lonehexagons rationale. BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 5 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.

Sarah Irving

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

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

Not notable person. Being rich != notability. Few sources other than ones that mention her position and wealth. _{Vermont | reply here} 00:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk • mail) 00:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk • mail) 00:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk • mail) 00:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Only member of the Irving family on the C-Suite of Irving Oil — likely to succeed ownership of the company,
• Heir to the Irving fortune (net worth of $15.5 billion USD — 2nd richest family in Canada, daughter to 233rd richest person in the world)
• Other family members all have wiki pages (K. C. Irving, Arthur Irving, John E. Irving, James K. Irving)
• Multiple board positions on other organizations (Dartmouth College fund, Rothesay Netherwood School, etc.)
• Made $80 million donation to Dartmouth College for the Irving Institute (http://irving.dartmouth.edu/)
• Individual has been targeted by Dartmouth alumni in arguments over the controversial donations made by the Irving conglomerate
• Listed as 21st most powerful Canadian business people

Where was she listed as the 21st most powerful? Also,

WP:INHERITED. _{Vermont | reply here} 16:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

That would be here. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for the link. _{Vermont | reply here} 18:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this person is relevant enough to justify an article. I will say though that this is only because of her C-Suite position in Irving Oil and the media coverage related to it. The 21st most powerful listing is tangential since that is only one of many different lists of the most powerful women, Canadians and business people, however there is no doubt that in this instance, (money = notability) is a true equation. And I think it is always so to some extent, I challenge you to find a biography of someone that had no money here, there are very very few. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Very reluctant keep, ^{Vermont asked for my opinion} One of the few cases I think we ought to bend
  WP:GNG: She's not (yet) notable in her own right, but if, say, you're googling around looking for information on the future of Irving Oil (not infeasible) this article would probably be pretty useful to you, and so IMO it should stick around. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 23:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• little note: I asked on IRC for alfie's thoughts. I did not ask alfie to comment here, per
  WP:CANVASSING. _{Vermont | reply here} 23:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC) [reply
  ]

Drop me right in it, why don't you ;) but yes this is true, I just decided to put my thoughts here becuase they're useful maybe -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 23:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete, without prejudice against recreation if and when she does succeed to the head of the company. We don't hold
  WP:NOTCRYSTAL — we wait until a stronger notability claim has emerged, and then create the article accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep The nomination doesn't seem to make much sense as it discounts the sources which explain her significance. And where's the consideration of
  editing policy applies. Andrew D. (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep (withdraw) I'm withdrawing my nomination of this article. When I nom'd it, it was a short, 1-source article that didn't return much on the google search I did. It's now much more populated with information, and although it's notability can be contested, I think it should be kept. Vermont | reply here 22:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not sure what the article looked like at nomination, but the current sourcing of the article passes
  WP:GNG and establishes notability. Lonehexagon (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Demlang

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

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

No evidence of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An insignificant 'language' made up by a group of people on a social network site. There are no reliable sources to suggest there is such a thing that even exists. MT Train^Talk 06:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Objection. Demlang is as notable as Ithkuil. I even left a link to their website. How is that unreliable? User talk:meseretreta — Preceding unsigned comment added by meseretreta (talk • contribs) 16:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia is a website with user generated content, making it unreliable. MT Train^Talk 05:18, 6 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) 00:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Mazeika

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

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

Non-notable minor league player. Contested

• Speedy delete clearly non-notable baseball player, never played in the major leagues, no sources. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC

@

WP:CSD, User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes and User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Ritchie333:Thank you, I have and I stand by the assessment. SportingFlyer talk 18:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ritchie333. Being selected in the

π, ν) 21:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment again, contested prod is misleading. Prod was for blp lacking sources. As I provided a source I deleted the prod as it no longer applied.MensanDeltiologist (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't meet
  π, ν) 21:22, 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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mile 22

Mile 22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not sure this is a notable movie. Nerd1a4i (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet

WP:NFILM at this point. If it does in the future then can be recreated. Canterbury Tail talk 14:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

It's notable. It will have wide-release with a summer release date. A sequel is already being planned. I added some sources and a few other details. Tbb 911 (talk)

• Keep. Soon to be released film with highly notable cast members and plenty of coverage already. --Michig (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the sources are sufficient to meet the notability guidelines at this time. In my opinion, they were marginal when the article was nominated but the additional sources added since makes this a clear keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is one of the films that actor Mark Wahlberg collaborates with director Peter Berg. Also the sources are reliable and production is going to begin soon. Evil Idiot (talk) 17:18, 8 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.

Ric Viers

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

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

The subject fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 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.

Cjdns

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

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

Mostly primary-sourced, one RS, no other evidence of notability. The software doesn't appear to actually be in use out in the world, still "alpha" development quality. This article is very

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.
  π, ν) 21:24, 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.

Baltic festivals

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

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

Unreferenced list, quite possibly original research. Unclear what is included and what is not, and why. I guess supposed to list festivals celebrated by Baltic pagans (or neopagans?), but why then include Estonia which belongs to Uralic group? I am also not seeing the reason for the list - What do Latvian festivals have in common with Lithuanian to belong in the same list? In general, the Baltic mythology is a very messy area full of neopagan b/s due to lack of reliable historical sources and this list is not helping any. Renata (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I made this article was simply to translate a list of such festivals within the Lithuanian Wikipedia (Sąrašas:Baltų šventės) into English. They are supposed to be about traditional festivals observed by the Baltic peoples (in Lithuania and Latvia, because both of them practice similar cultures), but due to some user also including a list of Estonia, I added some more for Estonia as well. PulauKakatua19 (talk) please leave a reply. :D 16:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian list is not any better. Renata (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then somebody needs to do something at the Lithuanian Wikipedia to check if it is factual or not. PulauKakatua19 please leave a reply. :D 12:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Estonia, because it's not even close to including actual historical holidays/festivals or beliefs/traditions (almost forgotten now), hard to find a good source so not even Estonian Wikipedia has a proper article (et:Eesti rahvakalender is something... and et:Maavalla rahvakalender probably gets deleted). This Runic calendar is Estonia-related. Current holidays: Public holidays in Estonia, and we had Estonian neopaganism. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, heres a book that discusses some Baltic festivals - Urban Carnival: Festive Culture in the Hanseatic Cities of the Eastern Baltic, 1350-1550, and another - Baltic phrasebook) which goes towards meeting
  WP:LISTN ie. "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • These are not valid sources. The Baltic phrasebook is essentially a dictionary so can't be used to establish notability of anything. Urban Carnival is available in snipped view on Google Books and I cannot find any evidence it mentions any of the festivals included in the list. Renata (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly a tentative keep based on the sources found by Coolabahapple, but this is clearly a calendar of events that are supposed to happen now in modern times. It is not framed as historical. The corresponding lt.wikipedia article appears to be quite different and defines the events as "state, national and religious holidays, memorable days." If this is accurate, it should be possible to prove this. But the existing content may not be accurate or may be original research. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to the closer - please consider
  WP:TNT approach to this OR mess. Renata (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn due to misunderstanding. Learned something today. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Henry Cameron

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

)

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

Fails

Hi Guys, before you debate this, can I say that I have read that deletionists should always bear in mind that many editors update their article incrementally. I don't usually do this, but we have had a heavy fall of snow here and I saw my neighbour slip up. I just hit the create article button so it could be carried on with later and went out to help her up. Hope you will read the full article, not the history after one edit CheersBashereyre (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note this editor has only been on the site as an editor 41 days yet he seems to be able put articles up for deletion. I've been on the site 11 years have made over 60,000 edits and created 5,000 plus artcles and I would never dream of putting an article up for deletion without researching the subject first. How much research was the user able to do in the nine minutes between me creating it and Kirbanzo suggesting its deletion?

Kibanzo himself has now admitted he was a little trigger happy.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(there's a halo...) 14:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

uh.. Speedy keep, with some why hasn't Kirbanzo already withdrawn it? On top of being an Anglican Archdeacon, the subject's career is widely covered by The Times and several reputable books, along with a Who Was Who entry and a Times obituary... Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Slipstream (science fiction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Re-nominating for deletion due to lack of consensus. There is no indication that Slipstream is anything but another word for

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy Close This was re-nominated one day after the close of the previous AfD, in violation of
  WP:DELAFD, and should be speedily closed. Newimpartial (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • By
    WP:COMMONSENSE, I am not sure how you can mark the previous discussion "case closed" as there were only 3 participants. It might apply in cases of lengthy "no consensus" with back and forth between editors... but really?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

If you think the previous AfD was wrongly closed, you should file a deletion review. You should not, by policy, launch a new AfD immediately because the precious one had the "wrong" close. That's

Ignore all rules. Newimpartial (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy close per Newimpartial. I argued strongly in the previous AFD, with evidence, that the terms are not the same. Admittedly, that evidence is quite weak, but no evidence at all has been presented, either here or the prior AFD, that the terms are the same. The rationale in the nom is entirely without merit and in complete disregard of the prior discussion. A case of
  I don't like it I think. SpinningSpark 15:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That's like saying "no evidence has been presented that the Earth has breathable air". Anyone with eyes can read the article and see that both are about using FTL travel through other dimensions. The article doesn't attempt to claim it's different, and in fact it is mentioned in Hyperspace as another type of hyperspace travel._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If that's the case you should have no trouble finding sources to counter my evidence. Here's another source that was not presented at the first AFD which directly addresses this issue. In The Escapist magazine an article by C J Miozzi, "5 Faster-Than-Light Travel Methods and Their Plausibility" has at no.1 Hyperdrive and no. 4 Slipstream. While Miozzi agrees that "there is no widely-agreed upon definition" of slipstream he looks in detail at the Andromeda incarnation of slipstream and gives a description which clearly puts clear water between it and his earlier description of hyperdrive, at least for the case of Andromeda. SpinningSpark 00:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The article says there is "no widely-agreed-upon definition", so the articles notability must be considered in the context of the respective shows that use it. Otherwise you are using
  WP:SYNTH to combine unrelated concepts of Slipstream into one article. And it's simply not notable when you take slipstream from each show mentioned in the article rather than cramming unrelated concepts together._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

)

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

Small, local NGO with no indication passing

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I removed the PROD because no one else had objected to it (so that it didn't become a red link). I think that because
  WP:DIFFCAPS, instead of it becoming a red link. My suggestion was that if it it not notable, it should be changed to a redirect, which is quite different to a standard merge/redirect in that it is being suggested to target a substantially unrelated target to the current topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

LikeALittle

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

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

Failed site, not much coverage. Fails

• Delete.
  WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes
  WP:ORGCRIT as it has received significant coverage in reliable sources, which is already shown on the article page. It was featured in USA Today, The Toronto Star, Tech Crunch, etc. Cait.123 (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Zero indications of notability, another run-of-the-mill fails startup that once got some funding. Spammy article, including this gem in the lede "In 2011, TechCrunch reported that "Investors don't just like LikeALittle a little, they like it a lot."" Fails
  HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 7 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.