Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 27

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 26 February 28 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prithvi Singh Ravish

Prithvi Singh Ravish (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 can't figure out whether there is anything substantial or verifiable in this article. None of the refs are live, and the page's history is full of

WP:COI edits by User:Ambassador.DrRavishPS
(who I have blocked). I have checked the earliest version of the page, and they seem like variants on an abysmal combination of peacockery and verbosity. Maybe this is someone of notability, but this article is so poor that I suggest
WP:TNT. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:56, 28 February 2019 (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. Tone 11:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wapt (logiciel)

Wapt (logiciel) (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)

Sources don't prove notability of software. The sources provided are either all primary sources or sources that do not give indication of the notability of the article subject. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 10:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this as "delete" but someone has challenged the close on my talk page, saying there are further insights available, so I'm relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Cardondenis. @Philipnelson99: Hi Philip, You are totally right that any company can submit its software to a audit process (as it would be for Common Criteria) and may get awarded the certification if it can successfully go through the whole process. However, in addition to CSPN, WAPT also has been granted the more selective "Qualification Elémentaire" status, which "is the French state’s recommendation of cybersecurity products or services that have been tested and approved by ANSSI"[1] (only a subset of Common Criteria/CSPN labelled software are awarded Qualification élémentaire). WAPT is actually widely deployed in French government networks. I have read and understood the notability criteria and acknowledge that a notable topic in one language Wikipedia may not be notable in English Wikipedia. I may argue that since ANSSI certification process is part of SOG-IS European recognition agreement[2], and CSPN itself is set to be part of this recognition agreement this year, the notability goes beyond the French language boundaries. Anyway, I understand that you may ask for more references and sources, and I just think that the AfD banner should be replaced by a "reference needed" banner. My 2 cents... Thanks, Cardondenis (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC) — Cardondenis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  1. ^ https://www.ssi.gouv.fr/uploads/2018/01/qualification-of-solutions_security_visa_anssi.pdf
  2. ^ https://www.ssi.gouv.fr/en/certification/common-criteria-certification/international-agreements/
  • I still stand with my delete vote because certifications do not equate notability. See the page on software notability for help determining the program's notability. Any software can recieve these certifications, furthermore just because a goverment prefers this software does not make it notable. Coverage in reliable sources would be an indication of notability, and none have been provided thus far. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    WP:RS
    (e.g. major French newspapers/journals), that have done a specific piece on this topic where the piece is emphasising its notability (e.g. not just a product review). That is what would secure this.
I also notice from your edit history and Talk Page, that almost all of your contributions on WP are related to WAPT (you have deleted references to prior WAPT articles being deleted on your Talk Page for failing WP:GNG). This is fine (as is deleting your Talk Page), however, it does raise issues that you may have a WP:COI issue, and this article is WP:PROMO. Again, irrespective of these items, as per Philipnelson99, you need to find a good quality independent source that highlights notability. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @
    Richie333: Actually, it is one my intern, ahamon (which is back to school by now) who wrote this (approximative) translation.
    He did quite a lot of work on PyScripter and I told him it would be good to translate the wikien article in French wikipedia. A lot of technical articles in IT are subpar (or worst) due to the lack of contribution. More manpower wouldn't be a bad thing, and I thought it would be a good thing to encourage a student to contribute.
    He took himself the initiative to translate French WAPT article in English (his PyScripter work was related to WAPT, and WAPT is used and taught at his college). I told him he shouldn't as he would get the whole wrath of wikien upon him (no kidding, I've been there :-)...
    Since the article was up, I thought it would be a best to try to improve it to a standard acceptable by the community. I have never hidden my name, you can google it and see what stuff I am working on (be it on google of wikifr). To be clear, nobody has been paid to publish this. I spent a few hours on the weekend and in evening doing this because I thought it was worth it. And yes, people at the office actually told me it is "useless and not worth it".
    Anyway, in my line of work (system and network administration), people are not that much active on the "public" internet. And sadly, there are quite a lot of technical oriented Wikipedia article like for example Kerberos, LDAP, Active Directory, Samba, WSUS, etc. that are at best mediocre (and sometime plain wrong) from a technical point of view. But as long as people will think that it is "useless and not worth it" to contribute, it won't change much.
    Thank you all for your time, and sorry to have wasted it. If I'll ever see this intern again, I'll blame him dearly for this :-) Cheers, Cardondenis (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Big of you to shove the blame on to your poor intern. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:38, 3 March 2019 (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 Xfinity. Sandstein 13:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xfinity Mobile

Xfinity Mobile (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)

Declined AFC submission from Draft:Xfinity Mobile, with last declination: "The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Xfinity Mobile." The mainspace version was copied from the draft without attribution, and is not a substantial improvement over the draft. BilCat (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Adds nothing over its previous iteration. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The AFC tool misbehaved when I declined. I was trying to state that it should be merged into the article at Xfinity. As I noted in my decline comment, a reader is better served to be taken to a paragraph in a longer article than to be taken to a one-paragraph stub from which they can navigate to a parent article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Xfinity, which was my original recommendation at AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a manual redirect of the article before filing the AFD, but was reverted by the creator in question without comment. I considered a formal Merge discussion, but after seeing the three declines of the AFC, I felt an AFD was warranted to keep the article from being recreated again at a later date by another user without discussion. Note that I'm not opposed to having an article on the Xfinity Mobile service, but at this time it isn't warranted. - BilCat (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by original AfC Submitter

Hi Bkissin,

I saw that the Xfinity Mobile article was rejected and wanted to provide more context and hopes that you’ll reconsider.

Reason for rejection: The content already exists on the Xfinity Wikipedia page (parent company) and /Xfinity_Mobile redirects to that parent company's page. Being that Xfinity Mobile is a subsidiary, I believe that it should qualify for its own Wikipedia article, separate from the parent company. The company information, including the info box, would better serve people with a dedicated page.

Please let me know your thoughts and thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsandsources (talk • contribs) 20:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update - I appreciate the open dialog and continued guidance for this article. If the primary concern is insufficient content, I can contribute additional copy and sources to the existing page. As with most articles, over time I anticipate that other authors may standardize and add content to the article too. The company's core information differs from the parent company (much like other subsidiaries) and if it's written correctly, I believe it would serve the community better as it's own entity article. I apologize for the short term inconvenience and appreciate your continued direction. I'll add additional unique content to this page to help meet the standards of the community. Factsandsources (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Xfinity While I appreciate the user's devotion to the topic, my opinion hasn't changed since the original decline. There isn't enough information in the article to warrant a fork from the existing Xfinity article. The Xfinity Mobile article is largely a copy-paste of the Xfinity Mobile section in the original article. I'm not opposed to revisiting this topic later if a content fork is needed, but the arguement that a subsidiary needs a separate article does not work with me. Companies like Coca Cola and Deloitte have regional subsidiaries in other countries, and those would be redirected to the parent company's article.
  • Update - I totally understand your concern for duplicate content and hope to resolve this issue. I've updated the existing article with new content, info box edits, and additional sources. For the subsidiaries mentioned, they likely operate with the same services and products. I do understand the need to redirect particular articles to parent companies. In this scenario, the service, products and market is completely different than the parent company. Please review my edits when convenient, I'm happy to expand and refine this article until the community is comfortable with it being live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsandsources (talk • contribs) 02:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - I understand the frustration but the article already existed before my edits. I've updated and expanded the content and sources again to meet the standards of the community. Please review when you're able. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsandsources (talk • contribs) 15:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Xfinity, they don't even have their own network, I believe they use Verizon's--
    Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2019 (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. Tone 11:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kyro (given name)

Kyro (given name) (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 fail

WP:GNG, noting that Quick Baby Names and Baby Center are not reliable sources. -- Tavix (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:57, 28 February 2019 (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. Tone 11:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intellitech

AfDs for this article:
Intellitech (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 lacks multiple reliable and independent sources to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to find additional sources, though the company operates in a specific field probably not covered by mainstream media. What I found is that they indeed have set some standards for testing of integrated circuits accepted by
IEEE. --Plaxie (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete. Company of 216 employees with $43m revenues is already small, so they need to have very notable products, but they don't. Almost nothing turns up on WP:BEFORE, and most online references really trade/PR releases for the company, so fails NCORP and NPRODUCT. No major
    WP:RS
    of which they are the main subject.
The discussion at the 2008 AfD was of poor quality in my view, and some of the refs quoted would not pass now (they are really primary, being PR releases in lower tier publications). Other arguments were really ILIKEIT (it was a "no consensus" case - at best). Can't see this surviving long-term on WP. Britishfinance (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newlywed Hell

Newlywed Hell (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)

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable film. Does not meet

WP:FILM; significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is routines notices, unselective databases, and / or passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2019 (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. Tone 11:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colby Cooper

AfDs for this article:
Colby Cooper (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 article is not only terribly written and promotional, the subject is largely unremarkable. I don't know of any chiefs of staff of small cities that are remarkable enough to have their own page, and certainly not a page longer and more detailed than the mayor himself. Page has been previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colby Cooper BigDwiki (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Salimi

Maryam Salimi (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)

Like Hamid Ziaei Parvar, fails to meet notability criteria for people and the sources are used to mask the lack of notability. Pahlevun (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 23:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 23:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 23:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 23:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure? I just ran the first 5 cites thru gTranslate. 2, 3, 4 merely quote her on graphic design, all from the same newspaper, one is labeled "training session". the first source is so poetic, so different that it sounds like it may be a different Maryam Salami altogether - a doppleganger who writes poetry. cite # 5 is not an article at all, it's a list of disparate items published by the Public Relations Society". My skepticism her es fed by the extreme improbability of an article with 60 citations about a graphic design communications specialist each cited only once being notable. For notability, we need something tha tis about her - not stuff that merely quotes her. Which of the 60 cites is a profile? or something approaching
    WP:SIGCOV?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • E.M.Gregory, no not terribly sure. I had to return to my PC to check for followed links. Apparently I only looked at refs 1 & 2. These sources talk about the subject directly, which is something. I followed the AfD fins sources links, and https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7h7LnaUAAAAJ&hl=en H-index is low at 7, but best cited paper is pretty good. "Comaximal graph of commutative rings". 2008. Is this her? Departement of Mathematics, East Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University Verified email at ipm.ir. ? Maybe not? It looks like maths. The article says "data journalism", maybe it is the same thing? "She currently lectures in Islamic Azad University", which matches. I see now she is not Mehrdad Salimi, the first author of "Chemotherapy of Mediterranean abdominal lymphoma: retrospective comparison of chemotherapy protocols in Iranian patients" So, no, I am not sure. But still, so many references seem to checvk out, for example. "Dr. Maryam Salimi was appointed as media advisor to the Agricultural and Natural Resources Engineering Organization of Iran Maryam Salimi was born in 1979 in Iran . He is a researcher in the fields of visual communication and communication and lecturer in Sura universities" ... Same lady in the picture, similar birthyears (1978, 1979). I am concerned about systematic bias and don't want to be quick to delete Iranian biographies. The https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%85_%D8%B3%D9%84%DB%8C%D9%85%DB%8C article is basically the same thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The solution to systemic bias is to create good articles about notable Iranians who pass
    WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flibe_Energy

AfDs for this article:
Flibe_Energy (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 Sorry for the double entry for deletion, first time doing this and was not sure how to fix the first. Company has not produced anything noteworthy. The design section is a summary of a marketing presentation and proposed technology, and the majority of citations are to statements made by the CEO. The entire section on cost estimates rely on statements by the CEO. References are to company press releases, presentations by the company, articles written by the CEO, the company youtube channel.By the criteria of WP:COMPANY this company is not noteworthy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Potatoes911 (talk • contribs) 16:17, February 8, 2019 (UTC) ‎

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep If the sources of some parts of the article do not conform to proper external standards, then those should be removed - not the entire article. The company is currently working with the United States Department of Energy with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory on their technology. The Department of Energy is also supporting and funding advanced reactor technology, which include this company's designs. Instead of trying to delete the page, a better attempt should be made at validating the company's claims and removing parts of the page that are either incorrect or do not adhere to Wiki standards. --TypicalBeagle (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for a company is well defined in wikipedia guidelines. Significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. Of the relevant citations (eliminating those on the tech, as whether the tech is notable or not is irrelevant for discussion of whether a company based on said tech is notable) None meet this criteria. They are to statements made by the founder, links to company pages, links to company youtube channel, and links to blog posts by the founder. The lack of relevant sources makes this article indistinguishable from spam and a company trying to build notability by simply having a wikipedia page. The sources fail to pass WP:INDEPENDENT. To quote the notability guidelines for independent coverage a company "too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.". No sources pass this. If the article was cleaned up to be consistent with NPOV there would be nothing left other than a discussion of molten salt reactor technology, which already has its own wiki page. Other than a discussion of tech best left on the MSR pages, no content here passes NPOV.Potatoes911 (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some of the content on the page should be removed. I do not think that it would mean removal of the entire company page. The company has gotten attention from multiple credible sources such as the Washington Post, Business Insider, MIT Technology Review, and The New York Times. They are also working with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (a Department of Energy Laboratory and location of the Hanford Nuclear site). Other companies in the gen IV reactor field have their own Wiki pages - Transatomic (defunct because they made serious errors in the analysis), TerraPower, and Terrestrial Energy. None of these companies are currently building an operational reactor either, do you propose they be removed as well? --TypicalBeagle (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If those references exist, they are not cited in the article. The only coverage in credible sources cited is passing and a sentence or two. As a result no reference passes: Significant, Independent, Reliable and Secondary as called out in the notability guidelines. Working with a National lab does not contribute inherent noteworthiness, just as being an employee of a national lab does not make the individual worthy of a wiki page. This is the first I have heard of those other companies, and whether this company's competitors are noteworthy or not and have wiki pages or not is irrelevant to the notability of the company under discussion. Potatoes911 (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:00, 27 February 2019 (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. Tone 11:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Chu Cary

Justin Chu Cary (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 is about an actor who does not meet the

reliable sources
in the article and in my own seaches.

The sources at the time of nomination are:

  1. Youtube video of an interview - not a reliable source
  2. National Equity Project staff list which is just to reference the subject's father and doesn't even mention the actor
  3. Berkley university newsletter which is just to reference the subject's mother, and does not mention the actor
  4. A cast listing which serves to verify information but is not significant coverage
  5. The same cast list again
  6. The actor and his brothers chared web site - not independent
  7. A wedding photo in a magazine - not significant coverage

The actor has a role in a an upcoming netflix series, he may garner coverage in the future, but there isn't any right now. Whpq (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, if the series becomes notable. Somebody who has not been paid to create an article might create it then. --bonadea contributions talk 22:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rising Northeast

Rising Northeast (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 couldn't find any of the speedy deletion criteria that applied to magazines (and I don't think this is G11), and did not PROD as the article creator has recently worked on it. Does not pass

WP:GNG. All the references in the article are either it's own website or self published. Agent00x (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ICS Marketing Support Services

ICS Marketing Support Services (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 article survived PROD and Speedy deletion in 2008. No major page edits since 2012. I can't find any reliable independent sources for it now. Of the five sources currently cited one is it's own website, one local news, and 2 are membership directory listings. The entire claim to notability arises from the fifth source, showing that the firm ranked 4744th in Inc Magazine's 5000 fastest-growing companies of 2012. I conclude from this that it is not notable. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article whose sourced content consists mainly of routine industry affiliations. Nor are previous appearances in fastest-growing-company lists sufficient for notability here. The company was acquired in 2014 by Progressive Impressions International (press release), but there is no suitable redirect target. Fails
    WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Nabra Hassanen

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 a notable crime. All murders may be tragic, but not all are notable. No claim of notability, and no coverage other than immediate news-wire coverage and

π, ν) 18:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perp has pled guilty. Has been convicted. Is awaiting sentencing, scheduled for March.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judged sufficiently mentally able to stand trial. "road rage" is in interesting way to describe chasing a girl on foot, shoving her into a car, driving to a dark place, raping her, murdering her, and dumping her body in a pond. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kopitiam

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable company that should be deleted or redirected to

WP:CORPDEPTH (possibly due to the chain sharing a name with many, many other businesses and restaurants). Furthermore, the only real coverage concerning the chain (which would still be excluded from meeting NCORP as it is a routine business announcement) is in regards to the chain being acquired by the National Trades Union Congress. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 15:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 15:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 03:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NCORP takes a strong stance against such trivial coverage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Kopitam original set up in Malaysia and branches to other countries, thus the coverage fro New York Times, CBS talks about the same chain of company - see here 1 [5] is from New Strait Times which is a independent realizable source and not a press release piece. More coverage here 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35. thank you.
talk) 02:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note this AfD is about the Singapore-based Kopitiam Corporation, not the generic Malasian term for coffeehouse; quoting from one of the sources cited above "Kopitiam means coffee shop". In my reading of the sources shown at this AfD, I can see no connection between this Kopitiam and the New York Cafe (or any of hundreds of other venues) of the same name... perhaps I am missing something? Some sources above do mention the right Kopitiam, but only in regards to news about the upcoming merge with NTUC—the one exception is this article [6], an interview with the company's founder. My case remains that coverage of this Kopitiam is regional (confined only to Singapore), and lacking the in-depth, independent coverage for inclusion.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "delete" arguments are stronger. Our notability guidelines do not make an exception for political parties. The need for reliable sources is based in

WP:V, a core policy. Sandstein 13:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Secular Democratic Party (Iran)

Secular Democratic Party (Iran) (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 to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria. Pahlevun (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I presume this article needs sufficient notability by citing (more) reliable secondary sources. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously I don’t know one word of Persian, but from what I could decipher with translations is that this party doesn’t have general notability. I can’t find one legitimate news source for it. Trillfendi (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Of the two refs in the article, one is broken and the other looks primary. Of SmokeyJoe's two refs, the first is broken (as well as the cache), while the second is the only secondary source that I can find to prove the existance of this party IranIntl.com. I scanned the founder, Esmail Nooriala, who seems more notable (he seems to have a WP page on Iran-WP), but I could not find any other sources on him linking him to this party (which is odd). Per Keeps above, if existance of a Party is sufficient, then it is a Keep; however if they need elements of GNG, then it would be a delete. Britishfinance (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I haven't researched this enough to form an opinion, other than to note two things regarding SmokeyJoe's comment:
  1. WP:ORG
    does cover political parties. From the second paragraph, Simply stated ... this includes ... political parties.
  2. Archive.org has a copy of the fa.isdparty.org source: https://web.archive.org/web/20171116091919/https://fa.isdparty.org/index.php/articles/4-roham
-- RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. That is, no consensus to delete, but I think there is consensus to proceed as proposed by RebeccaGreen, that is, to transform this article into an article about all the uncertain ancient Larissas. Sandstein 13:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa (Thrace)

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 for a Larissa in Thrace. The cited reference is about Larissa (Elis), which has an article; I tried redirecting it but someone else thought it ought to exist and so lets see if anyone can find sources for a Larissa in Thrace. The Hansen reference can be found at https://books.google.com/books?id=h7kRDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA499 where the Laris(s)a on page 499 is squarely in the chapter entitled Elis, not Thrace. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment I also found the first two sources cited by Mccapra, and some others. It is clear that some people interpret the ancient texts to say that there was a Larissa in Thrace, and others argue that there is no need to interpret them that way, and that references to Larissa must be to Larissa (Elis). There is no mention of that dispute in the Larissa (Elis) article, and given that it seems to have been around for centuries (the sources cited here date from the early 19th century), it would probably be useful to include it in Wikipedia (though I haven't checked for more recent sources to see whether there's modern research that definitely establishes it one way or the other). But it would probably be better to include the dispute in the article on Larissa (Elis), especially as both are supposedly located between between Elis and Dyme (Achaea). RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that sounds a good way of handling this. Mccapra (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There was no Larissa in Thrace. Hansen and Nielsen (Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis) list a Larissa in Elis, and four Larisa in Thessaly, Achaia Phthiotis, Troas, and Aiolis, but none in Thrace. The books mentioned by Mccapra refer to a mention of Larissa in Homer. Those dating from the first half of the 19th century have little scientific value. The third source mentions Larissa and Thrace in an enumeration, eg. "Larissa, then Thrace", not "Larissa in Thrace". The Larissa of the Iliad could be that in Troas. See discussion there and there. There is not enough ground to create an article on this city, and the discussion related to the Homeric Larissa should be included in the articles on the Larissa in Troas and Thessaly. T8612 (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @T8612: Very interesting comments. It there a significant level of confusion about this topic from earlier historical books, that it would still be worth having this article to clarify that it probably did not exist, and that earlier historians were wrong. Or, is it so unambiguous that such an article would be unmerited? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Britishfinance:I edited the disambiguation page on Larissa and mentioned the Larissa in Thrace there. Normally, it should also be discussed in the article on the Larissa in Troad. I think there is no need for an article on the Larissa in Thrace. T8612 (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and T8612 (T8612, just clarified your vote). Britishfinance (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename and revise To clarify my comment above - the point about the books from the early 19th century is that they show a longstanding argument about whether there was a Larissa in Thrace or not. In fact, the second source that T8612 provided (and which was first published in 1886-1888) shows that there has been debate since the time of Strabo! That source suggests either Larisa (Troad) or "Larissa near Kyme in Aiolis"", presumably (?) Larissa Phrikonis in Aeolis. The 2003 book which User talk:T8612 also linked to has only a snippet view on Google books, but that snippet suggests that there is still confusion - or conjecture - about which Larissa is intended. This source mentions Larissa in Thessaly, which the others don't, so we have at least 3 possibilities of known places called Larissa, and the discussion about whether there was also one in Thrace. On that basis, I am coming to the conclusion that it would be best to have a separate article summarising the mentions in the ancient texts and the hypotheses about which place is intended (with a name something like Larissa (Iliad). We certainly can't have a sentence in the disambiguation page with no qualification and no sourcing - it is clearly controversial. (Pinging Mccapra, who first contributed to this discussion.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is you won't find sources for a Larissa in Thrace. At the very least, the title should be changed to something like Larissa (Homeric city), as it could well be a city not in Thrace. I have just found that
G. S. Kirk in his commentary on the Iliad (vol. I, p. 257) says that Strabo "was probably wrong", and favours the Larisa in Troad:

"LARISA was a place-name particularly associated with the Pelasgoi, ancient inhabitants of Greece (cf. "Apyos, the homeland of Akhilleus, at 681, also Apollodorus 11.4.4). Strabo (9.440) mentions no less than eleven Larisas; one was north of the later Hamaxitos on the west coast of the Troad (Strabo 13.620; Cook, Troad 219-21), which would suit the proximity of this contingent to the preceding ones from in and around the Troad - although when Hippothoos dies before Troy at 17.301 it is said to be 'far from Larisa'. That caused Strabo to opt for the Larisa near Kume, further south, but he was probably wrong. The Pelasgoi are stationed near the Leleges at 10.429, and the Leleges lived in Pedasos in the Troad according to 21.86f." T8612 (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, that is what I meant - we should have a separate article about the Homeric city, and I think we may as well keep this one, rename it and revise it. I suppose that's not a straight Keep, so I have added Rename and Revise to my vote. Whether it is Larissa (Iliad) or Larissa (Homeric city), it would make clear that it is a city named in a ca 2,500 year old text. The article's content would need to be rewritten to focus on the uncertainty of its identification, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaGreen That was before I found the work of GS Kirk, who is a very reputable source and shows that the confusion originates in Strabo, and that he was mistaken on this point. I don't think that creating an article on a city with no source supporting its existence is worth it. I'm also not sure it would fit the notability requirement. I added GS Kirk to the article on Larisa in Troad, which is already quite developed. T8612 (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename and revise per RebeccaGreen. If the modern scholarly consensus is that there was no such place, but there are suggestions in older sources that there was, then I think that provides the basis of an article discussing the matter. That is exactly the kind of thing someone would be likely to look up on Wikipedia. I don’t feel strongly about what the name should be, but T8612ks suggestion of Larissa (Homeric city) looks good. Mccapra (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Note to Closer. Interesting direction this discussion is going, and I do not have the subject detail experience to re-write this article. However, the article as stands in its current form (both title and text) is a Delete. All agree there was no place of this title. I would support the calls for "Keep, rename and revise" per the material already given in this AfD by T8612 and RebeccaGreen, but given it is a new title, new text etc. (e.g. a brand new WP article), it would need to replace this one. Otherwise it is better to delete this one now and come back to the subject later. Hope that makes sense. Britishfinance (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename and revise. I think RebeccaGreen has made the case for this conclusively. Whether we now believe there was a Larissa in Thrace or not isn’t this issue; as a matter of encyclopaedic principle we should record the fact that there is a long and contentious debate on the point. Thanks to her for teasing this out so clearly. Mccapra (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC) Apologies I've struck my !vote as I just realised I accidentally voted on this twice. Mccapra (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black Unicorn Split

Black Unicorn Split (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

WP:XY, with two notable artists. Having said that, the case for keeping Classic Case's article is borderline, with little more than the AllMusic biography, so the discussion here is to decide whether to simply delete this article or redirect it to He Is Legend. Richard3120 (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Regardless of how notable the artist(s) may be, the bottom line is that this article fails
    WP:NALBUM. The only thing this page offers apart from the musician's page is track listing, so it can't stand-alone. If someone wants to simply list an [non-notable] EP's track listing, they should follow the example on Daley (musician)#EPs. Horizonlove (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
They shouldn't even do that, frankly. Richard3120 (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is a perfect alternative if someone were willing to create a chart column on the artist(s) page or their discography page(s). That way, it is not taking unnecessary space and if a user wants to, they can listen the track listing to the EP in a hidden drop-down list. They are many pages on Wikipedia that demonstrate that example. Horizonlove (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, they shouldn't, per
MOS:DONTHIDE. If there are discography articles with track listings on them, then those track listings should be removed, not the other way around. Richard3120 (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2019 (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. I almost closed this as No Consensus, based on most of the keep arguments being unconvincing vis-a-vis citing policy, and some of them being from accounts with relatively little experience. On the other hand, it's a little odd (as mentioned in the debate) that a nomination would come from a user with a fairly low experience level. In any case, the article (and sourcing) has evolved significantly during the course of this AfD, so many of the comments on the delete side about lack of sourcing seem obsolete at this point. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Chambers

Jamie Chambers (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)

Minor figure of little notability in the game industry with a few titles to his name and sources lack quality. LambdaKnight (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bibliography section with a number of books and links to their info. Going through to find other references to add, then I'll be fleshing out other sections of the page. ―Vancian | ✉  21:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I believe that the sources you added affirm my "Keep" by attesting to the notability of the subject. BOZ (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - User has worked on a number of significant releases in the role playing game industry, including the release of the most recent edition of Metamorphosis Alpha, the Dragonlance setting for WotC, and the creation of the Serenity Role Playing Game. There really is no question of subject's notability - the only real issue being that the article is a stub needing expansion. Further, contributor
    WP:BLPCOI. Contributor specifically mentions that attempting to delete the two other pages helps show that he is not a SPA. Regardless of our personal feelings about any person who is the subject of a Wikipedia entry, these actions are troubling and show that the notability of the article subject is not the true focus here. Wikipedia articles should not be deleted out of spite. This is LambdaKnight's third attempt to delete this article in less than 24 hours. Ceronomus (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The second "attempt" to delete was a mistake. I used a Twinkle gadget which I thought did the procedure for nominating a page for deletion, but instead tagged an article for uncontroversial deletion, which I had already done. Excepting that mistake, as far as I understand, I am simply following the standard procedure. The procedure is to first propose an article for uncontroversial deletion with the associated tag. Anyone can remove that tag if they believe the deletion is not uncontroversial. That was done. The second step is to start a discussion about the deletion. If this discussion leads to the conclusion that it should be kept, then it is kept. If the discussion comes to the conclusion that it should be deleted, it is deleted. Regarding your accusation that I'm "attacking" this page because someone "defended" another person is ridiculous, but I can see how you might see it that way. In truth, the subject of this article implied that if Sean Patrick Fannon's article merits deletion, then so does his. I looked at his article and agreed. It isn't particularly well-sourced or useful. LambdaKnight (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The award cites wikipedia as a tertiary source, after first citing the primary source, because I could not find a reference to who won the award 15 years ago anywhere else. It was verification, nothing more. If that's not a valid source then you're welcome to remove it but doing so doesn't remove the other source for the award. As to
WP:AUTHOR
, it does not require him to have been the primary or sole creator of the work. It says:
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
Emphasis mine. He is one of the four authors listed on the cover and directly mentioned in the awards nominations. Awards it got in a country other than his home country, the Lucca Comics awards being an Italian gaming award. So that alone qualifies as having "(c) won significant critical attention".
I have also found a number of other secondary coverage mentions of him that I have not had time to add to the article yet, but I plan to over the next few days. In some cases I'm not even sure how to cite them properly, like this. [1]―Vancian | ✉  15:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward to reviewing the other secondary coverage. The Cherokee Tribune article, from the blurb I can see, appears to be a "local man" profile, and I can't tell how long it is. (The cite is easy, you have the author's name, publisher, and date, so you can fill in those fields.) Even, arguendo, being the third author out of four on a game is enough to pass
WP:AUTHOR, which multiple independent periodical articles and reviews/primary subject of an independent and notable work have picked up the game they co-wrote? The fact the award couldn't be verified by anything apart from Wikipedia is a huge red flag to me, honestly. SportingFlyer T·C 16:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
It's less that the 2005 Origin Award can't be verified by anything else and more that it's from 14 years ago, so most places online that mention it are gone or were blogs and I've seen people get downright furious at inclusion of links to blogs. I removed the Wikipedia link and left the link to the announcement but I'll see if I can find more expansive coverage. ―Vancian | ✉  17:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2019 (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. Tone 11:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Candy Twins

The Candy Twins (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 only source is from

WP:MUSIC. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: how do we know the NME ever mentioned them, and if they did, how would we find out, short of going to the British Library and spending hours trawling through back issues? If mentioned at all, it probably wasn't much, given the band's entire output appears to be one EP. A redirect to David Young (novelist) is possible, given that they are mentioned in passing there. Richard3120 (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per
    WP:BURDEN, it's just not my problem to check that, it's the article author's. But there needs to be some sourcing, from somewhere. The Sun is poor (although I wouldn't rule it out) and we're supposed to be taking multiple sources as our baseline. But for a band at that time, I would expect the NME to cover any UK band 'worthy of mention'. Exceptions are possible - the Crucial Three situation - but they're going to be exceptional. If one of the involved editors was in the band, then don't they have a clippings file? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@Andy Dingley: I agree with you, I'm just wondering where you got the impression that they might have been mentioned by the NME at some point, because I can't see any mention of that in the article. As you say, the editor probably kept clippings of every media mention they had, so if he didn't mention the magazine, my assumption is that they were never featured. Richard3120 (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the NME ever did mention them. But there's a strong correlation for UK bands between notability and the NME noticing, and vice versa. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2019 (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. While there is coverage of the subject, the consensus of this discussion is that it is too routine/local to grant notability. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Nakić

Toni Nakić (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

WP:NHOOPS Dewritech (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 00:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 00:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 00:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 05:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first source talks about his team being on a 3 game losing streak and doing team building at a waterfall before it launches into a detailed play by play of a game. I'd call that routine sports coverage. The next two articles are local coverage (urban population of Šibenik is about 50,000). The first mentions him playing at the junior euro-league tournament in Spain and then goes into detail about the team's performance. The second is a short article mentioning his being named as the best athlete in Šibenik and being invited to the 24 man roster for the national team's final World Cup qualifying games. That's more routine and
WP:NOTNEWS coverage. The other two articles I can't access, probably because of my computer's security settings, but your "lots of other passing mentions" seems to hit the nail on the head. Plenty of typical sports reporting and local coverage, with having a chance to try out for the national team being the most significant. However, that alone is not enough to show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Slobodna Dalmacija is the largest newspaper in the Dalmatian region, and Vecernji list is one of the biggest dailies in the country and did a feature on him, even as a youth. There's nothing wrong with local sources, especially when those local sources are actually national. SportingFlyer T·C 03:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Local or not, and some of it is clearly local, the coverage doesn't seem to be significant to me because it's typical sports reporting. As I said, I can't access the last two articles you listed. If you believe the coverage is significant, then we'll just have to disagree (or I'll need to see better sources). Papaursa (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We'll disagree, then. He's been covered specifically in two of the three largest daily periodicals in Croatia, and he was just called up to play against Poland last week [16] so even if he is deleted for not being notable, he'll be notable soon. SportingFlyer T·C 06:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have to ask. What notability criteria do you think he'll meet by playing in a game against Poland? Papaursa (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My argument wasn't "he'll be notable for playing against Poland" but rather "he's now playing for a major national team." SportingFlyer T·C 05:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn't meet any notability criteria. Croatia finished the tournament with a 4-8 record and four games behind the last team in its group to be one of the 12 European teams to qualify for the World Cup. Nakić played a grand total of 2 minutes and none of the 37 players Croatia used in the tournament played less time.[17] I don't see how you can claim that shows notability unless you're willing to add thousands of players from the 165 FIBA nations. Papaursa (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2019 (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 per speedy deletion criteria

wp:G4: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Reynolds. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Rachel Reynolds (model)

Rachel Reynolds (model) (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)

Game show model.

Fails

WP:BASIC
:

  • No significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable.

Fails

WP:ENT
:

  • Individual has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
  • Individual does not have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  • Individual has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Article was originally deleted 31 May 2015.

Subject is not the same person as

AldezD (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete.

WP:G7 Yunshui 雲水 16:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Akrasia25/Locus

Akrasia25/Locus (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 meant to make this page a sandbox page Akrasia25 (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2019 (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. Tone 11:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Breweries in Northumberland

Breweries in Northumberland (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)

Listcruft. Wikipedia

is not a directory and so far as I can tell, none of these are independently notable nor do they have articles. Praxidicae (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages. The individual list entries appear to lack individual notability. The article seems to have been transposed from Ratebeer.com which raises questions of reliability (user edited contents). I believe lists are not copyrightable per se, however, the concern may be there. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't dispute that individual Northumbrian breweries lack notability in terms of Wikipedia's policy. As I wrote in the article's talk page, this was precisely my motivation behind the article - that together they would achieve collective notability. If this concept does not exist, then clearly the article will have to be deleted.Tammbeck (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "combined" notability. But my original point still remains is that Wikipedia is not a directory or tour guide. Praxidicae (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2019 (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shift (software)

Shift (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)

This article looks like made underpaid contributions to Wikipedia and this software itself is not notable individually it's a complete advertisement. So Here I nominate this article for Deletion. MrZINE 11:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If they were underpaid, would they have less motivation to make it so advertorial? Nosebagbear (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Living a fantasy, Man finds job in gaming industry after years as a fan".
  2. ^ https://support.tryshift.com/kb/section/45/
  • Delete. The company,
    WP:GNG. The product itself is reviewed in various tech blogs but nothing in these reviews gives any impression that this is a notable product (sometimes it is reviewed in a group with other substitute products); so fails NPRODUCT. Britishfinance (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2019 (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christos Tsoutsouvis

Christos Tsoutsouvis (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)

Even though Christos Tsoutsouvis is mentioned by many sources, I found it hard to spot a single RS that covers the subject significantly. There is a notability template (has been there since November 2017[18] ), but it has not been addressed until recently, inadequately in my opinion. (See

WP:GNG. Cinadon36 (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @E.M.Gregory: I have seen that you have added a couple of sources. The first one, a book by Kasimeris, mentions Tsoutsouvis once, in a 2 sentenced footnote. The second one, a a book by Busky, mentions Tsoutsouvis once, without examining him or his life. It just lists the terrorist organizations in Greece. Third is an article by NYT, only mentions Tsoutsouvis without examing is life. It is not an article on Tsoutsouvis, it is an article describing a bomb attack by a German terrorist Group, named after Tsoutsouvis. Forth is a news article describing various blasts in Europe. ("Bombs hit cities across Europe; One death heavy damage in four blasts". Ottawa Citizen. UPI. 9 September 1986.). I do not have access to it but it is reasonable to suppose that it doesn't cover in a significant extent Mr. Tsoutsouvis. The fifth source, a news article that I do not have access to it. ("Bombs hit cities across Europe; One death heavy damage in four blasts". Ottawa Citizen. UPI. 9 September 1986.) The title suggests that it is a report from a blast in Athens. So, I can't see how these links contribute to the notability of the subject. I am certain there are many more mentions in various media. But not one covers in significant extent Christos Tsoutsouvis. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this article is BOTH about Christos Tsoutsouvis , and the little shootout he had with Greek police, and about the Christos Tsoutsouvis Revolutionary Organization, name din his honor, which bombed buildings in Cologne and Athens in the 1980s. Some detail already in article. Added more material about this person, much more can be added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single one of the borderline RS presented are about the Christos Tsoutsouvis. Yes, he is mentioned by mainstream Greek media, but there is no comprehensive work about the life of Tsoutsouvis. PS: The article at enet.gr is about seven bombs attacks in Athens. The article at Rizospastis is about another greek guerilla/terrorist. The article at Kathimerini is about ELA, a group that Tsoutsouvis was part of it (maybe we could merge). The article at reader.gr is about Koufontinas (another terrorist). Reader.gr is not RS. Anarchypress is a blog, can not use it to establish notability. Cinadon36 (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is not valid reasoning for keeping the article. Cinadon36 (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject does meet
    WP:BASIC, the notability guideline for People, says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability ..." There is no requirement for a "comprehensive work about the life of Tsoutsouvis". RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as an extremely bad idea, not worth spending a discussion on. Fails about every guideline and policy on article inclusion we have.

Fram (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Aisle information for Coles (Burwood, NSW)

Aisle information for Coles (Burwood, NSW) (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)

WP:NOT - these two articles, a list of supermarket aisles, and a list of lists of supermarket aisles (one entry so far), represent a new project by Vitreology which is beyond the scope of this wiki. Cabayi (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Removing reference to the list of lists since List of retail layout tables just got deleted G6. Cabayi (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. Tone 11:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Terrorland

The Terrorland (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)

A never-published, allegedly "stolen" novel. The sources in the External links section are very weak and do not indicate the work or its author meet

WP:GNG. GregorB (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted g5 by

(non-admin closure) Praxidicae (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Akash Banerjee

Akash Banerjee (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)

Most of the references are centered around him being a speaker at a delhi litfest 2016 event. Other than that I don't think there are enough sources to establish notability. Daiyusha (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bonadea SPI is still open, so the G5 is not applicable right now. I have removed G5 and restored AfD tags. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you have a look at the contribs of the creator of that page, he seems to be too desperate for the article to exist, he keeps giving me barnstars requesting me not to delete the page. Daiyusha (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2019 (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. Whilst there is some coverage of this, in the article and below, the sources cited are almost invariably very brief mentions of the "curse" and can essentially be summarised as, "you might have heard of the Aaron Ramsey curse, here's some random people tweeting about it". People reporting other people's tweets is not significant coverage satisfying GNG. Fenix down (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of Aaron Ramsey

Curse of Aaron Ramsey (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)

Does not meet notability standards if the non-reliable sources (most of them) are excluded. Additionally, this is a BLP violation as Ramsey is alive. We shouldn't be perpetuating this sort of nonsense about living people. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of the Bambino doesn't single out one living individual does it? The sources here may talk negatively about this "curse" but the existence of the article effectively legitimises what amounts to a rather unpleasant (if ludicrous) campaign against one person. Protecting living individuals from this sort of victimisation trumps GNG in my view. He is quoted in the article as saying he finds the whole thing distasteful and who can blame him? How would you feel if it was you? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Is a snow close appropriate here given the BLP violation? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's the actual BLP violation? Nothing here is poorly sourced. SportingFlyer T·C 14:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the sources are not reliable but that isn't the real problem. The problem is that it perpetuates and gives credibility to the ludicrous idea that a living person's football playing kills people. Don't you see that? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't necessarily call this a "BLP violation", but if I had to formulate a principle which is arguably violated here, it would be this: when adding to a BLP something the person in question would reasonably not want to see in his or her bio, make sure the inclusion of that content has a legitimate encyclopedic justification. GregorB (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not all that fussed with the content, especially considering it's a story that's been picked up internationally in reliable sources such as [21]. It passes
WP:BLP violation, and I don't see any problem mentioning it here. I'm not arguing it's not ludicrous! SportingFlyer T·C 16:27, 28 February 2019 (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. Not yet notable, happy to restore to userspace for drafting if an editor requests it. Fenix down (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kouamé Ouattara

Kouamé Ouattara (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)

Footballer who fails GNG and

WP:NFOOTY. Though he has signed with a Canadian club from a fully-pro league, the season doesn't start until April. Maybe it's worth to draftspace him until his debut. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gumpy

Gumpy (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 coverage in

WP:NSOFTWARE. signed, Rosguill talk 08:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus LaVoi

AfDs for this article:
Marcus LaVoi (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)

Subject is an actor. No IS and RS found except one interview piece - Here. Fails

talk) 06:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

How is he not notable when he's an actor that has been on way more than one professional, Hollywood film and television franchise. He's worked with Steven Soderbergh, been on The Young And The Restless, and is one of the only professional actors I've ever head of who started out as a security guard, and was pulled organically into a career as a professional actor. Stop hating on this man's story! Isn't this what Wikipedia is supposed to be about? I tell you, you hard-nosed moderators make it nearly impossible for people to contribute to this thing. It's gotten out of control, and when Wiki asks for annual donations, it makes it kind of had to reach down to the bottom of our hearts to give openly when it's so torturous for regular people to contribute to this forum. It's too hard. So I hope you don't delete this page, because this actor has an interesting story. Interesting to me, at least. And to Netflix, and to soap operas, and to action filmmakers, and to Oscar-winning directors. Please don't act like relentless terrorists and delete this man's page. His IMDB shows a strong and constantly growing body of work that exemplifies the progressing career of an actor with an interesting story. Thank You. M3diaguide (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is not notable according to Wikipedia's specific criteria because he does not meet
these requirements. Most actors don't - it's not a sign of being a bad or uninteresting actor, it only means that Wikipedia has special requirements and he doesn't meet them (yet). --bonadea contributions talk 14:26, 27 February 2019 (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 Closing this as a matter of housekeeping: two AfD discussions were opened simultaneously, and it is the other one that's linked from the article, so I will move my rationale there. bonadea contributions talk 11:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus LaVoi

Marcus LaVoi (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)

PROD contested by COI editor "on actor's behalf". The actor does not come close to meeting

WP:GNG and the article is almost entirely promotional. bonadea contributions talk 06:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:58, 27 February 2019 (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Paciorek

Piotr Paciorek (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 academic--the article reads like a resume, and I haven't found any secondary sources discussing him or his work. gnu57 06:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:56, 27 February 2019 (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Marshall

Nancy Marshall (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)

A very adverty article whose subject does not have significant independent coverage in reliable sources, although as the head of a small PR firm, there's a lot of trivial coverage of the subject and coverage that quotes the subject. Marshall has won an award conferred by the

WP:GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 05:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:19, 27 February 2019 (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

(non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Michael Jackson HIStory statue

Michael Jackson HIStory statue (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 statue was created to promote the album and tour for the album

talk) 05:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2019 (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. Basically, not enough people have come forward to defend keeping the article, therefore consensus is to delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Parra's perfect game

Manny Parra's perfect game (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

WP:COATRACK for Parra's career, not the game itself. Yes, this has been approved as a Good Article, but initial discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Notability_of_minor_league_perfect_game indicate this is worth a full discussion at AfD. —Bagumba (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Yes, there is consensus here to delete. Given that the article is a GA, I would like that consensus be even firmer before pushing the button, to forestall any drama that might ensue. If another admin wishes to delete immediately, I will not stand in the way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:55, 27 February 2019 (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.

(non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Elements (restaurant)

AfDs for this article:
Elements (restaurant) (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)

Does not meet

Rusf10 (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Restaurant reviews are exactly the type of in-depth coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. If The New York Times thinks a restaurant is worth writing about, the restaurant is probably notable. Most restaurants do not receive the range and number of reviews that Elements has received. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Time and time again it is argued that because something has a article in the New York Times, it must be notable. I have yet to see this policy granting auto-notability to anything that can be sourced to the New York Times. The fact is the New York Times regularly covers New Jersey and this falls under
Rusf10 (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
As usual, the nothing should be deleted argument.--
Rusf10 (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
In case it affects your opinion, I just want to point out that the Forbes source is not written by a staff member or published in a print issue. Forbes.com "contributors" have been judged generally unreliable. Colin M (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Colin, the Forbes article is basically the equivalent of an opinion column. And much more importantly, it is nothing more than a listing, there is no in depth coverage of the restaurant in Forbes.--
Rusf10 (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Doesn't matter how many people were polled, its still a list, not significant coverage as required by
Rusf10 (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New York city is right next to Jersey, it's still local coverage. The Forbes article is nothing more than a list, it is not in-depth coverage and therefore cannot contribute to notability. --
Rusf10 (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
A city of 8 million people is next to a state of 9 million people, so you consider that local coverage? Dream Focus 11:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having considered this further (re my comments above), this restaurant is a ghost outside of the New York area; the Forbes list is not a recognised list of greatest U.S. restaurants (and it is just Forbes.com which is not Forbes), and Elements is missing in the main U.S-wide lists (e.g. here, here, here, here). In fact, I could not find Elements in any main U.S. top 50 to 100 restaurant list (never mind global top 100 restaurants). Why would WP keep an article on a notable New York restaurant that is unknown outside of the NY area? Britishfinance (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Oof. So borderline. Feeling pretty neutral at this point. I do want to push back against the idea that a full review in the New York Times can be written off as "local". It's the newspaper of record for an area with the population of a mid-sized country and has a large readership outside of that area that sources we label "local" in the dismissive sense don't have. It's not a small town paper that reviews everything. It has little short reviews and full reviews, and this one received the latter. The notability that comes with that sort of review is why the most destined-to-be-notable restaurants open there -- because they can increase that notability much more easily there. TL;DR it's not fair, but a NYT review of something just counts for more than a review of something in the Bangor Daily News (sorry, Maine), because it covers a huge population, has to be a lot more selective, and has a wide reach. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For illustration, there are reportedly more than 26,000 restaurants in the NYC.[31] I don't know how many there are in New Jersey, but I suppose 5,000 may be a good guess. I'd say 99% of them won't receive any coverage in secondary sources, and very, very few of them will receive coverage on the level this article currently has. (Which is considerable even if restaurant rankings and reviews are excluded.) By their nature, restaurants are predominantly local businesses - Princeton, New Jersey is hardly a tourist locale - and I don't think coverage on the national level is necessary to establish notability. GregorB (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites, wow, that must have been a lack of coffee issue...I would have sworn I checked to see if there were any other NYT article listed! So sorry! valereee (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I still can't believe a single NY Times restaurant review makes this notable.
Rusf10 (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by @

(non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Altoona child sexual abuse scandal

Altoona child sexual abuse scandal (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)

It appears as though this page was previously created by a sock and then deleted. [32], [33], and [34] Meatsgains(talk) 03:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I re-created this page as I feel it is certainly notable for an article on Wikipedia given it's scale and nature of abuse. It was deleted numerous times previously with the only reason being it was created by a sock. I do not feel however just because an article was deleted numerous previous times it should be deleted again because someone doesn't like it, and does not have adequate reason to do so. Thanks.AlbionJack (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lolipop lagelu

Lolipop lagelu (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

WP:NSONG. Sheldybett (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editor indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet. Richard3120 (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:ILIKEIT. Personal preference is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article or other content. Horizonlove (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete: It fails
    WP:NSONG. There are no sources to support any of the claims on the song's page. Not only that, but the grammar in this article is a little mediocre. "The melodious version of the song was sung by Siddharth Slathia along with the collaboration of American Violin player". Why not simply say "The song was covered by...." If not a delete, then most definitely a redirect. Horizonlove (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus to keep based on sources in the Russian language version of this article.

(non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Kingdom of Crooked Mirrors (2007 film)

Kingdom of Crooked Mirrors (2007 film) (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)
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 23:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 23:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We are getting close to a Keep consensus... but not quite there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:49, 27 February 2019 (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

(non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Semeli Economou

Semeli Economou (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)

Subject isn't notable and article is written promotionally. Joe (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:49, 27 February 2019 (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 Connie Hedegaard. Sandstein 15:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Det 20. århundrede – De 100 mest betydningsfulde personer i Danmark

Det 20. århundrede – De 100 mest betydningsfulde personer i Danmark (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)

Appears to me to fail

WP:GNG. Madness Darkness 00:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Renold

Fritz Renold (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)

Questionable notability, not enough sources for an article of substance Vmavanti (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO, #5, since he's got records out with EMI and Columbia and (I assume) EPM Musique. The sourcing is terrible, that's a fact. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Twice I tried to use Twinkle, and twice I got error messages. So I clicked on Twinkle Help and it gave me some ideas. I went to the deletion log page for this day. I went into the edit page. There were some syntax errors, perhaps typos, and after I changed a few things the page looked correct. Then I used Twinkle again on both articles and it appeared to work this time. So I assume the deletion log pages works (and Twinkle) unless you want to take a look. Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Twinkle has these little hickups sometimes. Ha, I hope I didn't break anything, and if I did, someone will yell at me soon enough. Take care, Drmies (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 01:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 01:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abh

AfDs for this article:
Abh (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)

As much as I like that series, this article is all unreferenced fancruft (fails WP:Notability (fiction)). Last AfD ended in 'no consensus', IMHO merge, but there is no referenced content to merge, so... worry not, this is all on Seikai Wikia, so we don't have to worry anything valuable will be lost. PS. Clearly the AfD for this article template needs a fix... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Groww

Groww (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 company. All the news I can find (and pretty much all the sources provided here) are routine funding news (string: "groww"), and nothing more substantial than that. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 06:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 03:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laxpower

Laxpower (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 was deleted before (not the same version), but still does not meet any of our notability guidelines. In a word: failsGNG. Just another website, with a few notes from trivial sources that indicated it existed. Drmies (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 06:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 06:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 06:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 06:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 03:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eats Media

Eats Media (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)

Only

WP:NCORP. SITH (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 14:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 14:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 14:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 03:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:44, 27 February 2019 (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 Guantanamo Bay detention camp. To allow merging of content from history if desired. Sandstein 14:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Omar Mohammed Bin Atef

Mahmoud Omar Mohammed Bin Atef (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)

Unless being detained on charges of waging war against another country is default sign of notable, there is nothing notable about this individual. The articles are about the overall Guatanamo detainee program or lists of thsoe detained, nothing specifically focuses on him in an indepth way John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 01:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He just doesn’t have notability of himself, ironically. Trillfendi (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of order - nominator Johnpacklambert, may I remind you that when one nominates an article for deletion one is expected to leave a heads-up on the user talk page of the contributor who started that article? Our decisions are supposed to be made consensually. Disinviting those likely to disagree with your nomination is not the way to reach a genuine consensus. So, could you please be more careful? Geo Swan (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mvss

Mvss (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'd normally draftify the article, but I doubt Mvss is notable at the moment.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:43, 27 February 2019 (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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Picodi

Picodi (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)

Seems like yet another paid-for

WP:NCOMPANY, and block the spam SPA for the good measure for undisclosed paid contributions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The League (web series)

The League (web series) (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)

WP:FAILN. Not notable. Existing sources are dead, even some that are supposedly archived. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 06:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnotable web content. The sources, even before they became defunct, were not sufficient to pass the GNG. Three of them are very local news coverage only, and, from what I can tell from digging around, the mention in BusinessWeek was nothing more than an online poll, not an official "award" as the article tries to mischaracterize it as. And, searching for any other sources about the series besides these turns up nothing. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bell station (PAAC)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rail, subway, and perhaps even light rail stations are usually said to be notable. Bus stations however? A stop on the road with (in this case) some parking places and presumably a shelter for passengers. No evidence that this is a notable subject which has received significant attention (not routine coverage) in reliable, independent sources. Feel free to add other similar bus stops from PAAC to this nomination if they have the same characteristics.

Fram (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There is no reason to let uniformity trump notability. Something like
Fram (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
*One reason why I would like uniformity however is for the adjacent station module. If, say, I didn't do Bell and Ingram, the two least used stations, this would make it basically useless. This is just one small part of each article, though so it would not be a huge deal. Bacon BMW (talk • contribs) 13:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's a general problem with navboxes and similar things: if the succession (whether stations, mayors, ...) is between notable and non-notable subjects, then they become rather useless.
    Fram (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yifan Tang

Yifan Tang (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)

Sources appear to be primarily press releases or to mention Tang in passing. He does not appear to be

notable separately from his company, if his company is notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 06:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 06:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 12:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Briccialdi Flutes

Briccialdi Flutes (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

Neil S. Walker (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Adomdza

AfDs for this article:
    Gordon Adomdza (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 page written suggests the subject is a professor just going about his normal duties. Not a notable encyclopedic topic. sandioosesTextMe 13:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sandstein 14:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Friedrich Peus

    Friedrich Peus (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)

    Inadequately sourced biography of a person notable only as a smalltown lawyer and municipal councillor. This is not a claim of notability that constitutes an automatic free pass over

    WP:GNG -- it's referenced only to the very tops of archival navigation trees, with no clear indication of where in those trees any actual content about Friedrich Peus himself might be found, and even the search bar at the bottom of the page fails to help at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    talk) 20:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    talk) 20:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    talk) 20:07, 27 February 2019 (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Keegan Farmer

    Keegan Farmer (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)

    Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    {talk} 09:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    {talk} 09:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    {talk} 09:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sandstein 14:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Srinagar–Kargil–Leh line

    Srinagar–Kargil–Leh line (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)

    Perhaps the page was created on a mere announcement backed by an archived single source which said "survey will be conducted in 2013-14". The line is non-existent as well as that survey which never took place.  MehrajMir (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    {talk} 14:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    {talk} 14:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sandstein 14:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Whereigo

    AfDs for this article:
      Whereigo (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)

      Stub article fails to meet notability criteria PTMY (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the
      talk) 20:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the
      talk) 20:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
      talk page or in a deletion review
      ). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
      talk page or in a deletion review
      ). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. czar 03:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      EVOS (restaurant)

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

      Small restaurant chain (currently 4 locations in Tampa, Florida), does not meet

      WP:NCORP. Insufficient in-depth coverage in RS. MB 02:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:39, 27 February 2019 (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.

      Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Ben Rehder

      Ben Rehder (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)

      A

      WP:BLPPRODded 3 days after creation, but the tag was removed 2 days later after non-RS links to Amazon, Goodreads, Google Books and Kirkus had been added. The only current source is the author's own website. Narky Blert (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the
      talk) 20:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the
      talk) 20:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
      talk page or in a deletion review
      ). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
      talk page or in a deletion review
      ). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Sandstein 14:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Ixthuluh

      Ixthuluh (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 clear that this band is notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the
      talk) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the
      talk) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Delete: appears to fail
        Significant coverage
        is not established by the sources cited...
      Source assessment table:
      Source
      Independent?
      		 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
      GNG
      ?
      http://www.matscheko.at/ No
      WP:SPS
      		 ~ Depends, not used as ILCs. Yes By virtue of affiliation. ✘ No
      http://www.matscheko.at/ix_dl.html No Ditto. ~ Ditto. Yes Ditto. ✘ No
      http://www.ixthuluh.com/ No Domain name matches name of band. ? Unsure, searched for source text in image, couldn't find anything. No Seems unrelated to the band, about the 2015 Hugo Awards, for which they seem neither to have been nominated or won. ✘ No
      This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
      ...or those turned up by a Google Search. SITH (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - A band that was active in the 1970s is less likely to have reliable online sources, and also they were not from the English-speaking world. Via a Google Books search, I found that they are often mentioned in German-language books about the history of rock in Austria and Germany, but I can find nothing but brief listings of their
        existence even in that line of inquiry. It appears that they were too obscure even in their own time to achieve much more than quick name-drops in long lists of other bands. Today they have a few brief mentions at trivia sites like Prog Archives ([42]), so they remain a historical curiosity for collectors but don't have enough notability for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
      talk page or in a deletion review
      ). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
      talk page or in a deletion review
      ). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Sandstein 14:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Italyabroad.com

      Italyabroad.com (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)

      A small company of doubtful notability lacking multiple independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:32, 27 February 2019 (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. No indication that the club has received sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Saanich Fusion FC

      Saanich Fusion FC (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)

      Amateur/youth soccer club in Canada. No senior team has ever played in a notable league and the article has insufficient sources. Doesn't pass GNG. Madg2011 (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the
      list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
      talk page or in a deletion review
      ). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
      talk page or in a deletion review
      ). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Sandstein 14:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Stark Productions

      Stark Productions (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)

      Only assertions are notability are that it is "award-winning" and a registered trademark. Non-notable? ViperSnake151  Talk  22:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete as non-notable. The 'international awards' claimed look to be of very little significance. The first ref is to a spreadsheet file? As for the "New York International Independent Film and Video Festival", the article at Independent Film Quarterly suggests that this is some kind of pay-to-play vanity festival. Colin M (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the
      talk) 23:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the
      talk) 23:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the
      talk) 23:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Despite puffery such as "award-winning", there is nothing to suggest that the production company is notable. Search reveals only passing mentions and a lack of significant independent coverage, therefore fails
        WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
      talk page or in a deletion review
      ). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
      talk page or in a deletion review
      ). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Sandstein 14:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Atlantic Youth Bowling

      Atlantic Youth Bowling (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 junior sports programme that has been unsourced since its creation in October 2013. No substantive improvement since creation. I cannot find any in-depth coverage in independent RS. Fails

      WP:ORG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC) Just Chilling (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the
      talk) 23:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the
      talk) 23:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the
      talk) 23:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
      talk page or in a deletion review
      ). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
      talk page or in a deletion review
      ). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Sandstein 14:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Smart securities

      Smart securities (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 non-notable, the first entire paragraph is an advertisement which I consider unambiguous but CSD been contested. Phrases like "blockchain-based digital interest that represents an ownership claim" and "We propose the industry coalesce around Smart Securities because it accurately reflects the programmability of these new financial instruments" make this an advertisement and nothing more.

      talk) 02:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the
      talk) 17:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the
      talk) 17:39, 27 February 2019 (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Catrinel Menghia

      Catrinel Menghia (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)

      All these claims that she is a “top model” but nothing to show for it (maybe because it’s not actually true!). Per my research, she hasn’t done much to solidify NMODEL, only a smattering of jobs; there was that Super Bowl commercial years ago but it’s not like any reliable publication such as Vogue or GQ went in depth on her to even have reliable sources. Of what I could muster up from Romanian sources, she’s more known for her romantic exploits than her career. Trillfendi (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:22, 27 February 2019 (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      1979–80 Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's basketball team

      1979–80 Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's basketball team (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)

      Plainly violates

      WP:NSEASONS as well. I have no problem rescinding this if it can be reliably sourced with prose. SportingFlyer T·C 00:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 01:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 01:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Actually, I don’t think this fails
        WP:NSEASONS except that the current poor article construction doesn’t hit the standard that “Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory.” But the last line of that section says: “It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.” This team was ranked in the top 10 most of the year, went to the NCAA Tournament, and had a highly-publicized regular-season game against Kentucky when both teams were ranked in the top five nationally. Sourced prose absolutely can be created and this isn’t a close case (like a middling team would be). The article needs prose written and sourced, and I am not a big fan of people writing articles and not bothering to demonstrate notability from the start, but I am even less of a fan of articles being deleted as “not notable” if the subject is in fact “notable.” Rikster2 (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • Comment Have any of the delete !voters searched for sources, perhaps Sports Illustrated or old newspapers? The team was ranked in the top-10 most of year. I'm almost certain there is coverage, especially for a big-time program. Per
        WP:NSPORTS: Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, ...—Bagumba (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • @SportingFlyer: I understand your concern. My philosophy is not based solely on whether the article is currently all stats. If the topic meets GNG, independent of the state of the article, I ask if the current stats shown are verifiable (even if not cited) and if I would expect to find such stats if the article was an FA. In this case, I would expect a table of results in an FA article. It's another question of when this ideally should have been approved from AfC. An alterative besides AfD could have been to boldly move it back into Draft namespace or reach an agreement with the approver. Perhaps that could be an option here too still. But this effort should not be lost if the topic is in fact notable. Some editors only want to contribute stats. They have a place in Wikipedia, within limits. This is not necessarily a sports phenomena. See 2018_California_State_Assembly_election. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @
        WP:NEXIST grounds and then never get improved. Since the AfC standard is "likely to be kept at AfD," I'm trying to figure out if I should just accept these articles at AfC even if they're terribly referenced since they're likely to get kept as-is, but that still seems problematic to me somehow? SportingFlyer T·C 02:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • The rule at AfC is "likely to be kept at AfD." I'm happy to functionally withdraw my nomination if we can source this properly, but if all NCAA men's seasons are presumptively notable (not discussed by
        WP:POINTY. SportingFlyer T·C 14:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • Sounds like a good course of action to me. I will note the Hartford men's basketball pages, the ones unreferenced for six-seven years, only receive a handful of views a month. I'm not sure those seasons are actually notable. I think a team in a more prominent league would be presumptively notable. I think part of the problem is it's difficult to figure out when
        WP:GNG, for any sport, not just college basketball - for instance, when is season coverage not routine? But that's a topic for another day. SportingFlyer T·C 16:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]

      Comment - Prose and sources have been added to the article. Rikster2 (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2019 (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.
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_February_27&oldid=1142614279"