Knowledge (XXG)

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Mark Womack (American actor) (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 non-notable actor, fails WP:GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 11:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 11:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. 11:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Found only info from imdb of minor roles. No significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NACTOR. CASSIOPEIA 09:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:TOOSOON not enough notable roles yet or coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Fallfest (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", tagged as unreferenced for five years, which just serves as a dictionary definition of a term without providing or reliably sourcing any context for why it would need an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. 11:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 11:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete This is WP:SYNTH, Fallfest isn't really a "thing", the article is an attempt to make it one. It's original research, and it's not useful. Jacona (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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 Procedural close.. Redirects are discussed elsewhere. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

'Withdraw by nominator. Discuss else where. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA 23:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Super Bowl LVII (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 sourced, it will happen only in 2023. WP:TOOSOON CASSIOPEIA 23:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment Shouldn't this be at Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion? Eddie891 _Work 23:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment When I type this AfD was before the last reversion of redirect. I withdraw and discuss elsewhere. CASSIOPEIA

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Menina Fortunato (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 non-notable actress, solely sourced by IMDb. No reliable sources found. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• delete Fails GNG. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. SPA-created fanpage having no RS from the early days of WP no longer satisfies inclusion criteria. Agricola44 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Actors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because roles are listed — if that were all it took, we'd have to keep an article about every single actor who exists at all, because having acting roles is the job description. Rather, to get a Knowledge (XXG) article just for having had roles an actor needs to have reliable source coverage about her, but there's none of that being shown here and I can't locate any evidence of it elsewhere. And for added bonus, even on her IMDb profile most of her listed credits are for unnamed bit parts such as "Courtroom Dancer", "Ballroom Dancer", "Dancer" and "Ta Da Show Choir Dancer", not as major characters. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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. Withdrawn by nom (non-admin closure) L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

United States v. DuBay (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 case in US military criminal law. Sounds like this content, if sourced, could be useful in some related article, but this substub has been unsourced and without a claim to notability since 2007. Sandstein 22:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Thanks for the improvements establishing notability. Sandstein 09:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep The case established dubay hearings, which appear to be fairly common. See , McClatchy], (in the past year). multiple court cases such as United States v. Lee (1982) were somewhat involved with DuBay hearings (see here). In The Military Law Review, see UNITED STATES V. DUBAY AND THE EVOLUTION OF MILITARY LAW: THE FOURTH GEORGE S. PRUGH LECTURE IN MILITARY LEGAL HISTORY. Eddie891 _Work 23:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sounds good, but unless this is mentioned in the article, the reader still can't verify any of this nor determine why this case is significant. Isn't this something better covered in, say, Courts-martial in the United States? Sandstein 08:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Expanded some. Eddie891 _Work 02:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. 11:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 11:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 11:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. The law review article cited by Eddie891 substantiates this case's significance and notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Mergeinto Courts-martial in the United States; we don't need two-line articles. Keep the redirect Keep. --Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Gaarmyvet: it is no longer a "two sentence article." Eddie891 _Work 02:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. If the case is significant enough that it has become synonymous with a legal procedure or doctrine, it probably merits its own article. This article now contains more detailed information about the case's ramifications than would be appropriate for a more general article like Courts-martial in the United States. --LegalSkeptic (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. I can understand why it was nommed, given how it appeared at that time; it was completely unsourced other than its citation, and the only indicium of notability was the unsupported claim that the case was the basis for DuBay hearings. But kudos to Eddie891 for stepping up and improving it (his "expanded some" comment above is overly modest) into its current form, including outstanding sourcing. TJRC (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. The case itself is clearly notable. The article improvement and expansion by Eddie891 removes any reason to merge.Icewhiz (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Caroline Adams Miller (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)

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable public speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 11:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 11:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 11:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. 11:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

*Delete. Miller might be notable, but the existing article is blatant PROMO, so TNT probably applies here. Agricola44 (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Change to Weak Keep based on further clean-up (details at talk page). Agricola44 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep I have removed the puffery, rewrote parts, added book reviews and biographical information. There is a long article about her and several significant reviews including one from the NY Times. Pinging Agricola44 to take another look. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. Article is better, but still too bloated. For example, both the bio and writing sections talk about her eating disorder and there is lots of trade publication puff about her books, which (though we may have in some articles) is not the norm. I would like to keep this article, but I think it has to be put in further order before we can have an objective assessment. I'll have a go at additional re-arrangement and cutting some promo/puff. Best. Agricola44 (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• No problem, Agricola44. I'd appreciate any additional trimming. It helps to have other eyes looking at things for sure! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Meets WP:GNG, as seen after MLG's edits. I also added a source for biographical information. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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 and redirect to Jean. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Jean (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)

Delete or redirect to Jean. What is the purpose of this article when Jean (female given name) and Jean (male given name) already exist? Sro23 (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• This should be speedied as an A10 (duplicates an existing topic) then recreated as a redirect from incomplete disambiguation. The creator of this blanked it twice so it should have been deleted as a G7 as well. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Um, yeah, what Xezbeth said. I shall trout myself if no one else does it for me. Sro23 (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Harold Hillman (executive coach) (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)

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable business consultant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not appear to be notable. Only one source, upon which the article is largely based, can be considered reliable, and 1 alone is insufficient to pass SIGCOV. Could change to keep if appropriate sources were found and article was rewritten to reflect any actual notability. DerbyCountyinNZ 09:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable person and insufficient sources to verify (youtube videos aren't good enough). Ajf773 (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 11:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. 11:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Fails the GNG L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete clearly fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep clearly does GNG Chetsford (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.161.129 (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Lauren Mackler (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)

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable consultant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• One of many drive-by votes by Johnpacklambert.BabbaQ (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - haven't been about to find in-depth coverage that would be needed for notability.Seraphim System 22:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

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. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Shawn Thomas (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)

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a writer and musician, who has no strong claim to passing either WP:AUTHOR or WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage. This is referenced almost entirely to primary sources such as his own website, the websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, his book's sales profile on Amazon.com and YouTube copies of his videos -- literally the only notability-supporting source here is #6, a short article in the South Florida Gay News, but a person requires quite a lot more than just one reliable source to clear WP:GNG. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Knowledge (XXG) articles just because they exist -- but there's just nothing here, either in the substance or the sourcing, to suggest that he satisfies our inclusion requirements. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 10:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. 10:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 10:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. 10:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of notability. Rivertorch_WATER 19:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. I saw the recent activity on this article and I'm not sure I get all the fuss. I found 3 external links in the body text, so I simply changed those to reference links, but hardly seemed reason enough to recommend for deletion - much easier just to fix. As far as the reliable source coverage, Bearcat's description of "entirely primary sources" is not accurate. Although there are quite a few primary sources, there were also multiple "notability-supporting" sources already listed (including "wiki links"), and to assist with "evidence of notability," I have just added several additional sources to the page. Agreed about the Advertorially tone - but again, can easily be fixed with a few edits. Still not reason enough to delete. Finally, to provide additional context for reason for continued inclusion, I would reference the following Knowledge (XXG) articles of artists who fit into this particular niche of not just LGBT Christians - but "out" LGBT Christian musical artists such as: Marsha Stevens, Jason and deMarco, Trey Pearson, and Ray Boltz. Obviously "musicians are not automatically entitled to have Knowledge (XXG) articles just because they exist" - however artists such as these occupy a unique space in the genre of Christian Music as openly gay Christian musicians. Theonlyoneofme

I fail to see where you've added any new reliable sources — the only new sources I'm seeing here are press releases and WordPress blogs and Facebook posts, not reliable or notability-assisting media outlets. And no, counting inbound or outbound wikilinks is neither a notability criterion nor "referencing". Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Reference #1 - SFGN South Florida Gay News article - not a press release, blog, or facebook post.

Reference #2 - RightOutTV interview - not a press release, blog, or facebook post.

Reference #3 - Watermark Magazine interview - not a press release, blog, or facebook post.

Reference #4 - PrideSource Magazine (aka Between the Lines (newspaper)) article with interview quotes - not a press release, blog, or facebook post.

Reference #5 - citation of published material in mainstream Christian music - not a press release, blog, or facebook post.

Reference #17 - SFGN article - not a press release, blog, or facebook post.

Reference #20 - GLBT Hall of Fame recognition - not a press release, blog, or facebook post.

Reference #35 - Impact Magazine third party article/review of published work - not a press release, blog, or facebook post.

References #9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 25 - critical recognition by third party awards and charts - not a press release, blog, or facebook post.

Again, you are correct that there are multiple primary sources in the article (including some press releases, blogs, and facebook posts), however that doesn't require deletion, rather continued editing and correction. The above list is made up of reliable sources that demonstrate notability criterion. In reading through the history, your original complaint was about improperly placed external links and lack of strong reliable source coverage. Links have been removed or corrected, and multiple reliable sources have been provided spanning a decade of material from 2007-2017.Theonlyoneofme 20:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No, the above list is not made up of reliable sources that demonstrate passage of a notability criterion.

• 1 - Not a new source, but one that I already addressed in my nomination statement — so it fails to be proof that I was wrong in what I said about your new sources.
• 2 - RightOut is a blog. It is never a reliable or notability-assisting source for anyone.
• 3 - Watermark is a blog; in addition, it's a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself, not being written about in the third person. That type of source can be used sparingly for supplementary verification of stray facts after notability has already been covered off by stronger sources, but cannot support notability in and of itself. People can and do make unverifiable and/or self-aggrandizing claims in interviews, and we don't have the ability to independently fact-check everything a person says to verify whether they were doing that or not — so notability is dependent on coverage in sources that have already done the fact-checking to ensure that what they report is accurate, not on sources in which a subject is speaking about themselves.
• 4 - A single blurb about a single concert performance is not evidence of notability in and of itself.
• 5 - A simple directory listing, not media coverage — directory listings do not assist notability. And anyway, all of the listings in that directory are cited to the catalog "Aaron's Rainbow Project", which means it's not a directory of media coverage about him, but a directory listing of his own self-published content.
• 17 - A repeat of the same SFGN article as #1, so still irrelevant to what I said for the same reason.
• 20 - The"GLBT Hall of Fame" is not a notable organization whose recognition counts as a notability claim for the purposes of getting into Knowledge (XXG). Notability because awards attaches to notable awards that get media coverage, such as the Grammys or the Junos, not to every piddling little PR organization that creates its own awards to honour its own friends and never gets any coverage outside of what it publishes itself on its own website.
• 35 - "Powered by WordPress" = blog.
• 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 25 - Non-notable third party awards, which don't assist notability for the same reason that the "GLBT Hall of Fame" doesn't assist notability, and non-IFPI certified WP:BADCHARTS that don't count as notability for the purposes of clearing WP:NMUSIC's charting criterion. That requires charts on the order of Billboard, not the "OutVoice" charts (which is actually the same organization as the "GLBT Hall of Fame".)

None of this is the kind of sourcing it takes to make a person notable enough for a Knowledge (XXG) article. Not the new sources you added, not the old ones that were already there — none of it. The only ones that are even marginally acceptable at all are South Florida Gay News and PrideSource, but they're not enough by themselves as the article's only marginally acceptable sources — we require quite a bit more reliable source coverage than just two short blurbs. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Each time an issue is resolved, the goalposts are moved. This has become a subjective nomination for deletion. Hopefully others will submit input to provide some balance. Would be disappointing if deleted based on frivolous minutiae.Theonlyoneofme 03:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

It may be that you didn't fully understand where the goalposts were to begin with, but they haven't moved. Before !voting to delete, I reviewed the sources provided, and for the most part they neither meet WP:RS nor give any indication of notability as Knowledge (XXG) defines it. Knowledge (XXG) has a very strict definition of notability these days. If I thought this case was marginal, I'd vote "weak keep" and hunt for better sources, but it isn't marginal; it's clear-cut. Rivertorch_WATER 16:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope, nobody moved any goalposts. They're in the same place they always were, and you're simply failing to understand where that was and is in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete At least 12 of the sources are illegal social media, amazon etc and are not considered WP:RS. Also two search urls, which are absolutely illegal. The others very poor, with a mix of blogs, which are also illegal. No secondary coverage. On Spotify, the artist has only 7181 plays, for the main record which is Untitled Hymn (Come to Jesus). The others are <1000 plays All indicative of a lack of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs)

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 Astrology. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Conception chart (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)

Unsourced astrology/folklore. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to either Horoscope or Astrology without prejudice to it becoming an article again if somebody can write it properly. The Google Books search shows that the term is used in astrology but the usage seems inconsistent. Of course it hard to tell as it is all mumbo jumbo but what is not clear is whether it is all (or predominately) the same mumbo jumbo, forming what might be a semi-coherent and even notable element in the history of astrology, or whether it is merely a vague term used by different astrologers however they please. The article is no help here at all. It does not pin down exactly what it is talking about, never mind reference it, even poorly. It discusses the origins and uses of the thing without saying what it is, and even fails to provide references for that, so we have nothing which might help us with the missing context. The best thing is to redirect it. It is practically an orphan article anyway, with only a single incoming link from a disambiguation page. If somebody wants to recreate it as an article later then they can. So long as they provide a coherent statement as to what it actually is and reference it in a way that shows that it is a longstanding idea in astrology then it could be OK but that would be a completely new article. There is nothing to rescue here that I can see. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to Astrology. A mention of the term there is probably deserved, but should be sourced to a nominally objective view, such as that by James R. Lewis (scholar) (hopefully not confused with Jim Lewis (astrologer)). - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect without prejudice to recreation per User:DanielRigal Seraphim System 00:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Cant seem to find any evidence that he meets WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Zocke1r (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. 10:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 10:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. 10:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I trimmed 90% of the article, which was basically a large CV. What's left are several RS to his paper works, which unfortunately do not rise to the level required for notability on their own... 104.163.148.25 (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete not enough works to pass the notability guidelines for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete No significant works to pass notability guidelines for artists. Fails WP:ARTIST. CASSIOPEIA 09:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz 14:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Operation Five power stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is absolutely this operation name in any literature. The book mentioned (Surrender At Dacca) makes no mention of this operation name or of word crack platoon. There is one reference which describes the events of this operation here () but does not call it by this name. In my opinion, this page should be deleted since there is no evidence that this operation was called this. The events of the operation have already been mentioned in Para-Commando Brigade (Bangladesh). In a different situation I would have recommended a redirect but it seems that this would not work here since the name appears to be a figment of the authors imagination. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete in current state - as it is an unneeded fork of Para-Commando Brigade (Bangladesh) covering early history and is already in the Brigade's article. The current article doesn't describe an operation, mainly detailing how the crack platoon was formed and then saying in two sentences From Melaghar, commandos of Crack Platoon headed for Dhaka on 4 June 1971 and launched guerrilla operation on 5 June. Later, number of commandos was increased, the platoon was split and deployed in different areas surrounding Dhaka city.. That's not a description of an operation. I am amenable to changing my !vote if this article actually focuses on the 1971 campaign by the crack platoon (assuming there are sources) and uses a name that is used by sources - as is, the spin off from Para-Commando Brigade (Bangladesh) of essentially formation of Crack Platoon in 1971 is not warranted.Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article is a grab-bag of topics, and almost entirely original research. It possibly could be a redirect, but I don't see any good target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 10:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 10:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 10:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Seems like a POV fork. There aren't really any sources in the article that support the notion that the "Bush-Clinton era" is a significant term or concept in journalism or political science, and googling the term didn't turn up relevant sources of significance either. There are obviously people who don't like either the Bushes or the Clintons and will see them as part of the same problem in US politics (money, dynasties), but I don't see much support for the "era" concept in reliable sources. I will note that this article was started in 2008 and briefly covered the Bush and Clinton presidencies, since then the article has been widened to also cover the Obama years, which on its face appear even more dubious, but the overall lack of sources makes it difficult to make a source-based limitation of the concept. Iselilja (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR. There are not reliable sources covering something known as the Bush-Clinton era. It is a purely arbitrary combination of two U.S. Presidential tenures. Cbl62 (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

George W. Bush and the Iraq War (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 reads EXACTLY like an essay. Judging by its block-ness, it may as well be a section of an essay, copypasted from somewhere. Not salvageable into encyc value.
Also, it hardly looks like there's any due information here that is not covered at Iraq War, and what information there is is either excessively detailed or undue conclusions.
I say delete, or possibly merge with Iraq War. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Knowledge (XXG), Gaioa (t,c,l) 20:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't see anything here which isn't covered better in the Iraq War page or any of the myriad sub-pages of that. Agreed that it also reads in a very essay-esque way, although it's miles ahead of some of the essays which masquerade as articles. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 10:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 10:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 10:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, per BigHaz. WP:CFORK applies. Kierzek (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. POVFORK of Iraq War, essay-like leading off with Tommy Franks's autobio.Icewhiz (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as original author. It was nothing more nor less than a desperate attempt to trim down GWB's page. Now that we're a bit removed, that section has slimmed down organically. This article has no reason for being. Red Slash 16:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - with no prejudice against recreation. Smmurphy 15:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete As already explained in WP:AND, topics connected with "and" are magnet of synthesis. Although Bush and Iraq war are inarguably related, all salient point were covered in more focused articles that's why this article remain unfocused essay with plethora of sources which give illusion of something meaningful -Ammarpad (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

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. On closer inspection this is an exact repost of the G5/G11 version, so G5 applies. SmartSE (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Peter Brack (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 executive. The sources only provide passing coverage rather than the substantial in-depth coverage required to meet WP:BIO. My own searches turned up articles about German Peter Bracks: but nothing better about this guy. SmartSE (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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 Move to Draft. Otherwise NC based on assertions and the proposals to draftify show a detailed appreciation of the SNG and sourcing. Spartaz 15:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Brian White (soccer) (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)

Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by another user, stating that GNG is met, but the coverage appears to be routine. – Michael (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete: The coverage is routine and he fails WP:NFOOTY currently. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Keep see now he passes WP:NCOLLATH and while we are talking a bit of Crystal for WP:NFOOTBALL, he meets WP:GNG as well and I was wrong on that before. NZFC 08:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - meets WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG. One of only 300 collegiate players, out of tens of thousands ever to be drafted in first round of MLS SuperDraft. Signed pro contract. News search result brings back nearly 3.7M results. Notable websites cover him beyond WP:ROUTINE. Slightest concern would be WP:CRYSTAL, which is debunked with notable coverage beyond routine. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per @Quidster4040: and @Alansohn:. Will likely play a professional match anyways in a few weeks if crystal is a concern, but meets GNG because the topic has non-routine coverage. Cobyan02069 (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Based on the sources provided and his accomplishments, including as MVP of the PDL, he meets WP:GNG. Alansohn (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, obviously. Despite repeated claims that the subject meets WP:GNG, nobody has added any sources to the article that are not WP:ROUTINE or WP:PRIMARY to demonstrate this is the case. I'm not convinced his success in being drafted is enough to meet WP:NCOLLATH either. Jellyman (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete -- routine coverage; fail WP:NFOOTY. Knowledge (XXG) does not aspire to be a directory of nn athletes. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete He has not played in a game yet. We do not know the future, so should not assume based on events that have happened. Being MVP in the PDL is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep if he's likely to play in an MLS match in a few weeks, what is the point of deleting the article now? Lepricavark (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - Passes WP:GNG per the above sources. At the very least, draftify or userfy so we don't have to start from scratch in a few weeks when he inevitably plays a game. Smartyllama (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Hundreds, if not thousands of players sign professional contracts and then never make a professional appearance, so let's just wait until he actually plays a game in the MLS – then the article can be easily restored. I'm also not convinced WP:NCOLLATH is really relevant to footballers – in no other countries are players deemed notable based on their youth career. Number 57 11:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • That's generally because amateur sports aren't nearly as big in other countries as they are in the United States. I'm not sure how the situation in the rest of the world is relevant - what matters is the coverage in reliable sources, and amateur sports receive significantly more coverage in the United States than other countries. Smartyllama (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Move to draft space - this article should not have been written yet - there's no significant media coverage so fails WP:GNG, and since he hasn't played at the major level yet, it's WP:TOOSOON. That being said, the best solution to preserve this work is to move to draftspace with instructions to not resubmit until after he plays a professional game. TimTempleton 21:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Move to draftspace untill WP:NFOOTY is passed which will also generate extra coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz 14:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Tingtingru (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 verifiable. No references, and I can only find Knowledge (XXG) mirrors when looking for sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 10:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. 10:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

*Delete. Cant find any WP:SIGCOV, only minor mention on a place called Fanla of his dream in dic . see here and - thus fails WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA 19:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz 14:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Arch of Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and International Shrine of the Holy Innocents (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 about a building project proposed in 2001 that appears to have never really gotten off the ground. Questions were raised about notability as early as 2007. I attempted to PROD it 5 years ago, but it was contested (not by the creator). Recently, I stumbled upon it again. I have discussed this with the original author who agrees "there is no way that it meets notability guidelines." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannanan51 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I copied the rationale from WT:AfD. ansh666 18:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Meets the general notabiloty guideline. Plenty of coverage. And here is an example from October 2016 so it's false to say the plan was dropped. see here. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment There is little to no coverage between 2002 and 2016. 2013 financials suggest that twelve years later substantially less than 5% of anticipated funding has been raised. The 2016 article states that after seventeen years they still don't have the land, and aren't even sure where to put it. ""We don't have land. I initially believed that it should go out here on our waterfront," Behr said." The article calls it a "dream". Mannanan51 (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete This article essentially presents news report information based on announcements of the project and reactions to it. No real event has happened. Following the guidance at WP:FUTURE, it appears that announcements of future events without a strong likelihood do not qualify for articles. --Bistropha (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:FUTURE says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." So that policy supports inclusion of this subject. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It also says "expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." please note "only" if it's "almost certain to take place". Seriously?! Mannanan51 (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You are quoting from the part of the policy addressing "individual scheduled or expected future events" such as a future Superbowl, election, or eclipse. This isn't a scheduled event or an expected event, it's a proposed architectural design that has received very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources over many years. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete little coverage, chance of it actually being built seems small. Tacyarg (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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:G11 deleted by both RHaworth and Jimfbleak in the past 24 hours. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Rajesh Sharma (Punjabi Cinema) (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)

Essentially self promotion SPAM for an actor that does not pass WP:NACTOR. Page rejected at AfC as not showing notability but moved by subject into mainspace anyway. Legacypac (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - The sources appear to be the usual vanity hits that anyone can get. Since this is nominated both at AFD and at CSD, let's go through with the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Creator/Subject stripped the original CSD but that was reversed. I AfD'd it for good measure but that removed it from CSD for some strange reason. I restored the CSD and it has just been deleted. Will see if the deletion sticks. Legacypac (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I'll defer to David E. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hannah Gavron (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 is NOT A MEMORIAL, and NOTNEWS. She was not yet notable under WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. In-depth coverage specifically about her in The Guardian and The New Statesman, and an entire memoir (with multiple book reviews in major media) argue that she passes WP:GNG (in death if not in life, but I don't see why that's relevant). One could plausibly reorient our article to be about the memoir rather than directly about her (one or the other is clearly notable) but what would be the point? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Passes the GNG. The article is not written in the manner of an obituary or memorial, and it is sourced to non-obituaries written many years after Gavron's death. These sources argue for her work being influential, and our typical numerical indicators back that up. Adding up the GS citations for The Captive Wife (they're given under several slightly variant headings) yields a total well over 600, and WorldCat has it as held by 648 libraries. It's not a typical pass of WP:PROF#C1, given that the body of her work is comparatively small, but the things people do say about that work indicate "a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep (as creator) per XOR'easter and David Eppstein. She is notable for her book and her position as a pioneer of a whole field of sociological research and of feminist scholarship more generally; this is attested by a range of reliable, independent, secondary sources given in the article and by the citation metrics cited above; Ann Oakley's comment alone should strongly indicate notability. —Noswall59 (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC).

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 analysis of proffered sources Spartaz 15:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Roger Germann (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)

Beyond the puffery, this individual doesn't meet GNG or PROF (he has published a bit, not alot). Article is sourced to a Chicago Tribune piece by a community contributor (which is misrepresented in the lead as the Tribune's voice. Beyond that we have his huffpo author page, his linkedin page, pieces where he is mentioned in one line or a list, and pieces where he isn't mentioned at all. BEFORE shows he has given a few interviews, particularly recently, on various subjects (from a hurricane Irma short interview - , to interviews related to the aquarium) - however interviews do not confer notability, nor are there all that many of these. Icewhiz (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable as either an academic or a businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep article has some issue but there is plenty of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources as a Google News search shows. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  @FloridaArmy: Please show an example of 2 independent, in-depth, reliable sources covering him. I failed to find such sources.Icewhiz (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The first four results in the search I libked above are all substantial coverage of this individual from the Tampa Bay Times Biz Journals and another Tampa Bay Times article months later. Those are just some examples. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Google search results vary per location, google account, and time. Can you please provide links to actual articles? this one does have some coverage of him (though it is routine coverage as an appointment in a local paper). What I see in the biz journals are mainly interviews which would not establish notability.Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Are the Tampa Bay Times, Biz Journals and other articles not showing up in your Google News reaults? What region are you located? That seems strange. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Ordering varies according to where you are. They probably are in my search results - just further down - possibly several pages down (though I have seen some of the Tamp Bay Times articles in my BEFORE - I was not convinced they conveyed SIGCOV for this individual). If you are searching from a Florida IP (or near Florida) - they might be pushing these up for you.Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC) See - 7 Reasons Google Search Results Vary Dramatically - it's better to link to actual articles (or state their titles) over linking google search terms.Icewhiz (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Interesting. this is one. here's the BizJournals article. Here's a Crane's Chicago article on his involvement in the proposed Sports Museum. Here's an interview and video. There's also a Tampa Business Journal article about hime and more. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  1. - seems like a press release on the appointment
  2. - interview with him, would not confer notability.
  3. - He's not the subject, and this is also an interview.
  4. - interview.Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The first two articles linked are absolutely not press releases. This is simply false. They are bylined articles. The Crane's piece is also an article. And interviews of the subject certainly do indicate that he is a prominent figure. And as Is said, these are just examples of the coverage.

There are more articles in the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Reader, Toledo Blade etc. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune ref in the article is by a community contributor - not by the tribune staff. My understanding is that this is a blog or paid promotion.Icewhiz (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete -- a very puffed-up page, to the point that I suspect paid placement: other articles created by the same contributor. Beyond that, does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Being director of an aquarium is not sufficient to presume notability. Sources are passing mentions, not independent of the aquarium, and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

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. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 08:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Johan Van Mullem (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)

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NARTIST. Run-of-the-mill artist. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 14:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. 14:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. 14:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete one source other than his personal website is not enough to pass GNG. Nothing even close to showing notability for an artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• comment as while it is a weak article it appears there is middling coverage http://johanvanmullem.com/press with the most relevant being Artnet and RTBF. As well some of the shows include a solo museum show in Belgium: http://www.museedixelles.irisnet.be/images/menus/les-expositions/expositions-precedentes/johan-van-mullem-menu-2-col/view--Theredproject (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - Not sure how the nominator struggled to find sources: passes GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• The first two are interviews, not WP:SIGCOV, the third reads like a press release, and the fourth is just a listing, albeit with a photo. Edwardx (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. The coverage provided by the interviews is significant. As stated in Knowledge (XXG):Interviews#Notability: "An independent interviewer represents the 'world at large' giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." One is, of course, free to deem the style of the third source presented by Indy beetle to be that of a press release, but the style in which sources are written is not part of the criteria for deletion. I see no reason to assume that this text is an actual press release – for one thing, in that case it would have been a press release by Loo & Lou and you'd expect to find some of the same language back in the text covering this exposition on the gallery's website, but that text is completely different.  --Lambiam 23:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per sources identified by Indy and Lambiam. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep and improve per coverage already linked in this discussion; improvement is necessary for the article to meet WP:BLP standards. Nanophosis (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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 The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996 film)#Music. (Soundtrack has its own article too) czar 15:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Heaven's Light (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 independent coverage. It is often conflates with Hellfire (song) rather than being its own piece. Coin945 (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 09:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to the film article, where it is mentioned. --Michig (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996 film). Lacks substantial coverage. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 07:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz 14:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Mineral CSA (brand) (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)

An article about a brand which is non-notable as lacking independent, reliable references. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Search as I might, what comes up are largely passing mentions and descriptions based on this article. Geoff | 15:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. 09:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete neither this brand nor Excellerator (brand), another of the parent company's products, appear to be notable. Created by the same editor who made few other controbutions all seemingly related to this industry. I don't see an assertion of notability so if it hasn't been prodded or otherwise disputed before I would recommend pronptly deleting both. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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 Dream Theater#Tours. Spartaz 15:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Along for the Ride (tour) (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)

My prod was removed since this article was previously prodded and deleted in April 2015, and then this version was recreated in November 2015. Non-notable, unsourced concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR that has been tagged as using only primary sources for references for a year. There is only one reference provided that is from Dream Theater's website that now says, "The page you are looking for is no longer here, or never existed in the first place (bummer). You can try searching for what you are looking for using the form below. If that still doesn't provide the results you are looking for, you can always start over from the home page." Aspects (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note - I removed Aspects' PROD because there has already been a past PROD-deletion then a recreation (which means an opposition to the PROD), so the topic was no longer eligible for discussionless deletion. I've no opinion on the topic itself or its potential deletion. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 00:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 00:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 00:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep seems appropriate to split off tour info from band article. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • What is appropriate about this article that it needs to exist as its own article? You have provided no policy grounds why this article should be kept. Without any references it fails WP:GNG and if every tour could have its own article based on the size of the artist's article there would be no notability guidelines for concerts, but we do have WP:CONCERT TOUR. Aspects (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dream_Theater#Tours; not independently notable. Lacks WP:SIGCOV for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Eigenpoll (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 to be something someone on the internet made up one day, but it has no literature footprint at all. Book hits look better until one eliminates "Knowledge (XXG)". Most hits seem to be for the Dutch phrase "eigen poll" which, from my scanty knowledge of German, doesn't appear to me this particular idea. Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete no coverage in reliable sources. The definition seems like the obvious extension of eigenvector, but there's no evidence that it exists in practice. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 09:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as a probable hoax. The supposed creator seems to be in the department of physics and astronomy at Aarhus university, but there's otherwise absolutely nothing here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz 15:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

List of mayors of Mamer (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)

Mamer is a commune of 8,000 in Luxembourg, and a list of mayors can hardly be presumed notable. This list of mayors is probably not even worth merging into the main article. The few non-redlinked names are false hits. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: This strikes me as the type of list that is pertinent and notable despite the city's relatively small size. Having said that, I could support merging the list with the underlying article for Mamer. Either way, the information on this page should survive in some form. --IndyNotes

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. 15:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. 15:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep perfectly appropriate list article. No reason a list of mayors can't be split off from the article on the town. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. No reason to have a whole article for a list of all mayors of a town of just 8,000 considering all the names are non notable (except for one name which is notable for other reasons) except one name (which is now deemed as being an entirely different person althogether. Ajf773 (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Merge with main article. If there turns out to be too much information on the mayors, then it could be split again but I doubt that seeing that it is very small place. Mattximus (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete -- does not meet WP:LISTN for lack of sources that discuss these individuals as a group. None are individually notable. Commune of 8,000 in Luxembourg is too insignificant (no offense to the commune, but it appears to be just a large village) for its mayors to be presumed notable and collected onto an indiscriminate list. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz 15:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

WealthTrust (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)

An article on a company, with a longstanding notability query. The main part of the rationale in a 2009 Prod was "This is essentially a new page replacing the prior redirect. It has little content and no evidence of notability. Content consists solely of the opening paragraph from the company's web site (http://wealthtrust.com/). Press coverage appears to consist only of routine business activity and transactions." That Prod failed because of a previous AfD which had resulted in the Redirect: C.Fred commented "it needs renom to AfD" and "However, in its current state, there is no assertion of significance or importance". The article has lain dormant since then. Today I added a referenced summary of the 2009-17 changes in ownership, but these are effectively routine announcements and insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. I am seeing nothing to indicate that either the original firm or the current "HighTower Holdings, doing business as WealthTrust" entity is more than a run-of-the-mill firm going about its business, hence this nomination. AllyD (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Merge to Lee Equity Partners. WP:PRESERVE FloridaArmy (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete -- does not meet WP:CORP/WP:CORPDEPTH. Merging / redirect to Lee Equity Partners does not make sense since the latter no longer owns the former. It would be confusing, so deletion is the best option here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Marianne (2011 film). Spartaz 15:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Sandra Larsson (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:NACTOR, which calls for multiple notable performances. Sources listed are minor ones. Previous AFD was 6.5 years ago (resulting in "no consensus"), and in the intervening time she has yet to add a second credit to her IMDb listing. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 15:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 15:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 15:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. 15:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Starring actress in a notable film. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - credit in notable movie. Sources provided. BabbaQ (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete not enough significant roles to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• One of many drive-by votes by Johnpacklambert.BabbaQ (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Keword in NACTOR is "multiple" which isn't shown.

• No the keyword in WP:Actorbio is the third point whichis covered.BabbaQ (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• No, having a role in even a notable movie does not achieve that. Notability is not inherited. Did she initiate some new style of acting, that is still getting discussed and learned years later? That would be the sort of thing to meet the unique contributions called for in #3. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• The third point? "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." We'd need a source that says so, if that is the point you mean. I don't think there's anything suggesting that point is met. Sjö (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR and significant RS coverage not found. Starring in one, marginally notable movie does not satisfy ACTOR. The movie's budget was $150,000 which suggests that the movie was not significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • While IMDb has a claimed US release date in 2013, given that Box Office Mojo has no listing of it and Rotten Tomatoes has only 1 critic review of it, it's possible it was never even released to theaters (there were some festival showings, apparently.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Marianne (2011 film), she could have a paragraph there but does not pass WP:NACTOR for a separate article. If not merged a redirect would still be useful Atlantic306 (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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. For a Keep argument to overcome a valid argument for BLP1E there needs to be evidence of sustained coverage outside the immediate event. On that basis the keep argument for GNG have not overcome valid BLP1E arguments to delete Spartaz 15:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Paul Mirecki (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 originally brought this from AFC in 2005, before WP:BLP existed and when i was pretty new to Knowledge (XXG) - it was my original account, which I dropped for the sake of a much shorter sig in January 06.

By today's standards this is an obvious delete. Fails WP:PROF and hits WP:BLP1E. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 15:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. 15:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. 15:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. 15:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. 15:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. 15:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete case of BLP1E Chetsford (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep What is the one event? His controversial comments? The alleged attack? The alleged firing? The first ammendment issues? His books? Meets notability guidelines per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

"What is the one event? His controversial comments? The alleged attack? The alleged firing?" Yes. Chetsford (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Coverage, but only of one event. Nothing before or since. Which is a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Admittedly current sourcing is poor. But these could be used:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/dec/18/20051218-125508-4814r/

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/10/embattled_ku_professor_has_long_history_religion/?ku_news

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/criminal-twist-in-evolution-debate/

Maproom (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

These all appear to be about the same one event. Chetsford (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

They all mention that incident, yes. But the LJWorld piece also has a lot of other stuff, including a long section on Mirecki's discovery of the "Gospel of Savior". Maproom (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it appears it provides biographical background, as is typical in news reporting, within "the context of a single event". So the question we need to ask is, had the event not occurred, would the 26,000 circulation Lawrence Journal World of Lawrence, Kansas run this as standalone coverage of scholarship on Byzantium-era reflections on Aramaic literature sandwiched between its coverage of the latest zoning resolutions of the Lawrence City Council and the paper's weekly "Pet Buzz" column? I find that ... very difficult to believe. But we may just have to agree to disagree on this one. Chetsford (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, User:Maproom, the vicious attack in Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times is hardly appropriate sourcing for a BLP. Bishonen | talk 16:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC).

Ok, strike that one. "Washington Times" sounds like a respectable name. Now that I look more closely, it's worse than my country's Daily Mail. Maproom (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - no judgement either way, but it is worth noting that an IP editor purporting to be the subject of this BLP has surfaced at the Teahouse to discuss this article. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• I believe that the Teahouse question prompted this nomination, Stormy clouds (not the other way around). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Strong delete This guy comes no where near passing the notability guidelines for academics, and all the news coverage of him is one event stuff. Even if the Lawrence Journal World would have run an article on him without the controversy, local papers need to be discounted as sources on local figures. We would not assume that the zoning issues they had an article about were notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep While much needs sourcing, the gist is that he is notable under general rules. The Gnostic translation should be sourceable, for sure. mentions him in an essay. And a bunch of other books mention him, so he meets notability. Collect (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, classic BLP1E case. Bishonen | talk 16:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC).
• Delete -- a WP:BLP mess on a low-profile individual. WP:BIO1E applies. Lacks WP:SIGCOV to demonstrate notability outside of one event. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz 15:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Twilight Time releases (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:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG. See multiple other similar discussions: Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of Magnetic Video releases; Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of Artisan Entertainment video releases; Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. --woodensuperman 14:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep perfectly legitimate list article split off from main article. Consistent with policy. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTCATALOG is policy. This is nothing more than a catalog. How is this consistent? --woodensuperman 16:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 09:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 09:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. Almost all the sources are facebook too, which are not suitable sources. Ajf773 (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. An indiscriminate list and non-encyclopedic cross categorisation. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

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 Tehran derby#Notable matches. J04n(talk page) 13:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Persepolis 3–2 Esteghlal (2012) (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 removed. The article seems to talks about one game with a few references that don't really help it. I can't see anything that makes this pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete No need. An non-notable article. However, @Govvy: WP:NFOOTBALL is only for players. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 14:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Not a notable game by itself NZFC 05:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Unnecessary fork, already covered at Tehran_derby#Notable_matches in a better way. Fenix down (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:SPORTSEVENT (and possibly some other policy) - an individual match is usually not notable, and a regular season derby such as this one is not.Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tehran derby#Notable matches. Notable game, but not enough information for a standalone article. Quidster4040 (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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 Louisiana Radio Network#College sports. J04n(talk page) 13:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Tiger Rag Magazine (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 cannot find any substantial independent sources to support notability. A previous PROD expired but was removed (I don't know if this has any bearing). Beevil (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep I'm finding it noted in news media including coverage of its writers and ownership. It's also cited regularly. If it isn't independently notable a merge to Louisiana Radio Network would be reasonable. Article needs some work. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Are you referring to the Google News results? I don't see any article there that mentions Tiger Rag Magazine beyond a simple byline or one sentence comment. Nothing that could be considered significant? Several of the mentions are also from affiliated persons/organisations. Beevil (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to Louisiana_Radio_Network#College_sports where the subject is already mentioned. Not independently notable and a standalone article is not required. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

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. J04n(talk page) 13:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Technology in Revelation Space (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)

Per WP:NOTPLOT, articles must not only consist of plot summary. This is nothing but plot summary. Such content belongs in fan wikis. Also, no third-party sources and therefore fails WP:N. Sandstein 12:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. 15:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 15:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete- excessively long and crufty plot summary sourced only to the works of fiction. No indication that other articles would be improved by merging any of this stuff there. Reyk _YO! 10:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Don't Delete This article is fun and detailed and gives important information about the universe that the story is set in, and really it goes perfectly with the articles about the various factions and races in the same universe. 18-Till-I-Die (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Article is entirely original research with no sources or evidence of notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

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 Nicolas Cage filmography#As producer. Sandstein 22:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Delete There is not a single source for Saturn Films. Nicolas Cage did found the company, but it never got to win or to be nominated for an Oscar. There are also no indications of notability, and it fails GNG and WP:NCORP. This is why it should be deleted. Evil Idiot (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 22. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep a useful index page open to improvement and extra information as well as references which are available on the individual film articles. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 11:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep production company of several notable films. At wprst it could be merged. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to Nicolas Cage filmography#As producer This is literally a company with a production logo and nothing else behind it to get Nicolas Cage on-board with projects. Films 'produced' by Saturn can be dagger-noted ("†") as done so in that section, with a minor note about the company itself. WP:ITSUSEFUL certainly isn't useful if we can duplicate the info easier in other articles. Nate • (chatter) 19:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Dagger notes have been added to above article. Nate • (chatter) 19:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge with Nicolas Cage filmography#As producer. The Keep !votes above such as "a useful index page" and "production company of several notable films" are not convincing reasons since Knowledge (XXG) is not a Yellow Pages or Directory and notability is not inherited. There is no indication of independent notability for this company and no independent references exist. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. No references exist that meets criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 13:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to Nicolas Cage filmography#As producer as WP:ATD; not independently notable & a stand-alone article is not required. The only purpose here is to serve as a redirect to section in the parent company. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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 22:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

SafeCharge (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)

Trivial coverage from non-notable sources, created by now blocked user for promo. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 00:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 00:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:NCORP (specifically ). Definitley is a case of WP:DEL4. --Kirbanzo (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Regularly covered in Globes ( ), has also been covered in Haaretz, Reuters, Financial Times. Is covered by at least 4 analysts. And it's an Israeli company, so there are likely to be more sources found in Hebrew. Toohool (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

*Keep While I do agree that the WP:PRIMARY genesis of this article was most (definitely) likely due to an employee or other associate closely related to the company, the article satisfies WP:CORP and WP:NOTE, with WP:SIGCOV supported by reputable, and more importantly regular WP:SECONDARY as noted above. Ventric (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete All points point towards Zero. This is actually a rampant WP:ACTUALCOI and horrible example of failing WP:NCORP -- as Drewmutt pointed out in his original AfD. I should have delved much deeper before my initial evaluation of WP:SECONDARY. Each search of source refers back to the company itself. Good game of SEO to manipulate a decent PageRank. This page should be disposed of. Ventric (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete No indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill business with an effective marketing and PR department. References listed in the article and above by Toohool all fail the criteria for establishing notability. The Globes references ( ) are based on company announcements and fail WP:ORGIND. The reference in Haaretz is based on an interview with the CEO and fails WP:ORGIND, the Reuters reference is also based on a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND, the Financial Times reference is based on the same announcement and fails WP:ORGIND also, nor is mentioning that the company has analyst coverage a criteria for notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP, references fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing 13:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Analyst coverage means that there are analyst reports, which are independent sources. That is specifically listed in WP:NCORP as a reason why publicly traded companies are usually notable. Your application of WP:ORGIND is wrong. You seem to interpret "substantially based on a press release" to include any article about something that the company announced in a press release. That's not what it means. Here's an example: SafeCharge issued this release about their 2014 earnings. Here is an article where the "reporter" changed the first paragraph of the press release a bit and then slapped his name on it. That is "substantially based on a press release." Here is the Globes article on the same story, where they incorporate the information from the press release, and bring other sources to bear on it, such as commentary from an investment bank. That is a perfectly good source for notability. As is the Haaretz article - the mere fact that it uses an interview with the CEO as one of its sources does not make it not an independent source. Toohool (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Toohool, can you provide any links to analyst reports - if so, there's a good chance that the reports would serve as an indication of notability (but not a guarantee). For example, there's a publically available Morningstar analyst report that merely reports financial performance - in my opinion this fails the criteria. But I know there might exist other analyst reports that provide market sector intelligence or a breakdown into competition, etc, and in my opinion those reports would probably meet the criteria. There's a difference between stating that analysts cover a company and analysts publishing independent reports. Also, there are stockbrokers who label themselves "analysts" and those stockbroking companies may not always have internal "chinese walls" as they (or their funds or customers) may have a interest in the stock. I'm happy to change my !vote if there are analysts reports that do more than simply report the financials. I disagree in relation to the Globes article. It is substantially based on a company announcement and press release and while it summarises other events such as the two acquisitions, it is devoid of intellectually independent opinion or analysis and further relies on quotations from a stockbroking analyst firm (Numis) - it is also very similar to this article, even down to the quotation from Numis. HighKing 21:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There you are again with that "independent opinion or analysis" line. Where is that in policy again? Perhaps you are paraphrasing from WP:AEIS, which defines a secondary source as including "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis". Synthesis is not a high bar to meet, it just requires drawing from multiple sources, which these articles do. As for analyst reports, I think you probably know that they are not generally readily available online. But, as luck would have it: Here is a report from Bryan Garnier. 31 pages of analysis of SafeCharge's finances, history, offerings, prospects, and competition. If you take issue with analyst reports in general because of the potential conflicts of interest, I think WP:NCORP is the place to bring that up. Toohool (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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 21:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Rachael Grai (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)

An art artist with no major achievements. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA 10:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:ANYBIO and/or WP:GNG. NZFC 01:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment - I note StrewnJohn created the page in draft and submitted it for review but instead of waiting for that went and created the article in mainspace instead. So could be user error. NZFC 01:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Inadequate sources to establish notability of any kind. WP:TOOSOON is putting it lightly.104.163.148.25 (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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. Sandstein 21:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hussain Jiffry (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:NMUSICIAN, only claim appears to be that he was the bass player on a Grammy award winning album. Dan arndt (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Question. This musician clearly took home a statue as that is what the source in the article reported and the official Grammys website lists him as part of the album that won. Is it still not considered having "won" a Grammy because it didn't go to him personally? 331dot (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• If the Mormon Tabernacle Choir won a Best Album Grammy, would that confer individual notability on all 360 of its members? Largoplazo (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think they would give out 360 statues. But I do wonder if the Sri Lankan media assumed this man "won" a Grammy when it was his group. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment - @331dot: it wasn't actually his group but it was Herb Alpert who assembled the musicians to play on his 's album. Dan arndt (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dan arndt: Thanks, Dan Arndt, for that clarification. So the source in the article seems to be hyping this up. I would then conclude that this article should be a redirect to the album's article. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 15:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. 15:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 15:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Weak keep The Grammy accomplishment is someone else's but it is not uncommon to give credit--if not the statue and glory--to session men/contributors, which is the case here. It's a pretty feeble claim for encyclopedic importance, yet his association with this award did garner some quasi-descent coverage in the Sri Lankan community, albeit of the "local-hero-makes-good" variety. Otherwise, a few weak independent industry sources that by themselves aren't enough, but combined with the local press just barely puts this one over the top for me. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Google News shows multiple significant coverage to enable the expansion of the article, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per guidelines and Atlantic306. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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 21:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

RCI Records (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 notability and verifiability. Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. Does not pass WP:CORP. — Zawl 09:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 10:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 10:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. 10:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. 10:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• All I could find were their advertisements. Seems to be a promoter. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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 21:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

There is no secondary RS coverage. The subject did author articles for RS but these articles aren't appropriate as sources for a biography (the stories are ultimately not about her). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 10:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 10:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. 10:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. 10:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete lack of secondary coverage to show that she is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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 one "keep" seems to have been rebutted. Sandstein 21:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Kung Fu cast members (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)

Featureless unencyclopedic list. WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:LISTCRUFT. --woodensuperman 08:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. 10:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 10:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep This was created over 10 years ago by a bot from the equivalent category. Per WP:CLN, lists are valid alternatives to categories and should not be deleted as inferior. The nomination's argument is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT per WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. Cast information is obviously wanted for this major series and you would certainly find it in relevant works such as The Kung Fu Book of Caine: The Complete Guide to TV's First Mystical Eastern Western; Television Western Players, 1960-1975: A Biographical Dictionary; The Encyclopedia of Martial Arts Movies; &c. The worst case is that we'd merge into Kung Fu (TV series)#Cast per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE and so there's no case for deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems all the information is currently at Kung Fu (TV series)#Cast anyway, but presented in an encyclopedic manner with context, so there is clearly no need for this list. --woodensuperman 15:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. We already have a list of cast members on the TV series article and a similar one can be made for the movie article. Ajf773 (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. These are actually guest stars. We have lots of lists of those: Category:Lists of guest appearances in television. If this is deleted, then they should be as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - As mentioned, this is a rather unnecesarry Fork of Kung Fu (TV series)#Cast, where the same information is presented in a much more informative and encyclopedic format. Any potential information that is missing there can be easily merged. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. These aren't regular cast members though, grasshopper. These are nearly all one-shot guest stars. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• • Comment - Yeah, and those guest stars are already listed in the section I linked to on the main series page. With much more detail.64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Are there recurring characters in Kung Fu? If it's all guest stars, it should be renamed as such like List of The Love Boat guest stars AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Reply. Yes, there are his teacher Master Po, Master Kan (head of the monastery?), and the kid who played Caine as a young boy/grasshopper. They're all in 40+ episodes. Everyone else is is listed in IMDb as appearing in less than 10 each. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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 21:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Dirty Harry cast members (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)

Featureless unencyclopedic list. WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:LISTCRUFT. --woodensuperman 08:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. 10:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 10:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep This generated from the category and should be kept per WP:CLN. The worst case is that we'd merge into Dirty Harry (film series)#Characters wher one would expect detailed cast/character info. Note that Dirty Harry is recognised by the Library of Congress as "culturally, historically, and aesthetically significant" and so the suggestion that detailed information about it is not encyclopedic is clearly false. Andrew D. (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Dirty Harry maybe "culturally, historically, and aesthetically significant", but this list is not. Presented in its current form it serves no encyclopedic purpose and provides no context for the appearances. This context is provided at Dirty Harry (film series)#Characters (although as there's little crossover for more than three actors, I do question its necessity too), so there's no need for this article which is pretty much useless. --woodensuperman 15:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. All cast lists are present on each films respective articles anyhow. Ajf773 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - I fail to see the point of this content fork. We have a cast list with context -- at the Dirty Harry article where such a list belongs. Of course, someone can try to convince me otherwise. Go ahead, make my day.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Make my day, punk (delete). This is just the casts of the five movies mashed together, something already (and IMO unnecessarily) done in the film series article. There is almost no overlap (besides Harry, only John Mitchum/Frank DiGiorgio and Harry Guardino/Al Bressler), making this pretty trivial. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - A rather useless FORK from the main article on the film series, as it has considerably less information than the list at Dirty Harry (film series). 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete- pointless content fork that duplicates (badly) content already present in other articles. Reyk _YO! 11:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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 21:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Arizona cities by area (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'm going to put this one and List of Texas cities by area up together as they both suffer the same duplication problem: they both are taken directly from List of United States cities by area and don't add anything new, but introduce maintenance headaches because they'll need to be manually updated each time something changes. It's already possible to sort List of United States cities by area by state and size, which allows a user to get the same result as the individual state pages. This vaguely fits WP:OC#Intersection by location but is really just a copying issue. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 10:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. 10:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete since the information is already contained in the main List of cities and towns in Arizona, so this is entirely redundant. Mattximus (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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. But consensus to not delete. A merger to Patriot Prayer can be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 21:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Joey Gibson (political activist) (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 BLP1E known only for Patriot Prayer and nothing else there is nothing in this article which is not already in Patriot Prayer Darkness Shines (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per GNG. Perhaps I read and hear about Gibson more, living in Portland, Oregon, but I think there is plenty of secondary coverage and Knowledge (XXG) articles linking to this one to justify a standalone article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to Patriot Prayer Article doesn't really contain much information. JDDJS (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Doesn't mean there isn't enough secondary coverage to expand the article... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Lean Keep, he's received a large amount of coverage and is basically the face of the pro-Trump movement in the Northwest, but I think it definitely could use expansion. MB298 (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep -- plenty of secondary coverage.--IndyNotes (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep – meets several WP:GNG criteria. There are several in-depth articles regarding him from reliable quality sources (herehereherehereand here) that are independent of the subject. The sources are non-trivial and describe his political activism in=depth. He certainly does not meet BLP1E criteria as the nom states. CookieMonster755✉ 16:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete We lack the level of indepth coverage we would need to give adequate coverage to a living individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - Easily passes GNG, as demonstrated by the list of sources presented by COOOOOOOOOOO-KEEEEEE!Monster... Carrite (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep I think the sources provided by CookieMonster755 above clearly contained substantial coverage. This and sources above as well as the sources already in the article will be useful for expansion. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Merge to Patriot Prayer, following the spirit if not letter of WP:BIO1E (in this case the 'event' is an organization). While Gibson has received coverage as the leader of the group, his notability appears to stem entirely from it. His personal views are directly relevant to the organization, and he appears to be featured in most articles about the group, so it makes sense to discuss both in one article. Simply if something meets the definition of WP:GNG, we are not bound to create a stand alone article. A similar case (a group leader gaining coverage for his group) ended with merge, see Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Ryan Fournier. Notable people with even international coverage can still not warrant a stand-alone article, e.g. Ahmed Mohamed (student) redirects to Ahmed Mohamed clock incident, the sole reason he became newsworthy. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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) Natg 19 (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Super Bowl XXVII halftime show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Bowl XXVII halftime show Stats)

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

A badly formatted, redundant WP:CFORK of Super Bowl XXVII, and a List of Super Bowl halftime shows is already here. Excelse (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 29. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. 10:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. 10:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 10:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep substantially covered in reliable independent sources including those already cited in the entry. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep abundant coverage clears WP:GNG easily. Much more information than can be found in a list or main article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Per above. Awardmaniac (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep As the show was the reason the NFL started booking highly popular singers to perform at the show. Michael's performance brought viewers back after the NFL lost viewers the previous year with its halftime show because of Fox's counterprogramming. (120.144.141.153 (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC))
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per all above. Not all Super Bowl halftime shows are notable, but this innovative and ground-breaking one definitely is. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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. Can be userfied or recreated as suggested by DGG by anybody who wants to rewrite the article. Sandstein 21:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Michele G. Wheatly (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 mostly self-promotional and generally lacks third party sources independent of her employers. I don't see anything that clearly establishes why Wheatly is noteworthy. Bitmapped (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: Vice-chancellor and provost of university is enough for a start. PamD 09:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 10:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 10:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 10:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. 10:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. 10:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. 10:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note: The guidelines at WP:PROF indicate that being provost is not sufficient for notability (see notes for Criterion #6). Bitmapped (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. At universities where "vice chancellor" is the highest administrative position at the whole university, it meets #6, but in US universities it is a lower-level administrative position that does not pass that criterion. And all the in-depth coverage of the subject (in our article and what I found doing my own searches) is either on employer web sites or university newspapers, too local and non-secondary to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete being the provost at most American universities is not in and of itself a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Draftify. and rewrite. This is a press release, but her citation record with over 20 papers having 50 or more citations is impressive enough in invertebrate physiology. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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. T. Canens (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

No evidence that the group of companies is separately notable to the subsidiary companies which already have articles (eg TV Azteca). Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. As I said when I deprodded the two academic books that I have cited in the article have significant coverage of the group, rather than any individual subsidiary. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 12:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. 12:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Those two sources are using Grupo Salinas as case studies. I do not think this counts as "significant coverage", as defined by WP:GNG. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Why not? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you read GNG's description of Significant Coverage? This doesn't seem to pass it. 1292simon (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have, and those books very clearly address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content, and have more than a trivial mention of the subject. There is no "except in a case study" there. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This editor is right, 1292simon – there's no such exception. If you want to invalidate the book sources, you'll need to use a different argument. —swpb 20:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep a Google News search turns up LOTS of coverage of Grupo Salinas and its activities. Major conglomerate. Very influential. Clearly meets guidelines for notability. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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 21:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Whitney Kimball Coe (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 do not think the subject is notable per WP:SUSTAINED; if anything, it would be more reasonable for coverage of her to be limited to a page created for the organization "Center for Rural Strategies". I think the very minimal coverage of her mostly relates to her speaking at an Obama Foundation conference once, which strikes me as WP:NOTNEWS. Enwebb (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 11:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 11:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete a failure of the not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. All there is here really is 1 trivial mention in the Chicago Trib. Uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Weak keep or Merge: Article is too stubby and badly needs a WP:HEY, but the Center for Rural Strategies is a notable organization. I'd hesitate to delete, but I am not opposed to a merge that keeps the redirect. Montanabw 18:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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 21:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Sweet Talker Tour (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 proof whatsoever that this is notable either per GNG or NTOUR, which requires discussion of the tour, not a few reviews. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 11:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - the tour has not received much media notice in its own right, so not notable as an event. (See the result of the first AfD vote, in which reliable sources were discussed.) List of shows is fan trivia that is better left at other websites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Not notable. Article is created by a paid editor. Not many sources exist beyond press releases. Rusf10 (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 02:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 02:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. 02:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 02:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 02:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete The article creator disclosed that they are a paid editor, so no issue there. However the sources provided are all industry junk, so notability is not established.198.58.168.40 (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete I agree. scope_creep (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Knowledge (XXG) is not a free alternative to LinkedIn. Being CEO of a company is not an automatic notability freebie under our notability standards for businesspeople, but the sources here are all business directories and press releases rather than independent media attention being organically given to her. A person needs to be the subject of media coverage, not just press releases from her own company, to qualify for an article.Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, Bearcat's summary is exactly what I thought about the article. PKT(alk) 16:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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 Resistive force. T. Canens (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Resistance force (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)

Unsourced and largely un-changed since 2004. I don't think this is a commonly used term and can't find any sources that use it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 02:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete This feels like a misguided attempt to universalize something that normally is an ad-hoc construction for individual situations. Search hits all seem to be for "crack resistance force"/"soil resistance force"/"rolling resistance force" - apparently no shared principle. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirecting as below seems the bst option. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to resistive force. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Redirect to resistive force. Most (all?) of the times it is used, it refers to a force that resists motion, e.g. drag, not this weird definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nom EvilxFish (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to resistive force. It appears to be using the "load force in a simple machine" definition, e.g., gravity pulling down one side of a lever. Plenty of books do this , so "resistance force" is a reasonable search term. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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 moved to Draft:Mycujoo. Consensus is substantially closer to deletion than to keeping, but I am calling an audible and moving this to draftspace, on the theory that it may or may not be improved with additional sources over the next few months. A condition of this move to draft is that the page, if improved, must be submitted for regular AFC review, and may not be unilaterally restored to mainspace without such review. To this end, I am locking the mainspace page so that some oversight will be required to move it back there. bd2412 T 21:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Mycujoo (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 sources are to very niche football blogs, there seems to be a decent source, but mentions the subject in passing. A quick WP:BEFORE didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comments Is this one of those websites that could be deemed illegal streaming? Govvy (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comments Hi Govvy - in answer to your question, it's not an illegal streaming website, and I definitely wouldn't have created an article for such a site. It's a legitimate business with its primary office located in Amsterdam, and has partnership arrangements with football clubs, leagues, and federations around the world based on the sources provided. A trademark search also indicates that mycujoo has been registered in Switzerland. Jleaguer (talk)

• Weak Delete I really can't see it, I am inclined to delete this article, it feels to me like it fails WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comments Hi Govvy - some further sources including a major TV feature below. I hope this now helps satisfy your doubts. Jleaguer (talk)

• Comments Hi Drewmutt - I would disagree with you here that "most sources" are very niche football blogs. The sources referenced include the governing body of European football (UEFA), the governing body of football in Iran (Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran), the governing body of football in Brazil (Brazilian_Football_Confederation), the governing body of football in Asia (Asian_Football_Confederation), one of the main media organisations in Brazil (O_Globo), a very widely read news organisation in the Netherlands (NU.nl), and a newspaper in Thailand (Thai_Post). There is also a source - which you confirm above is decent - that in this instance specifically makes mycujoo the subject of the article. Jleaguer (talk)
• Comments Hi GiantSnowman I appreciate the feedback. I think there's legitimate reason here to believe this meets the general notability guideline. The sources used are both reliable and independent, comprising as they do both major organisations in the football world, as well as in the general media, across a multiplicity of languages, which have been published over a reasonable period of time. Jleaguer (talk)
• Keep Hi all. I've just discovered a feature on mycujoo which was broadcast on SIC in November, a major Portuguese television channel. Will wait for your comments, but if included in the sources this would clearly help satisfy notability criteria. In addition, here is a further source from the major/established Brazilian newspaper Lance! Jleaguer (talk)

• Delete No indications of notabilty, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing 15:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comments Hi Highking - thanks for the note. I appreciate that you've said it fails, but could you explain why it fails GNG? There are references/sources from major football clubs, football federations, and governing bodies around the world; articles written specifically referencing mycujoo (not in passing) in established media/publications; and a significant televised feature on the company on one of the most important Portuguese television stations. Does that not establish notability, and if not, what more would be required for that level of evidence to be satisfied? Jleaguer (talk)

• Response You say there are references/sources who have written articles specifically referencing mycujoo. WP:GNG states a topic requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The key phrase that is most often misinterpreted is "independent of the subject". This does not mean that the publisher is a separate company from the topic company, but that the reference/article is intellectually independent. The WP:NCORP guidelines (especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND) provide more explanation and a guidelines on how to interpret GNG in the context of establishing notability for companies. Therefore, references that rely extensively on company announcements and interviews/quotations from either the topic company or affiliated or partner companies are not considered "independent of the subject". Of the references you have provided and the others available online, none meet the requirements for establishing notability. For example, this refrerence from insideworldfootball relies on an announcement made by the Bhutan Football Federation, a business partner. This from worldsoccertalk and this from sporttechie.com both rely on an interview or Q&A with the CEO. This devpost.com reference was created by the company. This reference from blogs.oglobo.globo.com fails WP:RS as blogs are not considered reliable sources. This todayonline.com reference is based on an announcement from the Football Association of Singapore, another business partner. Hope that explains why the references fail the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 17:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - I think the sources in the article, especially this one, satisfy WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

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. Would be happy to userfy to someone with a reasonable request to selectively merge into 2017–18 Club Atlético River Plate season. J04n(talk page) 19:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

2018 Club Atlético River Plate season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Club Atlético River Plate season Stats)

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

Article already exists with 2017–18 Club Atlético River Plate season article. Talked with creator (FerchuJenson), who seemed to have misinterpreted Knowledge (XXG) guidelines as they thought team seasons should/would be following the continental competitions (Copa Libertadores etc.) rather than the domestic league calendar (Argentine Primera División). Seems an honest mistake. R96Skinner (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, FerchuJenson here.

Not only seems an honest mistake, but is an honest mistake (if it is). If a decision is made and the 2018 season article is deleted, be sure to take all the relevant information that is on the article and merge it with the 2017/18 season. I'm aware of the fact that a 2017/18 season article has been created and developed for nearly each team of Argentinan Top League. However, there are some questions with the 2017/18 article that are still making noise to me:

- I have listed the fixture of River Plate for the 2018 Copa Libertadores (South American Champions League) in the 2018 season article. However, the 2017/18 season article includes the 2017 Copa Libertadores fixture. The thing is: what happens with the matches of 2018 Copa Libertadores? They can´t be listed until July, when the 2018/19 season starts for the Argentinian Top League? Even if 2018 Copa Libertadores is starting today (22 January)? Or perhaps we can list 2017 Copa Libertadores and 2018 Copa Libertadores in the same 2017/18 article? That would be like a 2017/18 Real Madrid Season article with 2017 UEFA Champions League and 2018 UEFA Champions League (this does not happen because UEFA tournaments and Spanish La Liga are both taking place from July to June, but it's not the case with Argentinian League and Copa Libertadores)

- I want to be sure that the wikipedians who will make the decision of delete the 2018 season article are aware of the importance of Copa Libertadores, being the main continental club tournament, the equivalent of UEFA Champions League for CONMEBOL (South American Football Confederation), and the fact that the events should be entered with not so much delay (definitely not six months).

- I assume that for English Language Knowledge (XXG), the main football club tournament in South America is relevant, maybe not as relevant as UEFA Champions League, but relevant anyway. If it is not, all my points won't make sense.

Regards.

FerchuJenson (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete – this is the case for several leagues in northern and eastern Europe, but has been solved nicely in with splitting the European campaign into two two season articles it takes part in, see e.g. 1979 Malmö FF season, 2008 FC Zenit Saint Petersburg season. // Smartskaft (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete As content fork. Follow the European precedent for where to put the Copa info. Smartyllama (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn as there's not a WP:SNOW chance of any outcome other than keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

ReleaseTheMemo (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 is a bunch of partisan warfare taking place in partisan media about what is currently a giant nothingburger. Knowledge (XXG) shouldn't be part of a 1984-esque social media echo chamber. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep It's an interesting phenomenon, because it's a giant nothingburger. No shortage of reliable sources. zzz (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep References seem to back up notability, especially around alleged Overseas involvement in US politics. Social media nothingburgers are part of world politics for good or ill. Mattyjohn (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• KeepClearly meets WP:N. This is the type of article WP should be documenting and providing the reader information about.Casprings (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep- It may be a partisan movement and the way some congressmen who have the seen the memo describe it, its far from a nothingburger. But we're not trying to make a judgement about whether the memo itself contains anything important (how can we since we haven't seen it). The article is not about whether the memo contains any important information but about a movement that happens to be partisan (but so are a lot of movements) to get the memo released.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep as eminently notable.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 02:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 02:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - certainly trendy, but well-referenced and independent enough of the Russian interference stuff to have its own article. Easily meets WP:GNG, and I don't see other policy-based reasons to remove it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Actually I see no policy reason to delete this it is well sourced, notable and factual and appears to pass all NOTS. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep obvious keeper. Mdmadden (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Almost all political slogans have a partisan slant; just because a topic is partisan doesn't mean that it isn't notable or that it can't be written about from a NPOV. I'd compare this to Pizzagate, both are explicitly partisan conspiracy theories, yet both are notable enough to warrant a WP entry. Nanophosis (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hazari Estate (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 topic has been effectively unsourced since created in 2012. The cited sources (1) theorize that the town of Dohazari is named after the two Hazari Mansabdars, Adhu Khan and Lakshman Singh, and (2) confirm the town Zorwargan exists. They say nothing about Hazari Estate or the family history. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project MUSE, and Questia found some Google Books hits for various other distant and unrelated Hazari estates (Suttars/Suttais/Satais, Bais, Shah, Kanta Prosad, etc.), but nothing for this Hazari Estate except mirrors, Facebook, LinkedIn, and the like. Does not meet WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete There are no sources to be found. I am inclined to believe that large parts if not most of the article is Original Research.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. I couldn't find any sources either. Narky Blert (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Argo Group. T. Canens (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Mark E. Watson III (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)

Nothing more than a resume, basically. I can find no evidence this person is notable and other than the PRs/primary/passing mentions and mill coverage of this person, I can find nothing actually in-depth to suggest they would meet any criteria on Knowledge (XXG).

I'm not even sure that the related company Argo Group is notable, but I have no issue with a redirect if it is. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 20:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 20:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 20:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 20:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete- I don't see anything outside of a few local articles about the company and press releases. The article was created by a paid editor.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to the company which is probably notable . DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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.