Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 29

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of royal weddings

List of royal weddings (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)

Monarchies have existed for thousands of years. There have been millions of royal weddings. The article tells us that weddings of senior members of royal families are state occasions and attract national and international interest but then goes on to list weddings of "minor" royals and medieval marriage ceremonies that definitely did not attract any media attention. What could possibly be the point of this article anyway? Surtsicna (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear violation of

WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a repository of lists. There's no particular need for this page, and as the nominator stated, there's been millions of royal weddings. Amsgearing (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but pare down to only notable weddings (i.e. those with articles) per
  WP:LISTN too, though I didn't do any searches so I can't prove that. ansh666 02:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I'm afraid I can't support deletion on this one. The
  WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Agree with the previous two editors. --Marbe166 (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Perfectly legit list. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 211, 12, 14. Herostratus (talk) 02:25, 2 June 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. Black Kite (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoxton Ventures

Hoxton Ventures (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)

Delete Run-of-the-mill venture capital company. Notability isn't inherited and therefore the companies they invested in do not confer notability on the investment firm. Wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails
  WP:TOOSOON, with $40M & 4 employees. Corporate 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I'm in the process of updating this as well as the partners. This is a meaningful fund as it has two of the largest UK successes in recent times, Deliveroo and Darktrace and they have substantially grown assets over time. This fund is a peer to other funds included on Wikipedia such as US Firms Runa Capital, Baseline Ventures,Initialized Capital, Lerer Hippeau Ventures, Social Capital, Notion Capital, Passion Capital etc and is meaningful in the European market for its performance. Very few funds have completed investments into multiple billion dollar companies in Europe.Misterpottery (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are a lot of references, many of which are not trivial. The WSJ article goes in to a fair amount of depth as does the Business Post article. The company seems to be significant in its own right as well, not just a run-of-the mill company. I know this isn't valued at Wikipedia, but the creator of the article (Misterpottery) has done a lot of hard work in creating it, and seems to have also improved the article substantially since this discussion started. That should count for something. -Mparrault (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The argument of
    HighKing⁺⁺ 17:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete current version as promotional. A new version can always be created, using sources unconnected to the company. "Mr Kniaz", indeed! Deb (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing to meet
  WP:NCORP. As Deb notes, it could be recreated (hopefully without the promotional/?COI bits) if it becomes notable in the future. Ifnord (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chester McNulty

Chester McNulty (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)

Upon taking a closer look at this article, there's really not much here. The two business articles don't mention him at all. A lot of the information is sourced from an Orlando Sentinel article about his son. A newspapers.com search brings up a few hits, so maybe there are historical sources out there, but there's another Chester McNulty as well in Kentucky, apparently. Most of the article is based on

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Fails NPOL and not even reliably sourced. The only two rs are about a bank merger, not the subject.--
  Rusf10 (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep He was chair of the Florida Republican Party in addition to being the mayor. While the Sentinel article is not specifically about him it does go into some detail. The Newspapers.com articles should be investigated. What is unverified should be removed, however I think there is a solid stub here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being a state party chair is not a sign of notability, especially considering that at the time McNulty was Florida Republican Party Chair the party had virtually no power in the state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As
  WP:NPOL. Ifnord (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I expected that searching would turn up a lot of coverage of his career as a banker, political power, and was surprised to find so no
  WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:16, 6 June 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. Article clearly created about the wrong person, at the wrong title. Enigma^msg 16:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Holmes

John R. Holmes (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)

There is no evidence of WP:Notability. The individual was killed while a candidate for the senate. –CaroleHenson (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's interesting, but the only mention I can quickly find of him (the reference in the article) is trivial, and he doesn't have any presumptive notability. SportingFlyer talk 19:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails

WP:ANYBIO. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete I can't find anything about him or the incident. A one line mention in a book is not sufficient to justify an article. The incident itself might be worth mentioning somewhere in wikipedia but not as a standalone article. Meters (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Joseph R. Holmes. See this entry which RegentsPark added to the list of references. See also [21]. So there are references available that demonstrate notability. Polyamorph (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the added information, it was for Joseph R. Holmes, who died in 1869. John R. Holmes died in 1892, although their stories are similar. I think that there is also confusion because Joseph R. Holmes' owner was John R. Homes, who died in 1857.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is clearly talking about Joseph R. Holmes and not his owner, so the page should be moved there. In terms of notability, Holmes is very notable, see this excerpt from the Virginia encyclopedia "Several Virginia newspapers published long accounts of the incident, and papers in more than twenty other states and the District of Columbia excerpted or reprinted them, giving Holmes's death an exceptionally wide notoriety among many reports of white-on-black violence during the years after the Civil War."Polyamorph (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The owner was John H. Marshall. Polyamorph (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The original source for the article, the WPA article book, states "John R. Holmes, a Negro candidate for State senator in 1892, was shot to death by a white man in Charlotte County."

Then, a user added content about Joseph R. Holmes who died in 1869 for his political activities in Charlotte County.

Are you saying, the WPA book was wrong? These are somehow the same person?–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update, WPA book, not article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. But if this article is deleted I will create another for Joseph R. Holmes because they are notable. Polyamorph (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I would agree that Joseph is more notable. There are not a lot of reliable sources about him, but there is more - I count 4: 1 book that isn't snippet view, 2 websites and 1 newspaper article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and since this is a very old event I expect there to be offline sources, including the many newspapers that reported detailed accounts at the time which provide established notability per

WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

That's the bit that has been surprising me. FloridaArmy has been banging on about how people should use newspapers.com and I would imagine that site is a go-to place for stuff like this ... yet they seem not to have used it themselves? Or is there actually nothing there? Or is that because the name is wrong? - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find anything for "John R. Holmes" at newspapers.com, but there is an article about "Joseph R. Holmes" regarding his death in 1869.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I have created the article for Joseph R. Holmes.Polyamorph (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have to admit that I have doubts that Joseph R. Holmes is notable. Being a member of a state constitutional convention is not generally in and of itself a sign of notability. However John R. Holmes, as only a candidate for office, is clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Joseph, perhaps not but significant coverage in reliable sources makes them notable.Polyamorph (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There are a few more books that mention his death in 1892,
  Virginia gubernatorial election, 1869, a title that is consistent with other titles in Category:Virginia gubernatorial elections. Sam Sailor 08:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GSC 03905-01870

GSC 03905-01870 (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)

Comprehensively fails

• Delete I have read other astronomy articles and I think the article must be deleted. Awvazquez (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only meaningful source is Barquin's description, which pretty much meets the definition of
  WP:PRIMARY. Basically, he set out to look for an eclipsing binary in a delimited region of sky and found one. That's not notable. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Delisle

Dan Delisle (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)

Insufficiently referenced article about a minor league hockey player who does not have any strong claim to passing

• Delete A pretty straight forward fail of both
  18abruce (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails
  WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: per WP:DOLOVISCREATEDIT ... oh, very well, a season and a half of undistinguished play in the mid/low-minors fails NHOCKEY by a country mile, no evidence the subject can or could pass the GNG. Let's have some applause for User:Editorofthewiki for a knee-jerk, time-wasting "ooh, look, sources exist" deprod. Ravenswing 11:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTF? If i thought it wasnt worthy of prod, thats my prerogative. Do you want me to go back and critique something you did? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can find edits done so sloppily as to compare with thinking that "The Bats acquired two defensemen on the eve of the game, and both Daryl Lavoie and Dan Delisle played well as Austin roared to a 4-0 lead and held on for a 4-3 victory over the expansion IceRays in the Western Professional Hockey League opener Tuesday night in front of a crowd of 3,328 at Memorial Coliseum" is "significant coverage" to the subject meeting the GNG, be my guest. You'll forgive me, perhaps, for thinking that the prerogative to deprod at a tip of the keyboard comes with a responsibility to have taken the four seconds it takes to click on a link and glance at the material presented. I stand by my characterization. Ravenswing 19:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't have to be a
        WP:DICK about it though. You can just say "the sources are not substantial" and ease up on the personal attacks. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • No one should have had to say that the sources weren't substantial. You should have taken the trouble to find out one way or another before deprodding -- and it would've taken about a tenth the time to do that than you've chosen to spend huffing and puffing here. Ravenswing 20:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable hockey player. We seem to have a lot of articles on such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet
  WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 02:08, 3 June 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) 05:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedparty

Speedparty (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 nontrivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no claim to notability exists. Ifnord (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Vihar

Deep Vihar (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 is about a locality within a city. While

The subject fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is a really small area. Delhi is a city which contains the locality called Rohini, Delhi. Rohini is notable and large enough to merit an article. Rohini is divided into sectors and Deep Vihar is an area within Rohini Sector 24. This is a really small area (a sub division of a sector) and it doesn't deserve an article. This is similar to what is the normal practice for Delhi geographical articles. We keep articles about localities, but not about the individual "sectors" and "pockets". For example Dwarka, Delhi has an article, but the constituent sectors do not have their own articles.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  erm... Not that it matters, but just to point out: Rohini is a city within Delhi state [or National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT)], and Dwarka is a subcity. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Usernamekiran Rohini is not a city. There are no "cities" in Delhi (as in NCT Delhi). Officially there are only districts and each district has sub-districts (for municipal purposes). The term "sub-city" is generally used in parallel to the municipal subdivisions and is generally used to refer certain planned residential areas. Both Rohini and Dwarka are considered "sub-cities".--DreamLinker (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. DreamLinker (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Note that two of the present sources are unreliable per discussions at
  WP:RSN and the third is tangential. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sector 15

Sector 15 (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 is about a locality within a (

The subject fails

• Delete per nom. The article claims the locality is famous but there is no evidence of that that justifies a standalone article.
  talk) 18:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. DreamLinker (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is a small area in Sonipat. Unless there is some other claim to notability, sectors of this size are not notable. I am also concerned that the title is ambiguous.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:52, 2 June 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 Deleted by JzG on 22:45, 4 June 2018 (G5). Natg 19 (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

99bitcoins

99bitcoins (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)

Lot's of references but nothing that adds up to

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't pass GNG, let along the revamped CORPDEPTH - sourcing in the article is mainly to poor sources (with the exception of Bloomberg) and many of them just mention 99 in a passing fashion or with a random quote from them. BEFORE doesn't show much more.Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and
  HighKing⁺⁺ 17:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - it's a
  spam. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Hard advertising and rank abuse of Wikipedia. scope_creep (talk) 22:13, 4 June 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.

Union List of Artist Names

Union List of Artist Names (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)

Article on a database created by an editor with little or no history other than creating this and linking the database to articles - i.e. likely promotional editing. No inline sources, no independent sources at all, and a quick Google didn't find any. There are some hits for the name, but any description is always the same boilerplate presumably supplied by the source. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The article has been here ten years, and averages over 100 hits a day, despite commonly used names like "Getty list" apparently not redirecting. The database, which took over an older dead tree one, is now accepted as the best global source on the topic. Can this be Wikidata envy? It's hard to think of a reason for this foolish nom otherwise. The Getty list certainly shows how inadequate Wikidata is over the same area. Searches just on the official name are not good enough - at the least "ULAN", "Getty list" and "Getty List of Artist Names" need to be done. Frankly your "quick Google" technique needs improving! Here's a book source with extended coverage, another, and another, another short mention, another, and another. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The hit count is undoubtedly skewed by it being in the authority control template (which has several questionable entries). It's nothing to do with Wikidata envy and 100% to do with an absence of reliable independent sources. I found several of thsioe books (haven't checked them all yet) and to use [22] as an example, it's a directory entry with the same blurb as appears on various websites. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, then you'd better read the others, if that doesn't take up too much of your valuable time. That one (one of the shorter ones) is not a "directory entry" but an extract from an academic book on how to get information on art. I don't know quite what coverage you think there could be on an arts-related database. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read the ones I found in a search, you turned up a couple more, which I will review. It is interesting that this article seems to have been created by a spammer though. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't edited since 2009, and may well have been a Getty employee, or otherwise related. But these are category-killer databases, especially as they are free, and worth articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The ULAN is notable, the article is factual, neutral and stable. The ULAN itself, ironcally, is actually quite useful in AfDs. Deletion of the article would serve no real purpose, and be a detriment to our readers. Vexations (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I just added a source; many more can be found. Ewulp (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notwithstanding dodgy authorship. Suggests a notable and significant resource. Couple of good sources, tout est bon. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald F. Campbell

Donald F. Campbell (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)

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 14:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete lacks sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:ANYBIO failure, the source cited (IMDb) is user-generated and thus not reliable. A search turned up nothing significant.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Found no source on the subject. Fails
  talk) 12:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Leamington Spa Bach Choir

Royal Leamington Spa Bach Choir (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)

This seems like a not-particularly-notable amateur choir, and I don't see much evidence that it satisfies

• Delete as there do not seem to be independent sources supporting notability. We only get listings, announcements, and such, in local outlets. -The Gnome (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Case for Murder: Brittany Murphy Files

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

A Case for Murder: Brittany Murphy Files (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 book from a non-notable author published by a minor publisher (who partly function as a vanity publisher, although it is not clear which books are vanity published and which ones not). References are to unreliable sources, in-passing, or to the book itself. Fails

• Keep My articles have received continued attacks by two specific wikipedia members User:wikitgresito & User:RandyKitten. I have proved endlessly they fit in with Wikipedia’s criteria and I believe these are personal attacks on me due to being able to supply hard evidence against the claims made. The above coverage on
  Wikipedia pages I have dropped an email to ABC & highlighted the statements made about my uploads & as soon as I hear back I will post there response here with there approval.LisaHadley2018 (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Striking off commentary by confirmed

sockpuppet. -The Gnome (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Accusing fellow editors of "personal attacks" will not advance your case for keeping the contested article. Submitting for deletion a number of articles you created is not a "personal attack." See

here for what is. -The Gnome (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - thanks for nominating this, RK, I thought of doing so myself earlier today. No sign whatsoever that this meets
  WP:GNG, and it appears to be part of a small walled garden of articles about the author and his books. Wikipedia has criteria for reliable sources, and "ABC certified" is not one of them - besides, a press release or churnalism in a highly reliable source would still not be something we'd use to show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 13:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I can't seem to find any reliable secondary references that would make this work notable. Cheers
  talk) 15:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment u|bonadea I must highlight unless you work within the media & unless you have read the articles attached to my citations in full you can’t selectively decided the notability factor of the publication online, in-print or its topic because it wasn’t on your radar. Please read ABC website & it will highlight the extreme differences between highly reliable sources and none reliable, which fit into Wikipedia’s criteria of inclusion as well. Press release coverage would run similarly, both in print editorial pieces on A Case for Murder: Brittany Murphy Files are entirely different and both highlight the article’s as EXCLUSIVES. I’m happy to include more secondary reference and will gianvitoscaringi LisaHadley2018 (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A person in support for my The Complete History of The Howling has highlighted ABC is supported by the PPA which is the professional publishers association. I will be calling the contact at the agency for advice on this situation. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Multiple reliable secondary sources in the article itself. Obvious keep.
  talk) 18:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Emass100 huge thank you for your support this means allot. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Pointing to sources that are not more reliable than those in the article does not make the subject notable. I am sorry for the page creator who seems to be upset but this is our established policy. wikitigresito (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Multiple reliable sources and secondary sources in the article itself.Activist838 (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)— Activist838 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A

sockpuppetry investigation has been opened. -The Gnome (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Striking out post by blocked sockpuppet. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete appears to fail
  WP:GNG - none of the sources are independent book reviews, and many of them appear to cover of the topic the book is on, not the book itself. SportingFlyer talk 19:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment
  Now Magazine discuss A Case for Murder: Brittany Murphy Files and include an exclusive interview with the books author about his book. Radar Online solely discusses the book's claims. There are multiple reliable sources and secondary sources in the article itself. Activist838 (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Striking out post by blocked sockpuppet. -The Gnome (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, since subject fails notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Administrative note - I have semiprotected this page due to the rather excessive amounts of sockpuppetry and disruption. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with fire and scorch the earth. No independent reliable sourcing. Most of the sources are utter and unredeemable crap -- one is self-published rubbish explaining the role of the Illuminati in Murphy's death; another runs "news stories" like "36 Infamous Celebrity Camel Toes You Can't Unsee" and "Single & Ready To Mingle! J-Law Wants Amy Schumer To Set Her Up". Worthless. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Coverage in the Inquisitr, The Hollywood Gossip, and the like not sufficient for GNG/NBOOk.Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Max E. Johnson

Max E. Johnson (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)

Cant see anything here that suggests this individual passes

• Seems to be too soon for the subject to meet notability guidelines. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)¡[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only notability is by association. Deb (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but should probably draftify. Some notable mention in RS but currently seems to be in something of an
  WP:INHERIT limbo. BelBivDov (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nomination. Try as I might there's only very little substance I can find. -The Gnome (talk) 20:28, 1 June 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.

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

)

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

Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage, so they don't meet

• Delete as the article definitely does not have enough sources for reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggRoll97 (talk • contribs)
• Comment. There seems to be more under the name "Ruth Douglas Currie" (though still not much) than under this title - which is wrong in any case as her books show her as "Ruth Currie-McDaniel". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 16:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 16:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Whether sources are present in the article as it stands now is irrelevant for judging notability at AfD;
  talk) 16:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I think 11 reviews of two of her books should be enough for
  WP:AUTHOR. Thanks to Megalibrarygirl for incorporating the reviews into the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: meets
  WP:NAUTHOR with substantive reviews of her books, as mentioned at this AfD and already in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Satisfies NAUTHOR per coverage of her books in reliable sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Meets
  WP:NAUTHOR. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep LOL, I added the references found by XOR'easter to the article but forgot to !vote. Passes NAUTHOR. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• STOMP, STOMP, STOMP keep (
  reviews), STOMP, STOMP, STOMP. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Snow keep per
  WP:NAUTHOR. gidonb (talk) 21:17, 3 June 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. Black Kite (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Charm

The Art of Charm (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)

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 12:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 12:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete and
  WP:SALT. Nothing has changed since the last AfD. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such as those cited in the article. For example The Guardian article says:

"The Art of Charm podcast can be intimidating. Not just because it’s the work of a lawyer called Jordan Harbinger. Not simply because Jordan has worked out how to weaponise all the many elements of the human personality that go to make up charisma in order to get people to listen to him, be impressed by him or hire him. But mainly because he also has the energy to turn these thoughts into podcasts of frightening intensity. I can’t listen to more than half of the long episodes without having a lie down.

His “minisodes” are easier to take. A lot of it is just common sense – today you should text two people you haven’t texted in a while – but by turning everyday niceness into a matter of iron policy he has become a regular Dale Carnegie of the digital dispensation." FloridaArmy (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. A little more careful examination of the sources cited (or
  stirred up
  ) reveals the following:

The Harvard Business Review gives examples of successful podcast formats, among which it name-drops (once) the Art of Charm (AoC).

All the reports with Shaq in them, e.g. USA Today, Business Insider, Forbes (4/2016), etc, are about Shaq's statements on the Earth being flat, and they simply mention that he spoke on AoC.

The Time article contains viewpoints on storytelling offered by a bunch of people, including the AoC creator. It's not about AoC.

And so on, down the line. -The Gnome (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and The Gnome, who does a great job examining the references. Ifnord (talk) 18:19, 6 June 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. Consensus is that there is no evidence they are a clan, and if they are there is no evidence that they are notable. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noon clan

Noon clan (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)

Barely any content, and the fact remains that the article only contains one source. I think that this article would fall under

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps someone from Pakistan could try to find more sources.
  talk) 15:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Clearly this is an exceptionally prominent family in Pakistan. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If so, could you please add references to the clan prominence (and not to that of the individuals)? Thanks,

talk) 18:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

"Noon+clan"+pakistan&dq="Noon+clan"+pakistan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjtqNOExKvbAhVJ6YMKHUD8A0kQ6AEILzAB This source discusses the "clan" and searching "Noon family" Pakistan turns up others on Google Books. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the linked source discuss them as a clan, as opposed to people bearing the name? I can only see snippet view. Of course, Noon is also a name found elsewhere in the world, used by people who definitely have nothing to do with a clan of Pakistan, as also is the spelling Noone. - Sitush (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page 112. This source is also referred to as discussing the clan (not sure if it uses the word clan or family, haven't read it). FloridaArmy (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But is it discussing them as a clan or just using clan as a passing mention in the informal sense (group of people etc)? I found the snippet for the page you gave and, as is common with snippets, I have no context for the use of the word. - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full text of Noon from that article: For example, it took a Noon on the PPP ticket to defeat the "official" Noon-Tiwana clan candidate in a Sargodha seat. So it does say "Noon-Tiwana clan", FWIW. But, does a mere passing mention, that too combined with another name, satisfy GNG?--regentspark (comment) 22:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this article has a chequered history, eg: Noon family and Noon (Pashtun tribe). At worst, it could be a set-index of people bearing the name Noon. However, associating those people with an alleged clan/tribe can be dodgy unless they have self-identified (see User:Sitush/Common#Castelists for some background to this). - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The only thing I could find was a link to a disallowed site, which doesn't seem to match what's in the article. Deb (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found 4 links on a major Pakistani English-language newspaper Dawn. I am chipping in to do my share, expanded the article with 5 new references. Will try to do more tomorrow, made it a stub article so we can expand it further. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of what you have added so far just says certain people bear the name. The sources are not discussing the clan as a clan. - Sitush (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Clan" is a stretch. [31],[32] merely assert that there is a family with the last name Noon. [33] asserts that there exists a person with a last name Noon. [34] asserts that there are two people with Noon as a last name. So that leaves us with a few people called Noon and that doesn't constitute a clan, notable or otherwise. --regentspark (comment) 22:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually 3 says "He had carried on the Noon family’s political legacy with great integrity. He was former prime minister Feroz Khan Noon’s cousin. He retired from active politics in the late 1970s while introducing his son Malik Amjad Ali Noon into the field." And your 4 says "Malik Amjad Ali Noon and his father Malik Anwer Ali Noon mostly live in their hometown village Ali Pur Noon. The Noon family has 27 villages in Tehsil [Bhalwal]: Nurpur Noon, Sultan Pur Noon and Sardar Pur Noon, among others. Malik Feroz Khan Noon ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan was also a prominent member of the Noon family." I hadn't seen those sources so they are in addition to those noted above. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that all we have is a few people with the name "Noon". That doesn't create a prominent clan. The few prominent people can be included in the disambiguation page Noon_(disambiguation). You need to show that the clan is notable (and that it is actually a "clan" whatever that means). For example, is Noon a subcaste or a tribe? The mere existence of a few people, prominent or not, with a last name is not sufficient. --regentspark (comment) 23:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Transforming family into a clan/tribe/caste is clearly into territory of
  WP:SYNTH.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment Actually the Noon clan of families and landowners are spread all over Pakistani Punjab province as FloridaArmy mentioned above after reading the sourced material and according to my sourced material that I had used to edit and improve the article on 29 May 2018. How do you know 'Noons' are just a few people? When they live and are spread all over the province of Punjab, Pakistan in the thousands, they certainly make a clan. User talk:Winged Blades of Godric went ahead and removed all my references and content from this improved article on 30 May 2018 and added a unreferenced template on top of the article. I prefer not to engage in an edit war with you, Winged Blades, but to be fair and balanced, I would like the closing administrator to see and read my edited article from 29 May 2018 before he/she makes their decision about this article. So I am asking you to please restore my 4 references from Dawn (newspaper) and content. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Another thought of mine is that...there are several large villages named after Noon clan with articles already on Wikipedia ...Alipur Noon, Sultan Pur Noon and some villages without Wiki articles like Nurpur Noon and Sardar Pur Noon in different areas of Pakistani Punjab province - see this GoogleBooks link. In my view, after reading the sourced materials, the large extended Noon clan's history goes back to the 19th century settlements (several large villages in different areas of Punjab). Over at least a period of a century, they have grown in numbers and have formed a Noon clan. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Um. That would be original research. Unless you can find a source that says that the many villages joined together to form a clan. --regentspark (comment) 00:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as
  WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - The "Noon-Tiwana" faction of which Malik Feroz Khan Noon was a member may be encyclopedic, but the Noon clan as a family group seems to fail NOTINDISCRIMINATORY and NOR/SYNTH. If the article were about the Noon-Tiwana group, I might !vote rename/merge/redirect. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. With the understanding that this deletion shouldn't be held against a properly-referenced article on traditional Thai hairstyles. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient hairstyles in Thailand

Ancient hairstyles in Thailand (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, no illustration or context, and the language is an impenetrable knot. Does not exist on other Wikis including the Thai one Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—
  Talk to my owner:Online 10:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Repaired AFD.2001:A61:4E6:C500:3115:48CF:357:2E52 (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a valid topic. There are some references in the article now. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has three refs, all in Thai and all somewhat dodgy. As this is the English WP, I'd say it has no refs. I say delete it and go with the Thai version if some cogent refs can be found. BTW, the word "ancient" does not mean 19th century, or 18th, or 17th, or even 16th, but long before that. Change the title or find refs that support "ancient". Seligne (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep! Since when the language of the references is a problem? EnWiki serves and covers the entire world. I thank those who translated the articles and found references, instead. Cheers!
  talk) 15:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete. I think it's telling that our Thai colleagues have not seen fit to publish this article in Thai. Most persons come to the English language WP expecting to see English text and sources. Thai refs are fine, especially as the subject matter is Thai. So are German, Italian, et al., but exclusively? I have a hunch you have not looked at the refs. Seligne (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me where on Wiki it states that references cannot be all in a different language. Your reason for delete does not stand. What for do we translate articles from other wikis, than?

talk) 15:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Who said that different language ref are a reason to delete? I did not. But when the cites are in a language or languages that depart from the language of the WP language, it's a red flag. The article sucks, the refs suck; the title sucks. While it may be a worthy topic (I have my doubts), as it stands it is a discredit to WP. Seligne (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources in different language is not a reason to delete. I would like to request a Thai reader to check the third reference to be sure it refers to ancient and not simply "traditional" hairstyles. Egaoblai (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. No one has said that different language refs are a reason for deletion. Seligne (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  π, ν) 02:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  In the image at this link, "Song Co Dong" is the top left image, "Ma Had Thai" is the top right image, and "Dok Kra Tum" is middle right. Calliopejen1 (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm ridiculously slow at finding Thai letters and inputting them but dok kra tum is apparently ดอกกระทุ่ม. This seems to be a dictionary definition - [35] but, while I can transliterate Thai and read a few basic words, I certainly cannot read this. There certainly seem to be a lot of sources with which an article could be constructed... [36] Calliopejen1 (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This was created by a one-time editor, probably as part of an EFL school project. References are indeed poor, and the writing isn't good, but I'm not quite convinced this falls into
  WP:TNT territory (which seems to be the only valid reason to delete here). At the very least it needs to be renamed, to something probably with traditional or historical rather than ancient as the adjective. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Sourcing is exceedingly poor, and the article is nearly unintelligible. Perhaps an article could be written on this topic, but we would need to start from scratch. Thai sources are fine as a general matter, but these Thai sources appear to be garbage. Calliopejen1 (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The fact that all the sources are in Thai is not an issue. There's no requirement for sources to be in English. Likewise, the fact that the writing quality is poor is also not a reason to delete. The problem is that none of the three sources appear to be
  WP:V. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Selakovic

Marko Selakovic (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)

Total puff piece, sources either not

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this CV. Even if we take reliability of sources at face value (and there's a lot of barrel-scraping for sources), in sum, he's notable for being.. what? A Jack of all trades? Even if he gets selected for an ambassador eventually, it's not an automatic pass for notability.
  No such user (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete another in a long line of PR type articles on PR people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect to Gajra. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poolajada

Poolajada (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, unreferenced for 2 years Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Gajra and merge anything than can be sourced. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Gajra per FloridaArmy. From looking at photos, Poolajada seems to be a distinct variation of Gajra, so would be good for any usable content to be merged. Cesdeva ^(talk) 09:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Ochoa

Joe Ochoa (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 mayor, no sourcing in the article. A

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- fails NPOL and doesn't inherit notability from his son--
  Rusf10 (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete sourcing from the city's own website is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable at present. Deb (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mayors are not de facto notable, and this guy has less notability than many. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Edinburg TX is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic free pass over
  WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]