Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 31 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Mark Deutrom. No real consensus here, but the merge seems to make sense. I don't see any reason to delete after merging, so leave the history intact and redirect to the target. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Alchemy Records (U.S.) (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 record label, no coverage (most google results return listings for the japanese label of the same name) RF23 (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've at least added some sources, maybe enough to save it. Lugnuts 11:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:17, 31 July 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. A keep consensus via the additional sources introduced seems to have been established (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Free South Moluccan Youths (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 have nominated this page for deletion since it has been unreferenced for more than a decade. Its last dead url was removed in April 2008 (WP:V). Also because it isn't notable enough to be worthy of a page. There has never been a collective South Molucccan terrorist organization in the Netherlands. That is not to say that their actions have not been notable nor that these attacks lacked organization (WP:N). The pages about these individual attacks are informative enough, and do not even wikilink to this article with the exception of one. The article is as good as orphaned. A Google search lists a couple of outdated Terrorist Databases, whose entrees on this subject are perhaps even more devoid of content. --Jay D'Easy (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Procedural Note: This AfD was missing its template and not properly listed in the daily listings. I have added the template and transcluded. Please consider the time of this comment as the time of first listing for closing purposes. Monty845 01:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:17, 31 July 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. I'm not sure what a "Soft Keep" is supposed to be, but the argument given is basically, WP:OSE, which doesn't work. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

2018 Angelo State Rams football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSEASONS. Minor division 2 school. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia 17:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 02:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:16, 31 July 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Shaylyn Kyente Gimby (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:BLP of a person whose notability claims are referenced almost entirely to primary sources that cannot carry notability. There's just one acceptable reliable source being cited here at all, and it's just a glancing namecheck of his existence in a blurb about a local gaming meetup in his own hometown. This is not the type or depth or range of coverage it takes to get a person over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:16, 31 July 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The only "keep" is by an indef-blocked sock. Sandstein 08:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Revival Tour (Eminem 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)

Fails WP:NTOUR. Routine coverage, set lists and tour dates only. --woodensuperman 11:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but still the article fails WP:NTOUR, which calls for significant coverage. This is just routine coverage. --woodensuperman 11:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 05:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:38, 2 August 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 08:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

World of Children Awards (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 real sources on google, delete as not notable. TJH2018talk 21:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:31, 1 August 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 WP:SNOW keep. bd2412 T 12:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Auburn–Georgia Tech football rivalry (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)

These teams have met 92 times, but haven't competed against each other on a regular basis in quite some time. There's a case to be made that this is a historically significant series, however, there's not enough to proclaim it a "rivalry". Auburn wouldn't put Georgia Tech in the same category as Alabama, Georgia or LSU. Similarly, Georgia Tech wouldn't include Auburn alongside Georgia or Clemson. This isn't a "rivalry" and shouldn't be treated as such. CalebHughes (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep In the 1960s and 1970s it was certainly a rivalry: I was there for it. Right now, it isn't. Knowledge (XXG) doesn't exist to document things in the present moment, and the title doesn't imply currency. This nomination and others like it appear to suffer from recentism. A rivalry existed, and the passage of time doesn't mean it never did. Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Acroterion. This is another of the storied series in the history of Southern football. Coverage dealing with the series as a historic rivalry includes: (1) "AU, Tech renew a Southern tradition", 2003 ("It's the renewal of an old rivalry.... In fact, there was a time when Georgia Tech was the game on Auburn's schedule ... For everybody 45 years and older, we remember when the Georgia Tech game was the biggest game of the year. ... Auburn vs. Georgia Tech is the second oldest rivalry in the Deep South"); (2) "Tigers face traditional rival today," 1980 ("The Auburn-Georgia Tech football rivalry may not be as fierce as it once was, but it is still a rivarly."); (3) "Tale of the tail: AU-Tech rivalry has a colorful past", 2005 (4) "Auburn's Unbeaten Tigers Battle Mighty Tech Today", 1963 ("Series history of the Auburn-Georgia Tech rivalry shows it to be one of the oldest in the country ..."); and (5) "Tigers Are Out To Wreck Tech", 1966 ("The Auburn-Georgia Tech rivalry has always been considered a Southern football classic ..."). Moreover, by my count, there have been at least 16 marquee match-ups between the teams in which both teams were ranked, a ranked team was upset, or prior to 1936 a game in which both teams met with no more than one loss apiece: 2005 (Georgia Tech upset #16 Auburn); 2003 (Georgia Tech upset #17 Auburn); 1970 (#8 vs 16); 1963 (Auburn upset #8 Georgia Tech); 1960 (Auburn upset #19 Georgia Tech); 1959 (#4 vs #11); 1958 (Georgia Tech tied #2 Auburn); 1955 (#5 vs #17); 1953 (#6 vs #19); 1920 (one-loss Georgia Tech defeated one-loss Auburn); 1917 (undefeated Georgia Tech defeated one-loss Auburn); 1916 (undefeated Georgia Tech defeated one-loss Auburn); 1915 (undefeated Georgia Tech defeated one-loss Auburn); 1914 (undefeated Auburn defeated one-loss Georgia Tech); 1913 (undefeated Auburn defeated undefeated Georgia Tech); and 1912 (undefeated Auburn defeated undefeated Georgia Tech). Other intangibles favor a rivalry finding, including border-state geography, longevity (series dates to 1892!); frequency of play (92 total games); competitiveness of the series (Auburn leads 47 to 41); and program prominence (6 claimed national titles between them). Cbl62 (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. They used to play each other at the end of every year, and it almost always decided the southern champion along with the Vanderbilt-Sewanee game. In 1904, Auburn got Mike Donahue and Tech got John Heisman. Heisman had coached at Auburn previously, and before 1915, lost to Auburn every year but 1906. In 1915, after Auburn had very strong teams in 1913 and 1914, Tech finally beats Auburn. They don't lose a Southern game between 1914's game with Auburn and 1919's game with Auburn. Leaving aside the 1915 Vanderbilt team, the champions after 1912 go 13: Auburn, 14: Auburn, 15: Tech, 16: Tech, 17: Tech, 18: Tech, 19: Auburn. A better candidate for clean up is the Auburn-Tulane rivalry. Dirtlawyer (peace be upon him) advised removing it. I thought it was unwise given Auburn and Tulane's rise in the 30s, but I now think I was mistaken. Cake (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per the sources presented by Cbl62. Lepricavark (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Cbl and Cake; poor argument presented by nominator. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • keep clearly once notable... and therefore always notable as notability cannot be lost.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep just because they haven't played a lot recently doesn't mean it isn't article worthy, the rivalry just has to show it was important over a significant amount of time which it has (whenever they play its a big deal unless they both are in rebuilding years). If Notre Dame and USC stopped playing for like 20 years, I can assure you that article would not be deleted or even discussed for deletion. And football is bigger in the south than in the Midwest/West (I am a fan of a southern College Football team that is in a different conference than these two teams). JC7V-constructive zone 16:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Cbl62 and WP:NTEMP. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:22, 2 August 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. Just want to note that there are some really good !vote rationales below ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Chris Garcia (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)

Following some some discussion, AfD was brought up here as an option for a somewhat problematic article. There is doubt as to whether his position as (former?) Acting Director of the Minority Business Development Agency automatically guarantees notability. I don't know, though I'm not convinced that it does. The subject himself doesn't seem to pass GNG since all the coverage, except for that about his resignation (if that's the proper word?), is just very quotidian: a man doing his job, as one of our editors put it. In addition, the article is (or was) highly fluffed up and written/edited by someone who seems to be a COI editor. The history will tell you who that is, and the history will also tell you that there's BLP violations and edit warring in here: I scrubbed some BLP violations from the talk page history. As an admin, I don't think it warrants deletion out of a sense of BLP security, but it's something other editors may feel differently about. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - his position doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:POLOUTCOMES, a resume like article with COI issues. Melcous (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. His position was not high enough to confer automatic notability, and I found when trying to improve the article that the sourcing was thinner than it appeared, heavily reliant on press releases from the agency he headed. I was unable to find more to add except a second news article about his resignation; both are mentioning him briefly along with three other people. So unless someone else has better luck, I don't believe he meets GNG either, and it becomes a case of too soon. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:17, 31 July 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. Clear KEEP consensus per sources provided and WP:NTEMP (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Rice–Texas football rivalry (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)

Another iffy "rivalry" article. No significant evidence to establish a "rivalry" in the very sense of the term. These teams do have some history, but again, that alone isn't enough to warrant a "rivalry" Knowledge (XXG) page, per Knowledge (XXG) policy. Texas is a premier college football program, while Rice is merely the Vanderbilt of the state of Texas. Texas would not put Rice alongside Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Texas Tech or Baylor. Rice, if they were honest, probably wouldn't include Texas alongside Houston or SMU, although they may wish they could. Unless there is significant coverage and/or evidence that Rice and Texas are actually rivals in the real sense of the term and not just two teams with some history, I believe this article needs to be deleted. CalebHughes (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:40, 31 July 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) Red Phoenix 22:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Georgia–Vanderbilt football rivalry (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 another page with some historical significance but no true animosity that fuels a true rivalry. Georgia fans/administration would not put Vanderbilt alongside Georgia Tech, Florida, Auburn or even South Carolina. This article gives no indication that it ever was anything but a regular conference game. All the listed historical "notable" games occurred before 1930. This series may mean a little more to Vandy (especially when they win), but Georgia certainly doesn't regard this annual matchup as more than a divisional game played every year. And, when Vandy loses, they generally give the game no additional weight either. This is just an average SEC game between two teams in the same division. That, in my view, is enough to warrant deletion for this page. CalebHughes (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep This nomination is written entirely in the present tense. As noted in a similar AfD, Knowledge (XXG) doesn't exist to document things in the present moment, and the title doesn't imply currency. Acroterion (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:38, 31 July 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. Closed per overwhelming consensus, additional sources and WP:NTEMP (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Auburn–Tulane football rivalry (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)

Here is another example of an article this is more historically significant than an animosity-fueled rivalry in the very sense of the term. Auburn and Tulane have only played 37 times and haven't seen in the same conference since the 1960s, and there is an obvious lack of animosity between both fan bases and schools. In fact, a majority of fans on either side probably aren't aware of the history between these two schools. There's no indication in this article that this was anything more than an average conference game. This, in my view, justifies why a rivalry page isn't warranted for the series between these two teams. Tulane has long since slipped into mediocrity, while Auburn has established itself as one of college football's top programs. This is not a "rivalry" and, therefore, in my judgment, this page needs to be deleted. CalebHughes (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
GNG also supported by some of the marquee matchups between the programs. E.g., 1955: unranked Tulane upset #8 Auburn. Cbl62 (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Will withdraw my delete given Cbl62 making me look a fool. Dirtlawyer long ago felt he had looked into it and seen no rivalry. I was skeptical given the 1932 teams, but then when I later looked into it, I had a real difficult time finding something that said "rivalry" and meant more than "conference opponent". Cake (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Nobody makes you look a fool, Cake. Your initial instinct was correct; it's just very difficult to find sources for rivalries that were limited to the pre-Internet era. This is one of the real problems with mass nomination of rivalries from the olden days. It take a good deal of time to dig through the source material -- a task that should be taken (per WP:BEFORE) by the nominator prior to submitting to AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 04:53, 1 August 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. Another Keep based on additional sources found and WP:NTEMP (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

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

There is no evidence that this series between these teams is or was anything more than an average SEC contest. They aren't permanent cross-divisional opponents, no trophy or name for this so-called "rivalry". There have been some good games between Auburn and Tennessee, but that alone doesn't make it a "rivalry". This is just an average Southeastern Conference football game and isn't a "rivalry" in my judgment. CalebHughes (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. This may not be currently thought of as a top rivalry, but notability is not temporary, and this was one of the most competitive and storied series in the history of Southern football. As (1) this source recounts, the rivalry has lost steam since the SEC split but it was once a bitter rivalry. See also (2) this source calling it the best historic SEC rivlalry lost to the SEC split. Significantly in my estimation, there have been at least 20 marquee match-ups between the teams in which both teams were ranked or a ranked team was upset. The marquee match-ups between Tennessee and Auburn include: 2004 (played twice: #8 vs #10, #3 vs #15); 2003 (Auburn upset #7 Tenn); 1997 (#11 vs #3); 1991 (#13 vs #5); 1990 (#3 vs #5); 1989 (#4 vs #12); 1987 (#3 vs #11); 1985 (Tenn. upset #1 Auburn); 1980 (Tenn. upset #18 Auburn); 1974 (Auburn upset #14 Tenn.); 1973 (#11 vs #9); 1972 (Auburn upset #4 Tenn.); 1971 (#5 vs #9); 1970 (Auburn upset #17 Tenn.); 1969 (#17 vs #19); 1968 (#5 vs #18); 1959 (Tenn upset #3 Auburn); 1957 (Auburn upset #8 Tenn.); and 1937 (Auburn upset #7 Tenn). There are also intangibles favoring a rivalry finding, including border-state geography, longevity (series dates to 1900); frequency of play (52 total games); competitiveness of the series (Auburn leads 28 to 21); and program prominence (8 claimed national titles between them). Cbl62 (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
In addition to the two sources linked above, here are other sources dealing with the historic rivalry: (3) "Auburn-Tennessee rivalry now a Southern showcase", 1990; and (4) AU-UT series often heated, 1983 (calling it "one of the best" rivalries in the Southeast). Cbl62 (talk) 22:43, 31 July 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) SkyGazer 512 00:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Alabama–Penn State football rivalry (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 my fist time nominating an article for deletion, so I apologize for any format errors. This is and was not a "rivalry" in the very sense of the defined term. At best, this is and was a historically significant series. At any rate, I fail to see how a page is warranted between these two teams. Alabama fans/administration would not put Penn State alongside established rivals such as Auburn, LSU or even Tennessee. Likewise, Penn State fans/administration wouldn't put Alabama alongside Ohio State, Michigan State or Pittsburgh. These schools aren't even located in the same geographical area of the United States. Only in rare cases (for example Notre Dame-USC) do true rivalries exist between teams not geographically close to each other. But Bama and PSU don't play every year like ND and USC. You might find, using a simple Google search, a few articles talking about the historical nature of this contest, but there isn't real animosity between these teams, fan bases or administration or any other factors that define a true rivalry. CalebHughes (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nom (new editor) does not reference WP:GNG while making delete argument. Article contains 2 AP and 1 ESPN citations which directly state a rivalry. GNG demands "significant coverage" which is already met by existing citations in my view. Prior AfD appears unanimous keep. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This nomination is written entirely in the present tense. As noted in a similar AfD, Knowledge (XXG) doesn't exist to document things in the present moment, and the title doesn't imply currency. Acroterion (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per UW Dawgs and Acroterion. Lepricavark (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm undecided on this one--I'm not sure that the stretch in the 1980's and a few scattered games before and after brings it to the level of a rivalry, even looking at it from the viewpoint that notability cannot be lost or taken away. I think it warrants some more discussion as it may set a soft precedent.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep May not be a rivalry on the level of, say, Alabama-Auburn, but is still an important series historically speaking. ~EDDY ~ 16:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Eddy has it right, I think. Personally, I don't this is a "rivalry" at all. There's no geographic tie, no regularity of play or scheduling, no fan base hatred, etc. But it is a historically significant series of games that is worthy of encyclopedic tracking. Out of the 15 times they've met, 13 of those games have been marquee match-ups involving either contests between ranked teams or upsets of ranked teams, including 1974 (#3 vs #7), 1979 (#1 vs #2), 1981 (#6 vs #5), 1982 (#3 vs #4), 1983 (upset of #3 Alabama), and 1986 (#6 beat #2). Cbl62 (talk) 17:23, 5 August 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 08:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. This is clearly a promotional autobio. Saqib (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:06, 31 July 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 08:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Subject alleges to be a busy session musician but has no apparent individual notability. Enirely unsourced and probably unsourcable in the most part. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Sionk (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:05, 31 July 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 to delete. There's two basic arguments here. One is reaction to the WP:UPE and WP:COI aspects. Those could be resolved by an uninvolved editor writing a new article and/or declaring their COI. The other issue is whether this meets WP:NPOLITICIAN and/or WP:GNG; the general feeling here is that it doesn't. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Renee Hoyos (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)

Part of a political election campaign. DePRODed. Concern = Paid article created as part of the September 2017 election campaign for the 2nd Congressional seat of Tennessee. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The page was a commisioned work created by banned paid editor KDS4444. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Conceivably notable as an environmental activist on the strength of this newspaper reference if an additional in-depth reference can be found, but I agree that just being a candidate does not itself bring notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong delete unelected candidates are almost always not notable. Her role as an activist no where near comes close to being notable. Knowledge (XXG) is not a proper place for campaign promotionalism, and we need to be hyper vigilant is destroying attempts to abuse the encyclopedia to use it for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Page has many issues, apparently - but not meeting WP:NPOL or WP:GNG are two of these issues. SportingFlyer talk 21:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Heavy COI and does not satisfy GNG. --1l2l3k (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. People do not get Knowledge (XXG) articles just for running as candidates in congressional primaries — she has to win the general election in November to claim notability as a politician, not just be a candidate for her party's nomination. Absent an election victory that makes her the district's formal representative-elect, she would need to demonstrate enough preexisting notability for other reasons to have qualified for an article on those grounds — but this cites only a single "Top 10" listicle in the local newspaper, which is not enough coverage to have gotten her over WP:GNG for that work. Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Hoyos is now the official Democratic Nominee for the Second Congressional District, receiving over 22,000 votes in the primary election. She has been the subject of numerous interviews and news articles in the greater Knoxville area, and (I believe) the first woman to win a primary election for a major party in Tennessee's 2nd district. This fact alone is significant and merits recognition. It is also untrue that politicians who have not won a general election do not receive Knowledge (XXG) articles-- take for example congressional nominee Randy Bryce or perennial Tennessee candidate Basil Marceaux, the latter of whom received fewer than 1300 votes in his most recent bid for governor. Barring how effectively this shows her "notability", a quick google of her nonprofit work shows obvious public awareness and community engagement. Hoyos was the Executive Director of the Tennessee Clean Water Network for 14 years, and has been featured in numerous articles describing her advocacy for water quality in Tennessee. See this article about sewage spills. The TCWN under her leadership also sued the department of defense for dumping an explosive chemical in the Holston river, contaminating drinking water, and won this battle. She personally has been profiled in several articles and has represented environmental interests in a high-profile way consistently for years. Furthermore, I have personally spoken with one of her representatives who stated that the article by KDS4444 was done for free, prior to the beginning of her campaign and centered on her environmental, not political work. I am a greenhorn, but will be happy to contribute, or to nominate someone to contribute more to this article to reflect this. Senorred (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The very first reference in the very first version of the article history talks about her announcing her candidacy, so I don't buy the "free article prior to nomination" argument for a second. Furthermore, check out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. SportingFlyer talk 01:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Okay, I reached out and spoke to Hoyos tonight. She says the original author approached her and offered to write the article for free. She believed that the original article had more information about her environmental work, since it was related to the articles that author was publishing. If the concern with the article is just the stub component from the original edit, I'll be happy to rewrite the entire article without that particular phrase. I've already shown she has more than two articles from different reputable sources (that are NOT from the original article) to indicate she's a person of likely notability. Is there a way to extend this deletion nomination discussion so that I can get the time/collaborators to do a major rewrite reflecting this?Senorred (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I have dramatically updated the article to meet standards for both WP:POLITICIAN and GNG. These include 2 biographical in-depth, independent articles that examine the subject before her political campaign. Furthermore, several articles and links have been added describing her environmental advocacy (wherein she is quoted), specifically w/r/t her involvement in the non-profit world and Knoxville community. Moreover, I'll note that while it is true only being a candidate does not meet the WP:POLITICIAN standards, the person is only not notable if they do not otherwise meet criteria for notability. That means that a candidate can be notable without holding office as long as they have independent, verifiable sources (example: Ocasio-Cortez, who was not necessarily notable prior to her primary win). This update is by no means exhaustive and I would greatly appreciate some help from the Tennessee project or similar groups.Senorred (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • delete the PROMO content and behavior is glaring. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment "including as a founding board member of Community Health Alliance, which ended coverage for enrollees in 2016." Subject was a board member of a failed insurance company? Hardly promotional.Senorred (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article appears to have been significantly edited since it's original posting. It feels like the original complaint that this was a paid political post has been resolved. On the merits of the page in general, there appears to have been significant coverage of Hoyos (brief review of news articles from your favorite search engine) which satisfies WP:Notability requirements. Additionally, with her political involvement and the coverage she is receiving, I believe she qualifies as a major local political figure under the WP:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges definition. Chaking32 (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 16:17, 6 Aug 2018 (PCT)
  • Comment I'd probably like to see a relist. The rewritten article is much better, but in poking around, I'm still not seeing a terrible lot of coverage outside of Knox County. If it gets deleted, courtesy throw it in my user space and we'll see what it looks like in six months. GMG 23:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm sorry I'm new at this, I'm not sure what relist means. Though I will note that having mostly local coverage does not fail GNG, otherwise municipal figures like mayors, local journalists, and state representatives would not pass. The trick with local coverage is providing multiple, verifiable, reliable sources (which I did, though I only had a little time to put the rewrite together, so there's probably more).Senorred (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Having had a look at the updated article and the available sources, I still don't think she passes WP:GNG on her work before the campaign, or on the campaign-related coverage. Still a delete. SportingFlyer talk 00:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Can you please be more specific? Were the most relevant stand-alone articles not from a reputable source? Were they not independent? Were the links not verifiable?Senorred (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
It's still nevertheless a paid-for promo with just one intention by a banned paid user and his client. I'm curious why anyone with true Knowledge (XXG) interests would want her to have the satisfaction of knowing she can buy promo in Knowledge (XXG) for her campaign, and try so hard to get it included. Perhaps we should include that in the article about her... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on you to prove that she paid for that service. However, here is a link to her FEC filings for spending, itemized and searchable. In the USA, not reporting campaign expenditures is a crime. There is no payment listed for Knowledge (XXG) editing, or any writing services at the time the article was created. I don't know the details of this banned user, or what other articles they wrote. However, suggesting that this person provided a paid service that was not reported on her filings is accusing her of a crime. Posting that accusation publicly on her page, without any verifiable proof that a payment occurred, is intentionally defamatory and libelousWP:LIBEL and a legal threat WP:LEGAL. Also, it's original research! Obviously you have more power than me as an admin. I hope you can believe I was acting in good faith to try to salvage instead of delete this page.Senorred (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here is accusing you of not acting in good faith to save the page, but your libel and legal threats are uncalled for. The page was created four days before the creating user was banned for paid editing violations and regardless doesn't quite pass our notability standards. SportingFlyer talk 05:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Putting notability aside, there is no indication that the subject paid the banned user. If the banned user did it for free, does it have to be disclosed? In this case, the subject has a federally reported record of campaign spending, and there is no evidence to indicate a payment was made. If Kudpung กุดผึ้ง made good on their suggestion above to post an accusation of unreported campaign spending, it is accusing the subject of a crime in this country, and would be by definition a legal threat. I am pointing out laws in this country, not making a legal threat.Senorred (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Most of them didn't have significant coverage of her, and a couple of the ones that did were primary. SportingFlyer talk 04:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Partisan promo of marginal figure. Qwirkle (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no reason this article should be deleted. A concern was raised about the content, and you can easily see that has been resolved. Also, you cannot fault someone for the lack of balanced reporting in a small, conservative market. If there are sections the admin believes needs better citation, that can easily be marked with a request from Knowledge (XXG) next to the statement, as seen on several other pages.
Going from atrocious to bad is not “resolving” a problem, it is ameliorating it. That isn’t always enough, and isn’t here.
More to the point, if you are claiming that no good sources are available, that by definition means the article should be rapidly deleted, not put on life support.
Finally, very few disinterested new writers stumble in here on their second edit. Wassup with that? Qwirkle (talk) 14:43, 7 August 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 Ta13oo. Close per reasonable consensus for redirect, including balance of both sides' arguments. This will also allow retention of the edit history to enable re-establishing the article if notability can be demonstrated in the future (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Sirens (Denzel Curry song) (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)

Apparently non-notable song, does not begin to satisfy WP:NMUSIC (specifically WP:NALBUM). Three different experienced editors have redirected it to the album, but have all been reverted. Redirection is still a reasonable alternative to outright deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, as I am sure the song is one of the most notable Curry songs. It deserves an article as there are numerous articles in the news about the song. Don't delete the article, add to it! ColorTheoryRGB CMYK 20:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Ta13oo. ColorTheoryRGB, we would add to it if we could find any reliable sources apart from HotNewHipHop discussing the song itself – everything else mentions it as part of the album, so the article should be redirected to the parent album. Please point us to the "numerous articles in the news about the song" that you say exist, because we can't find them (YouTube videos, blog posts and Reddit don't count as reliable sources). Richard3120 (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to album. Apparently the video was released July 25–27 and "Siren" isn't yet a single. Too soon to be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works" that are not album reviews (see WP:NSONGS). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to album as per nom and above two editors, as "I am sure the song is one of the most notable Curry songs" isn't really a valid notability criteria. Onel5969 17:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NSONG Subject of multiple (two cited) non-trival (published, not blog/forum) articles. That's enough, even if the article needs more content to receive a higher assessment rating. I am not against redirecting this information, but there are very limited instances where articles actually meet criteria for outright deletion, and per the leading paragraphs WP:NM, particularly the second one, deletion is unnecessary and doesn't benefit anyone (the readers and the editors). Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment - and what would those 2 sources be, there are only 3 in the article, and one is YouTube (non-RS), and another simply is a lyric listing. Which leaves only the HNHH piece, which is a very short promotional blurb. Not clear on whether HNHH is a reliable source, as they bill themselves "We are quickly becoming the premium destination for hip hop music and a promotional powerhouse for established artists and rising stars." Which seems to indicate its more focused on promotion than actual news. Onel5969 20:56, 1 August 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 (author requested deletion) (Deleted under CSD G7 - nominated by page creator Strikeforce) Nick (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Irving, Texas parking garage collapse (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 does not fulfill WP:GNG and wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. The edit summary at creation was "Creating stub article - may end up being non-notable, but have started this article for use in the event that the incident results in fatalities or is otherwise notable". There's no reason to create an article ASAP before there are any facts. I asked the creator if they want to G7 it and they declined. It's a shame there are no applicable speedy deletion criteria. Natureium (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment as article creator - I created the initial article based on reports of injuries. In the process of making the first edit, I came across one source that stated that there had not been any injuries. With the conflicting information, I chose to move forward with putting the article out there for users to add information as it became available. As this story is - as of this comment - still unfolding, I would not support deleting the article. Now, if we get far enough into the incident investigation that reliable sources show that this is nothing more than a run of the mill construction failure, I'd be happy to reconsider. Either way, I have no issue with whatever consensus is reached via this discussion. Strikerforce 19:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete or draftify - an experienced user should know better than to create an article in mainspace on the basis that it might become notable - do it in userspace and move it if it is a notable event. As it stands right now this is a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTNEWS and doesn't seem all that significant despite some coverage. I'd agree that this would be keep worthy if it were a historic event (ie. a flood) but it's not. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    I'd be agreeable to sending it back to Drafts. Strikerforce 19:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your comment above, please read WP:NOTNEWS thoroughly. It demonstrates precisely why you shouldn't create an article this way. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Close it. I've G7'd. Strikerforce 19:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. There will almost certainly be media coverage of the inevitable lawsuits and potential prosecution of the people and companies involved. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 1:05 am, 1 August 2018, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC+5.5)
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 under WP:A7. Article has been deleted by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 14:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Does not meet Knowledge (XXG) notability criteria (46 results on Google searching his name). References either do not mention him or are dead links. ... discospinster talk 18:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think he is one of the people discussed here, but I don't have access to the full text of the article. Google provides the following snippet: "Dec 12, 2013 - Other Australians holding key positions in global institutions include Ty Dincer, a portfolio manager with ADIC; Victor Lor, APG's director of ..." This report on a development (with his name in the title) might help, but I don't have access to it. I can't find a reference to him in an English-language newspaper in the United Arab Emirates, but the newspapers there engage in a lot of self-censorship to avoid annoying the government. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - Don't see he meets GNG. There's also sometime odd about it. I G10'd at Afc only yesterday when it contained unsupported defamatory material and now it's turned up in mainspace. Something's not right about it. KJP1 (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete'. Not close to meeting GNG. 46 googles hits - I went over all of them - the only ones of value were two items in the Australian in which he (someone with the same name) is very briefly mentioned or quoted for one sentence.Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete'. No where near meeting GNG. There is something very out of place with it- looks to me like an attempt at defaming someone. Not references provided for the assertions made. Checked sources and they do not add up. 60.241.130.229 (talk) 16:15, 1 August 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Oliver Skipp (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:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:41, 31 July 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. Note about the sandbox copy. If there's a copy in a sandbox, and also the draft, that's a fork, which is unadvisable. If you want to keep working on it, it's better to ask for the deleted draft to be restored to your user space and discard your private sandbox copy. That way, the history is kept intact. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Alfie Whiteman (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, player currently fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
This is a deletion discussion, not CSD, you're missing the core tenet of Knowledge (XXG) which is WP:V. So unless you can provide a source that states he's actually played in a fully pro-league, your keep is nonsense. And this super quick easy google indicates he doesn't meet the criteria of WP:NFOOTY because he's only played in junior leagues. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:46, 31 July 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. There seems to be a clear consensus that the article meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 00:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

John Francis Archibald Browne, 6th Baron Kilmaine (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 seeing any notability here. Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

  • The subject is one of the Barons of Kilmaine - there is a parent page for them - https://en.wikipedia.org/Baron_Kilmaine This article fills in one of the missing links. He was also secretary of the Pilgrim trust which is an important conservation charity. In addition he appears to have had an interesting war record. He was notable enough for his obituary to be printed in The Times. Robuttt 20:01, 31 2018 BST
But is being a member of a family or secretary of a notable charity) enough to establish independent notability?Slatersteven (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I would say so! But then I wrote the piece, so I'm biased. However, the Red Ink on the page suggests that a previous editor thought that he was notable enough to have a page. I've added more references, I don't know whether that helps?Robuttt (talk)
Maybe, but it is not down to us, we need in depth coverage by multiple RS independent of the subject. I am not wholly sure I am seeing that.Slatersteven (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The Times is one of the leading national newspapers in Britian. It's clearly a reliable source. There are references to a number of news items printed by the newspaper in the article Robuttt (talk)
I am not saying it is not RS I am saying that it does not appear to be significant coverage of him on the whole, thus I am not sure is enough to establish independent notability.Slatersteven (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I've checked the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and there is an entry on him. A reference to which I will add. Hoping this is definitive. Robuttt (talk)
I am led to believe it is, I have never been that sure, but policy is policy.Slatersteven (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I haven't been through this before, but I would suggest that with the ODNB entry for him, which I've referenced in the article, that issues over notability have been resolved. Not sure what the protocol is. Is it ok to delete the PROD? Robuttt (talk)
I would wait until this is closed, but I see no reason not to close it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I think hopefully the article has been improved as a result of our discussion Robuttt (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I disagree about the time, I have seen far older articles that have not been AFD'd that are in a far worse state. I have also seen work go into articles once they have been AFD'd that might not have been done had they not been. It took 5 hours for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography source to show up. Up till then I was not sure it passed muster. So whilst ti may have been nominated only after half an hour it took 5 hours to get it in a state where I would not have nominated it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
My feeling is that, especially with new users, it would be better to go to the talk page and ask them if they have other sources. AfD can be stressful and might have been avoidable. That said, Robuttt, you might consider working on new articles like this as a draft in your userspace and moving them to mainspace when they're more complete. That would make it easier for new page reviewers to see that the subjects are notable. Mortee (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I will do that in future - I should have done more research on how to submit an article rather than just going for it Robuttt (talk)
@Robuttt: - another bit of unsolicited advice - looking at the version Slatersteven put up for deletion - it was sourced to a 1978 obit, and a 1946 suicide inquest (both in the Times). This is a level of sourcing that "screams" for an AfD. While working in draft/sandbox is perhaps prudent prior to putting the article up in main space, what is really key to avoiding a quick AfD/PROD/CSD is to have sources present in the article (as well as notable highlights of the subject) that establish notability - even if the article isn't fleshed out and is very short and stubby - if there is a list of on-topic references of high quality - AfD is much less likely - for instance the article in its present state probably wouldn't have been AfDed.Icewhiz (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I will know for next time. Sorry to waste people's time Robuttt (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 1 August 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The Apple Post (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 news site referenced a whopping total of 2 times in either of the stated news outlets, no coverage except for primary sources and spam, created by, surprise, an SPA! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - I must correct Chrissymad, it's used as a passing source three times - once by The Sun and twice by The Metro. I was pondering deleting it myself so had a look to see if the claims made were credible and significant - I'm not at all satisfied they are but it's on the threshold, certainly, so went off to do something else and came back to see DGG had declined. It's not notable, I'm afraid but I suppose AfD is the place to agree that, rather than a CSD nomination. Nick (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, to be fair... I was the one who applied the CSD tag. After giving it some more thought, I decided that the article wasn't eligible for A7 and removed it, but then added it back following a discussion with others who believed it not to contain a credible claim of significance... I let myself flip-flop and I should not have done that. I think the statement about being referenced by The Sun and Metro does push it into the "CSS realm" and barely so. I feel better that the discussion is here :-) ~Oshwah~ 18:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:20, 31 July 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) Iffy★Chat -- 08:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The Knowledge Academy (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)

Business that does not meet WP:NCORP or the WP:GNG. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep Substantial coverage by The BBC, FT and The Sunday Times, as well as the investigative pieces by the Mirror: are easily enough to meet WP:NCORP. SmartSE (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm afraid. The world needs to know about a notable company owned by a millionaire who parks his Ferrari in a disabled spot, and has questionable (allegedly) practices. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - can't speak to the FT source but both the bbc and Sunday Times articles are good sources (though the Sig Cov is scattered through the article, with bits on the individuals and quotes to be filtered out). Between them (and potentially the FT) WP:NCORP is satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:52, 7 August 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Arkansas–Auburn football rivalry (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)

Lacks widespread recognition as an actual rivalry. A Google search will turn up some sources that mention a brewing "rivalry" or general animosity between current and former head coaches at the two programs (see here and here). Another source (here), which ponders who Arkansas' "real rival" is, gives Auburn a passing comment before moving on. Two articles (here and here) declare the game to be a rivalry, with the second stating that the "rivalry" is overlooked, citing "the competitiveness of their series over the past 25 years", only to go on to say that those 25 meetings are a result of the teams sharing a division, and therefore an annual game. This series lacks major recognition as a rivalry game, as it is only an annual divisional game. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete I see no evidence that this is more than an annual divisional game and regular SEC contest. CalebHughes (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per well-reasoned nomination statement. Plus lack of other intangibles: no historical longevity (only one meeting prior to the last 25 years); no intra-state or border state geography; and no trophy. Nor do I see enough in the history to warrant an exception for a non-rivarly series article -- they've had ranked matchups only four times, none in which both teams were ranked in the top 10, the best matchup having been 2010 with No. 7 vs. 12. Existing practice is to deal with these types of annual series in the team/season articles. Cbl62 (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per above comments. Vorbee (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I tend to agree that there's not much to show that there hasn't been a historical rivalry. However, I am concerned that there has been a spate of nominations based on the notion that the absence of a current rivalry means that historical rivalries should be deleted, showing a distressing recentist misunderstanding. That's not what we're here to do. I lean toward delete in this particular instance. Acroterion (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete seems to be regular conference game play. Sure they hate each other on game day... but that's about it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:50, 1 August 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

List of D-Box motion-enhanced cinemas (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:NOTCATALOG/WP:PROMO. Based mostly on press releases. Kleuske (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:17, 31 July 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. per WP:SNOW as there are no delete !votes and little prospect of the trend changing. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

History of European Jews in the Middle Ages (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 page is redundant when considering the higher-quality content found in pages like History of the Jews in Europe, History of the Jews in England, and other similar articles. This page has substantial POV issues as well, concerns over which have been debated for a long time in the article's talk page. Specifically, it appears this page was forked from the bulk of other Jewish history pages in order to build a historiography that ignores the day-to-day lives and customs of European Jews in the Middle Ages in favor of undue weight on the atrocities that occurred from the fall of Rome to the Crusades. This nomination comes after efforts to improve the article uncovered these other articles making those efforts redundant. It would be better to remove this page and focus improvement efforts on the other pages. Lordbedo (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep - not a valid policy based rationale. History of the Jews in Europe redirects back to here as the main topic, and is a small summary. History of the Jews in England is a very small sub-topic. The medieval history of Jews (in Europe) is clearly a notable topic. The POV concerns of the nominator that the article over emphasizes the many pogroms and expulsions during this period are with little merit (as this is the emphasis in many RS) - and are not a reason for deletion - deletion is not cleanup. The topic itself is clearly notable, with a multitude of full length reference works devoted to the subject.Icewhiz (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
See WP:CFORK - The article will become increasingly redundant as we clean it up, and the POV issues are merited as has been discussed on the article talk page for nearly a decade. Notability of the topic is not an issue, and has not been mentioned as such. Lordbedo (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
There has been discussion on the talk page for some time - If you view it, you'll see us reaching consensus on how the article should be handled. Specifically, the plan was to focus on Jews in Europe from the fall of Rome to the Crusades. However, with the existence of articles listed above, and even more like Ashkenazi Jews, I'm having a hard time understanding why this isn't seen as a clear POV fork. Most other articles on the topic, while not particularly excellent, have due weight placed on the entirety of the topic - the circumstances of Jewish migration to Europe, the extent of their relationship with European governments and Christian/Muslim neighbors, their professions and customs throughout the middle ages, the evolution of Judaism itself over time, etc. This article has, from the start and for a long time, neglected nearly any mention of these important factors. As has been discussed on the talk page, to claim the extent of Jewish History can be explained through pogroms and expulsions is to push a POV. If it is a POV fork, then cleaning it up will turn it into a redundant fork, and both are precedent for deletion. If it is not a POV fork, perhaps I need to be enlightened.
Shouldn't be concerning that new users read how to use AfD before posting here (there's literally a step-by-step guide) . You can see the IP I used before creating the account in the talk page of the nominated article, as I disclosed it. History is a hobby for me, and I've used WP for a long time before deciding to get involved. I never saw a need before stumbling upon this article. Frankly I'm disappointed to keep seeing WP:NOTCLEANUP come up as a reason to keep it, especially because the very essay on bad AfD arguments this comes from advises against arguing "keep" solely on the basis that the article can be improved. Every article can be improved; it isn't the reason I've nominated this article, and it would be appreciated if all contributors to this argument viewed the talk page to see the cleanup efforts thus far. Someone should respond to my argument above to explain why this article doesn't count as content forking rather than continuously leaving non-argument comments to keep, or to argue ad hominem. Lordbedo (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
This article is not a fork of the England article. As for History of the Jews in Europe, this is a valid spinoff and is much-much longer and detailed in relation to the period sub-section there. No article has been identified that this article is a fork of.Icewhiz (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
This is not a content fork, this is an article expanding on another article. There are tons of "see main article" in Knowledge (XXG). The Middle Ages has enough information to break out from the main article into a larger one. Sir Joseph 20:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
This is a valuable point to discuss. In what way does this article "expand" on the other articles? I only see evidence to the contrary - A vast amount of information in History of the Jews in Spain, going all the way back to Jewish life under the Moors, is reduced only to a paragraph stating that Jews fared better in Spain for a while, and then a paragraph on the massacres and expulsions occurring centuries later. History of the Jews in Germany begins in 321. The nominated article begins its coverage on German Jews nearly a millennium later, immediately and exclusively writing on the persecutions and discrimination endured. I keep finding examples like this - One article written to provide a comprehensive description of the lives of the medieval Jewry, and this article, forking the same content but narrowing the scope to present a different viewpoint of medieval Jewish life. Per WP:CFORK - "Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject." yes, this article can be expanded to include what's missing (and I will help to do so if consensus is keep). But expanding the scope would just make it redundant considering all the other articles out there, so why not work on improving those? Lordbedo (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Look let's be real here, there is obviously no way this is going to end up deleted. Don't waste your time. If you have problems with the article take it to its talk page, although I admit at this rate you might get a bit of side eye. --Calthinus (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment Also this reads as a WP:TLDR and WP:VERBOSE rationale; a lack of conciseness about why you'd like this article deleted plays into my vote!. And again, a 20-edit account should usually be so green that they don't know how to link to a WP: policy/essay, and saying that you've been here a 'long time' without somehow editing once before raises further alarm bells. If you have past accounts, please declare them. Nate • (chatter) 02:43, 1 August 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 08:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Saeldes sanc (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 about a band, whose claims of notability are parked on primary sources and blogs rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage in real media. As always, every band is not automatically entitled to an article just because it claims notability -- self-promoting musicians often try to get into Knowledge (XXG) by falsely claiming passage of notability criteria they don't really pass in reality, so the notability test is not what an article says, but how well it reliably sources that what it says is true. But there are no reliable sources being shown here at all, and nothing that's so "inherently" notable as to extend them a presumption of notability in the absence of any reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:14, 31 July 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Old Georgians' Hockey Club (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 hockey club. noq (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:18, 31 July 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. Insufficient sourcing to satisfy WP:NCORP -- RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited (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 moved from draft space despite issues with unreliable sources (multiple press releases and announcements) and attempts to inherit notability from alleged customers Fails WP:CORP Flat Out (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I am still editing the content and the references are strong enough, the references are never done through press release. Eagle Hunters is only multinational company from India. Any activity and any change automatically becomes news. well still giving many references.....--Mykanah (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)— Mykanah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 13:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comments - Amazingly there are a couple of sources that are suitable, but most relate to specific things rather than the actual company. Khalee Times does, though you have to strain our the multiple bits of interview to appreciate it. Without additional Sig Cov on the company itself then it doesn't currently pass WP:NCORP. I've not !voted, since I haven't yet taken the WP:BEFORE check outside of the article itself. I've broken it into three parts since my eyes were bad when reading the article and bleeding when reviewing the wikitext.
It is not impossible that this article breaches the line of advertising that would be justification in its own right for deletion - I'm unsure, but I would strongly advise Mykanah to tone it down.

Nosebagbear (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC) Sure I will follow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykanah (talk • contribs) 04:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 13:42, 31 July 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 08:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Does not meet WP:NFP or WP:GNG. Source searches are providing no coverage in reliable sources at all. North America 01:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America 01:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America 01:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing WP:NFILM. This film lasted about two weeks in the Ukrainian theatres. The references in the Ukrainian article appear little more than passing mentions and the film appears to have grossed under $40 000. Ifnord (talk) 04:25, 8 August 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 speedily deleted by Nick: WP:CSD#G5: created by banned user.

Jay Gold Smith (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 journeyman child actor, other than his role as Gumball, no other significant roles. His role in Arc was a supporting role, not starring, and he had two small recurring roles (one a voiceover) on two different television series. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but right now he doesn't meet either WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG (almost all coverage is of the simple listing type). In addition, there is some confusion about his name, since all of his credits are under Logan Grove. Onel5969 11:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. I'm not going to salt this. Yes, it's been recreated a few times, but the last couple have been restorations by an admin. If it gets recreated again without demonstrating notability, we can revisit the salting. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Emily L. Spratt (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 was deleted as a result of unanimous consensus at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Emily L. Spratt. Since then it has twice been deleted again as re-creation of content deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, and on both occasions it has been restored on the request of the creator of the article, who each time has stated that he has provided citations to answer the notability issues raised in that deletion discussion. There are indeed new citations, but they are not significantly better than the old ones: it is quality, not quantity, of references that matters. In my opinion the reasons given for deletion in the first discussion are just as valid now as they were then.

In view of the repeated deletions and restorations and the repeated claims of having provided better sources, I have written out an analysis of every one of the cited sources, more thoroughly than I would usually do. That analysis is provided below, but the TLDR-avoiding version is none of the cited sources is by any stretch substantial coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources.

The sources currently cited in the article are:
  1. A YouTube video, not confirming content to which it is attached in the article, and not giving substantial coverage of her.
  2. Her profile page on the web site of her university.
  3. An article by her, not about her.
  4. An article which briefly quotes from her, but does not give any substantial coverage of her.
  5. A one page article which quotes from her briefly, giving a one-sentence actual quote ("Maybe in the future, with computer vision technology, you could actually have a pocket art historian") and a couple more sentences referring to her opinion.
  6. A report on a discussion, including a fairly brief summary of what Spratt said there.
  7. An article containing a one-sentence mention of her.
  8. An article by her, not about her.
  9. An interview conducted by her, not about her.
  10. A page about an exhibition, on the web site of the organisation holding the exhibition, in which the full and complete mention of Spratt is "Curated by Emily L. Spratt, Ph.D. candidate in art history at Princeton".
  11. A page which doesn't even mention her at all.
  12. An article by her, not about her.
  13. A speech by her, not about her.
  14. A source the title of which is given in the article as "Timithikan oi ethelontes ton mouseion", which appears to be a Romanisation of the Greek "Τιμήθηκαν οι εθελοντές των μουσειων" ("Honorable volunteers of museums"). Searches for the Romanised form found only this Knowledge (XXG) article, and searches for the Greek form found nothing at all, so it is impossible to assess this source. (I also tried various variations of the Greek, in case the original from which the Romanised form came was slightly different, but it made no difference.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per thorough nom and previous discussions. Fails WP:GNG, and lacks an award, position, or impact that would pass WP:PROF. Bakazaka (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Maybe in a few years she will be notable, but not now. The award doesn't seem notable either. As the nom says, there was two (one) recent AFDs that decided delete. The coverage in 2005 that NDPlume cites didn't really last too long and since then ,as the nom states has been passing mentions and the like. JC7V-constructive zone 22:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
note just fixing my vote rational. There was one previous AFD closed as delete and then the article was recreated twice afterward and deleted again twice. JC7V-constructive zone 23:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I contest the above reasons for the deletion of the Emily L Spratt page. The subject has a notable award from the Hellenic Ministry of Culture (I think the Hellenic Ministry of Culture counts as a significant government institution). Notice of this award appears in three Greek newspapers in 2005 and in each she is photographed as main subject. I found this on the subject's website, scanned on her press page: https://sites.google.com/view/emilylspratt/press. Given the crisis in Greece I wonder if those newspapers have not digitized their archives, nonetheless, those citations are indeed solid references. The Sonophilia interview is significant because Sonophiia is a well known think thank that is based in Austria. I watched that video and Spratt is interviewed as art and society expert and also asked about her opinions on different general matters. Also, the video from The Frick Collection, which I also viewed, has a lengthy introduction about the subject's position and credentials by the research director of the museum, which seems quite prestigious. I checked on the exhibition which is mentioned above. It also appears on a recent CBS Sunday Morning article and video segment and her name is cited there on CBS as being the curator of that exhibition on the CBS page. See: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-artificial-intelligence-turns-its-gaze-to-art/. If it is useful to know, I also follow AI and society subjects as a history of science expert and can say this person is definitely significant in that area.NDPlume (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if it is okay to link here, but a 2014 version of subject's CV posted to a Princeton website describes the award in question as "Award for outstanding volunteerism at the Byzantine and Christian Museum by the Federation of the Friends of the Museums (an association adjunct to the Hellenic Ministry of Culture), Athens, Greece." From that description it does not sound like a notable award from the Hellenic Ministry of Culture. Bakazaka (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I just looked up the award and that association was under the umbrella of the Hellenic Ministry of Culture before the Ministry of Culture merged to be the Ministry of Culture and Sports. In any case, the award is from the Byzantine and Christian Museum of Athens and that is a museum run by the state and therefore, officially by the Ministry of Sports and Culture, so this is definitely legit.NDPlume (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Art and AI is not a "new domain" and someone born in 1984 cannot be a pioneer in something that predates them. I have no opinion at this time about the subject's overall notability but it certainly cannot be for that specific reason. freshacconci (✉) 01:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
It is about her work with the deeplearning material with art and society that is significant, not AI at large, however that problematic term can be defined.NDPlume (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It is interesting that women doing pioneering technology related things are so often omitted. As a history of science guy I can say this is truly a notable trend, even today. I really think this page should not be deleted.NDPlume (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

People can do all sorts of pioneering stuff, but it is not notable unless noted by others, and in this case it isn't. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC).

But it has been noted by others! Anyway, I will have to agree to disagree with the previous comment.NDPlume (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment GS citations are of little significance in the humanities, especially in out of the way fields like this.
Comparison of like with compares the performance of scholars in the same field. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC).
to NDPlume and Roger,for WP:NPROF, I'm not seeing Spratt as being the go to by the media as an expert in a particular field. She is spread out in two different fields, both as quoted above were around long before she was born. JC7V-constructive zone 04:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The Association of Computing Machinery is the gold standard for computer science. Subject being asked to be honorary guest editor on mag on computers and art for them is recognition of expert status/ authority in that area. I think subject could be more precisely defined as pioneer in connection of society with deep learning techniques for art and gan-generated art. AI is too problematic a term to use, it always is. Now it is often used as catch all for deep learning related things.NDPlume (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete and Salt an obviously promotional autobiography. The puffery really gets in the way here.198.58.175.190 (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I'm still getting the hang of writing encyclopedic entries and I don't want any of my articles to come across as puff pieces.RogerWilson (talk) 22:55, 6 August 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. Clear consensus not to delete outright, which is really the only thing that needs to be decided here. I don't see any clear consensus on whether to merge with Audi or leave as a stand-alone title. That discussion can continue on talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Audi India (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 reason for a country-specific subsidiary of a brand to have its own page when the information on that page could - and likely should - be merged into the main article about the brand. (edit) In my opinion, Audi India fails COMPANY, with "no inherent notability".Strikerforce 17:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, unnecessary. ~SML • TP 23:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Audi I'd say the nominator's argument is proper; opening tells us it's the company's Indian division. History basically states its establishment date then marketing boilerplate about wanting to be #1 in the country, then tells us their line in the market, but with a clear cheap shot at the country with 'assemble these models in India with cheap local labour', and a NOTDIRECTORY about where their dealerships are located; that's not enough for an article for me. I could also see the 'see alsos' in the article getting redirections themselves as they have the same structure. Nate • (chatter) 02:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. A country-specific article bases its notability on information specific to the country, including the presence of local manufacturing, assembly and training facilities and the choice of vehicles offered for sale, particularly those that are only sold in the country or that differ from the counterparts sold in other countries. Consider expanding these potential claims for notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the article was not Closed before another editor provided a redirect !vote with justification, "no nom reason provided" appears insufficient justification to be counted for a Close (as they are only procedural Keep justifications). Therefore a relisting for more general consideration seems in order
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:38, 31 July 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. Not certain this needed a relist last week, but regardless, clear consensus to keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Castel Savello (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 shown to meet WP:NBUILD. » Shadowowl | talk 12:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 12:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 12:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Other stuff exists......
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBG 10:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
See also Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Gorteens Castle, which closed "Keep", because, well, it's a castle. Various editors said that more eloquently, with more detail, but still, it's a castle. --Doncram (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@Doncram: A detached castle (definitely one of this sort) would typically meet WP:GEOLAND - as it is a populated place (in this case abandoned, with or without legal recognition as the case may be - however typically with). While the castle itself is also a collection of buildings (surrounded by a moat/wall/etc. with outlying buildings for peasants) - it is also a place of settlement typically housing hundreds of people.Icewhiz (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG and GEOLAND. It is of exceptional historical importance. I agree that castles and other fortresses will generally satisfy GEOLAND. James500 (talk) 19:44, 6 August 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. Leaning keep. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG 10:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


Mike Galsworthy (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:COATRACK and WP:N. This article is ostensibly about the individual in question, but spends more time discussing his organisations, none of which are notable enough to have an article. RaviC (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBG 10:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. MG definitely doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR, so we need to consider just WP:GNG, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There are lots of sources in the MG article; they can be split into four groups: 1) things written by MG; 2) things written by his employer/organisation; 3) things that contain some MG quotations and/or a brief statement about his employer/organisation; 4) more detailed accounts of him/his organisation. Per GNG ("'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it"), 1 and 2 are not independent, so cannot be used to establish notability. Those that are in group 3 mostly do not "address the topic directly and in detail" (GNG again) – they just report some brief comments he made/state what organisations he founded/state where he currently or used to work. That leaves group 4, which in my view contains only the recently added online Austrian newspaper piece, which gives more detail about MG's opinions (although it doesn't include anything extra about him as a person rather than his views). I first raised the matter of his notability three weeks ago and almost no sources have been found that can contribute to meeting the most fundamental notability criterion that we have: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so I opt for 'delete'. EddieHugh (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    1. The sources written by MG appear in The Lancet, The Guardian, The Independent, New Scientist so are far more reputable than, say, blogs
    2. There are a couple of refs to confirm MG is a employee of / part of organisation X - nothing excessive
    3. I don't think the Times Higher Education article NUS and UUK join EU ‘in’ campaign, the Harvard article A Departure from Truth or the Nature article Brexit uncertainty disrupting EU-UK research as things that contain some MG quotations and/or a brief statement about his employer/organisation. They are interviews for quality institutions and publications.
    4. I think we regard the Der Standard article differently, which I concede contains nothing vapid about the subject.
    • --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
      • And you think that is significant enough? Der Standard is good but a similar article for English readers could be an advantage in this situation.Excelse (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
        • This article in the Atlantic describes Galsworthy personally, rather than merely as a representative of an organization:
          • “There’s no point in vilifying Bregretters,” Mike Galsworthy, a scientist who founded the prominent anti-Brexit groups Scientists for EU and Healthier in the EU, told me.
          • Unlike hardline Remainers, Galsworthy was somewhat relieved when May, in her Florence speech, “at least removed her previous threats to undercut the UK’s neighbors and explained the motivations behind the Brexit vote to an external audience that just thinks we’re nuts.”
        • There is also a personal profile published in the American Psychological Society Observer magazine which has lots of personal history, e.g.
          • Galsworthy was apparently an adventurer by nature ... By the time he’d entered Cambridge, he’d already seen much of the world, including several years of school in Saudi Arabia and the U.S., plus a year working and traveling in South America.
        • T0mpr1c3 (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
          • I think it is worth re-iterating that Galsworthy is not just any old blogger on the internet. His pieces have been published in The Lancet (three times!), which is the highest impact medical journal in the UK and the second highest in the world, and Science, which has the highest circulation of any science journal anywhere. You need some significant credibility to do that. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this AfD ought to be read in conjunction with WP:Articles for deletion/European Parliament election, 2019 (United Kingdom) and WP:Articles for deletion/Britain for Europe. There is an element of WP:FOLLOWING leading to quasi-WP:CANVASSING going on with regards articles about groups / individuals that express anti-Brexit sentiment. I don't think it's co-ordinated but then it do esn't need to be. The lack of notification about AfDs that is creeping in is particularly problematic. WP:NOTCENSORED. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have cited another fairly detailed profile. In addition to all the other references, there are now at least 3 substantial pieces that feature Galsworthy as the subject, in unimpeachable sources:
  • I am confident that these should be sufficient to establish notability, but if required I can do more digging. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Galsworthy is also interviewed in two documentary films. There are numerous TV interviews. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG - an article in a German language publication is not sufficient. His sole claim to fame is that he has created some SIPGs and unsurprisingly speaks for them Lyndaship (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    • SIPGs? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Special interest pressure groups, I imagine. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Please see my comment above. It is selling Galsworthy significantly short to describe him as if he was just another media hack. Most media hacks do not get to promulgate their viewpoints in the world's top peer-reviewed science journals. And besides, what about the APS Observer piece, which is *only* about Galsworthy and nobody else, and the Nature profile, which is a set of personal profiles about scientists and the impact Brexit will have on them? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The media ssection now includes:
  • Comment: It's standard for journalists, talking heads, etc, to not be considered notable by default at AFD if coverage about them is limited. Perhaps regular columnists/hosts/panelists for major news/current affairs sources should be considered sufficiently notable even with limited RS coverage (extension of WP:NJOURNALIST meets WP:ANYBIO#2), but that doesn't appear to apply here (?). Regardless of AFD outcomes, suggest that each of the component groups at People's Vote be given a ~1 para capsule outlining their formation and key positions/aims and redirects to these be made if they don't meet WP:NORG for independent articles. HydroniumHydroxide 07:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - As noted, does not satisfy general notability as written. Also appears to be primarily a statement of his views and those of his organization rather than a neutral encyclopedic article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep whilst the article definitely needs a lot of the information either removed or changed so that it doesn't just read as an advertisement for him or some huge biography full of trivia, he clearly has notability and the article is well sourced. I agree with some of the sentiment from those who wish to delete the article; it currently doesn't feel like a completely normal encyclopaedic article and needs some improvement, however this can quite clearly be changed. Greenleader (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Arguably the most powerful figure on the anti-Brexit scene is Scientists for EU founder Dr Mike Galsworthy. cgrosvenor (talk) 19:27, 06 Aug 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep He's a notable personality in science here in the UK. He has some profile in national media too, see for example I agree with comments suggesting removal of some information that's less relevant and not written in a neutral style. I should add that his evidence to House of Lords Select Committee (cited above) is also very important. rclb2 (talk) — rclb2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • I see that this was your first contribution to Knowledge (XXG). We're mainly discussing whether MG meets the criteria given at WP:GNG. The things that you mention don't meet the criteria listed there. EddieHugh (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The basis for this AfD is RaviC's assertion that that this article is about organizations rather than the individual. While the organizations are notable in themselves, Mr Galsworthy is notable for his activism within them—and that is what those sections of the article discuss: not the organizations, but his work within them. A good many citations now have been given, indeed showing that his activism with regard to the EU membership question goes back to 2013. Citations for his work as a scientist have also been given. The citations given above by T0mpr1c3 are good, and the "rebuttal" given by Lyndaship (who is interested in things nautical) is really nothing but gainsaying, criticizing a German source and ignoring Nature and APS Observer. Once again: The basis for this AfD is RaviC's unsupported assertion (1) that the organizations are not notable (which they are) and that article is about them and not Galsworthy (though it is clearly about him). This AfD fails to make its case. Keep and close the AfD. -- Evertype·✆ 12:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I wasn't aware having a primary interest in ships disqualified an editor from voicing an opinion on other articles at AfD. Could you explain as an editor who has made 50 edits in the last year primarily on linguistic topics what made you come straight to this AfD about an obscure activist today? Lyndaship (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Being interested in ships doesn't disqualify you, but your argment was I described it: you attempt to trivialize a credible German source and in doing so ignore the two other credible sources right next to it. Since you ask, I contribute less to Knowledge (XXG) than I used to because of the persistent bias against people who have actual expertise. Also lately much of my focus outside of the encyclopaedia has been related to current affairs in Ireland, Scotland, the UK, and the US, and it is from that focus that I know Mr Galsworthy's work, and it is from there that I learned of this AfD. I am no stranger to biased AfDs. Your assertion that he is "an obscure activist" is no more than an assertion, and the content of the article with its many references shows, in fact, that he is "a prominent activist". This is no vanity page, and I will wonder out loud whether some of the Delete votes here have to do with a distaste some editors for the political stance Mr Galsworthy takes. Both of the points raised by the OP here (that the organizations are non-notable, and that the article is about the organizations, not about the person) have little merit. -- Evertype·✆ 15:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • CANVASSING You are invited to look at https://www.facebook.com/michaeljgalsworthy Lyndaship (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
    • For those who can't access it, MG posted this on his facebook page: 'Argh - there's quite an extensive Knowledge (XXG) page on me... but now it looks like some prats have marked it as an "Article for Deletion". Anyone with Knowledge (XXG) know-how out there (I haz none!) that can advise?' Several supporters replied there, stating that they have or will turn up here (even creating an account, if needed). This undermines the whole process, unfortunately. (And one or two have effectively outed themselves too: for you, take remedial action soon if you don't want people to know your facebook/real life identity!) EddieHugh (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Listen, you two. Enough is enough. Maybe neither of you have Knowledge (XXG) articles about you. When there is one, it is gratifying. That's not vanity, it's normal. It's nice when one's accomplishments are noticed. When suddenly the article is up for deletion with spurious arguments it is naturally dismaying. And it is natural for a person to reach out to his or her peers to talk about it. The suggestion you make is that Galworthy considers this a vanity page and acusing him of canvassing is somehow underhanded. Lots of people don't edit the Knowledge (XXG) and know about its dark ways. They don't know about all the guidelines which are treated by some editors as laws. The article about me on the Knowledge (XXG) was AfD'd several times, and in vicious and disgusting ways. It is an awful experience. When I saw his post on Facebook, I did say "Been there. I'll have a look." That's because I've edited here for fourteen years, and I know how bad an AfD can be. Well I've come here, and what I see is a witch-hunt. On the Keep side we have plenty of people showing a range of public citations by and about Galworthy, both as a scientist and as an activist (political action for the benefit of science). The Delete arguments are poor; they ignore or attempt to minimize the value of those citations. Either much of that is "I never heard of him so he must not be notable" or it's the comments of people who oppose Galworthy's political standpoint. Trying to discredit him for "canvassing" in the sense that you have done so is Wikilawyering of a person who isn't a Knowledge (XXG) editor. Give over. The Delete side has not made its case. -- Evertype·✆ 21:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
        • You made me re-read the rationales given. No one has argued that "I never heard of him so he must not be notable". Your assertion that others are "the comments of people who oppose Galworthy's political standpoint" is unfortunate in that it is entirely unsubstantiated. Lyndaship highlighted an issue that led to another editor placing an important template on the page; I spelled out what the issue was and highlighted a risk (inadvertent self-outing) that new editors should be aware of. Your AfD experience is also unfortunate, but carrying it across to this one is not justified. EddieHugh (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Those are the impressions I have. I note that you have been quite active recently editing articles about pro-EU topics like here so do let's be careful and open about any biases we may have. I don't accuse you or Lyndaship of anything, but it is I think bizarre that she should have been hunting onto his Facebook page and putting that request for help/understanding as something malicious. At the end of the day I don't think any credible case has been made that Galsworthy is not a notable public figure actively involved in a leadership role with regard to this topic. And there are plenty of serviceable citations on the page now that support that. -- Evertype·✆ 22:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
As I said, if you have evidence, please present it on my talk page. (If you do, it'll be placed after the thanks I got from someone strongly on the 'keep' side here for the series of edits that included the one you picked out.) "do let's be careful": I agree with you there! (And I try....) EddieHugh (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Plenty of sourcing that suggests his notability per GNG. However, the article as it stands now (well, a bit less now) is way too much a puff piece relying on associated and primary sourcing. Someone needs to go through with a red pen. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This article seems fairly thoroughly well sourced. I agree with User:DrMies that this article may be overly laden with promotional seeming language, but the subject himself appears to meet the WP:N standards for notability. Galsworthy is quoted fairly extensively throughout prominent sourcing for his commentary on various political issues (some of which I agree should be covered with a more neutral tone). I don't at all agree with the suggestion at the top of this page that Galsworthy's notability is solely derived from his organizations. Alicb (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • delete No real evidence of any notability outside his won fan club.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
    • A fan club that apparently includes the editors of The Lancet, Science, Nature, Der Standard, APS Observer, The Guardian, The Independent, BBC News... T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Notability is established by having people write about you, not you writing. Nor do one paragraph mentions, it has to be in depth (in other words about him). All the RS I can check all look like one or the other, Trivial mentions or work he has written.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Just barely enough coverage to pass GNG, not a notable academic in his own field.

Article should be trimmed rather than added to. T0mpr1c3 seems intent to primp and preen for someone who could be construed as his colleague. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

    • Have you read the bit at the top about assuming good faith? I described my relationship with Galsworthy further back on the page. We were students in the same department 15 years ago, and I haven't seen him since. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs cleanup, I'd say, but passes the GNG. XOR'easter (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Passes GNG marginally. Need to trim out the coatracking of organizations. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable for his political activities. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - I approached this somewhat methodically, and ignored the canvassing in favor of policy arguments. I first reviewed the sources. I excluded any sources written by Mr. Galsworthy, since they are primary sources and are all opinion pieces about Brexit. I don't see that a case is being made that notability is based on his meeting WP:NWRITER. I also excluded his academic papers as sources, since we're also not basing notability on scientific achievements, per WP:NSCIENTIST. Those sources seemed to be a roundabout way of substantiating his academic career. I then looked up his organizations to see if they were notable; what I'm finding is that by Knowledge (XXG) guidelines, they are not - there's no sign that any of the groups meet WP:GNG. Compounding this is the lack of in-depth coverage of Mr. Galsworthy himself, coverage we'd expect to see with a notable person's article. I hope others will confirm the absence of material on his early life and education. What we're left with is essentially a case of WP:BLP1E - with the 1E being his vocal opposition to Brexit. That's not enough in my experience to demonstrate notability. TimTempleton 22:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
You regard his vocal opposition to Brexit as one event? He's been arguing for reform of EU funding years earlier. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I just don’t see the sourcing to support notability. Being part of a protest movement is great, but where’s the in-depth coverage? TimTempleton 02:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@User:timtempleton I think I can help you here: if you are looking for "material on his early life and education", try the APS Observer article. Anything else you are having trouble finding? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Even though the subject of the article attempted canvassing (though, I'll WP:AGF there, as they said they are not familiar with Wiki rules), they still meet WP:GNG as a political activist with several independent sources talking about him or organisations that he leads. byteflush Talk 01:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

References

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Maistro (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 references here are standard coverage you would expect from any small publicly listed company, at least in the UK at any rate. Beyond this I do not believe this small company is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Uhooep (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Frequently talked about in unbiased, globally-recognised industry publication, Spend Matters. Katypotatie (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2018 (GMT)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Both Keep !voters above are SPA that have only ever edited the Maistro article. No COI declarations made by either. HighKing 20:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Neither of the Keep !voters above have provided any links to any references to support their claims of notability. I have not been able to find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, most are company announcements or based substantially on company announcements and fail WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing 20:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

    From Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

    There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.



    Analyst reports

    1. This 12 May 2014 article from Proactive Investors notes:

      George O'Connor, analyst at Panmure Gordon, commented in a morning note, "The root cause is success rather than fail."

      Here is a longer quote from The Guardian here, which notes:

      George O'Connor at Panmure Gordon said: "How did we get to this state? The root cause is success rather than fail – but the front end of the organisation operating at a different speed than the back end. Projects submitted to blur Group's Global Services Exchange have increased in value, complexity and duration, a trend that is continuing into 2014. The trend seems to have accelerated from the third quarter onwards when there was a new finance function in the company, but also the company moved HQ to Exeter. The nature of the newer projects resulted in extended periods between project submission, project kick-off and project completion. Due to these longer timeframes, the board has taken a more conservative view of project revenue recognition with several larger value projects extending over several reporting periods or years and therefore a significant proportion of the revenue associated with project bookings achieved in 2013 will be recognised in 2014 and beyond."

      Panmure Gordon is an institutional stockbroker and investment bank.
    2. This PDF has the full copy of a 23-page analyst report written by GECR analysts Emanuil Manos Halicioglu and Andrew Noone about the subject. The report lists several risks of the company; here are some headers, each of which in the report is followed by paragraphs of further explanation:
      1. The group has a relatively short operating history and operates in an evolving market.
      2. The group’s IT systems depend on each other and a failure in one may disrupt theefficiency and functioning of the group’s operations.
      3. The group may face online security breaches including hacking and vandalism
      4. Reliance on customers to change procurement habits.
      5. Dependence on maintaining the expert network.
      6. Economic conditions and current economic weaknesses.

      According to http://www.burnbrae.com/holdings/burnbrae-media-limited, GECR is owned by Burnbrae Media.

    3. This 17 April 2014 article from This is Money notes:

      Analyst Robin Speakman at Shore Capital says his core concern is that revenue recognition has not matched cash flows.

      He has pulled his forecasts and recommendation from consensus for blur and expects to make major changes in due course, possibly further deferring the timing of the inflection point of profitability and cash generation to a material degree.

      He believes blur still has an interesting and potentially attractive business model that may yet dominate the services procurement space.

      But the hyperbole of market penetration announcements must be matched by delivery to clients and investors alike.

      According to https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/profile?s=SGR:LSE, Shore Capital "offers corporate advice; a market-making business; investment research available in the United Kingdom, and a range of investment opportunities within its asset management and principal finance activities".
    4. This 8 October 2013 article from Proactive Investors notes:

      Liberum Capital, for whom a ‘buy’ recommendation is not enough – the rating is ‘strong buy’ - said the update reveals very strong momentum in all areas of the business.

      “While the number of projects submitted and completed are running ahead of expectations, the major upside in the quarter came from average project value submitted which rose sharply to $28.8K in the quarter, from $22.9K in Q2’13.

      This reflects the rising adoption of the exchange by larger businesses resulting in higher value projects being submitted,” Liberum said.

      The broker is pondering whether its revenue forecast of US$9.4mln for the current year is now optimistic enough.

      The article also notes:

      Shore Capital also seems to have been caught on the hop by blur’s astounding progress, and it is set to revise upwards its revenue expectations for the current year and beyond.

      “We believe that the projects submitted figure is likely to pull through an acceleration in projects completed for the current quarter – driving the materiality of our upgrade. The increase in the average submitted project value to $29k from $13k is a less important figure than project volumes to our minds. This figure is set to remain volatile and is still dominated by just a few larger projects – we believe that this figure is set to ameliorate over time as the platform grows and matures,” Shore’s Robin Speakman said.

      This 24 September 2013 article from the Financial Times notes:

      The prize is large: analysts at Liberum Capital estimate that the addressable market for ‘services commerce’ is $1.1trn, and that Blur could process more than a $1bn in transactions within a decade.

      “Blur’s s-commerce platform is moving from concept towards mass adoption,” they wrote in a note to clients.

    5. This 23 June 2017 article from the Financial Times notes:

      Megabuyte, the technology research company, said in a note: “Blur has raised approximately £25m ($32m) over the past five years, at prices of 82p, 150p and 75p per share respectively, all of which has been now used up. Blur has also finally joined the prestigious 99% club and, as with its options, its days now certainly look numbered.”

      This 24 September 2013 article from the Financial Times notes:

      Yet some observers are not buying the hype.

      ...

      “The question is whether, with those gross margins, they’re ever going to make any decent money for shareholders, given the investment that has already gone into it,” says Ian Spence, an analyst at Megabuyte.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Maistro to pass Knowledge (XXG):Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  • "The analyst reports above are insufficient to meet the notability threshold." – Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says (my bolding): "However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports."

    Why are the analyst reports above such as this 23-page analyst report from GECR "insufficient to meet the notability threshold"?

    Here is the table of contents for the GECR analyst report:

    Summary And Investment Conclusion (3)

    Business Summary (5)

        The Exchange Process (5)

        Users (6)

        Revenue model (6)

        Strategy (7)

    The Market (8)

        Business services (8)

        Benefits of B2B e-commerce (8)

        Drivers of e-commerce (8)

        Potential market size (9)

        Competition (10)

    Financial Forecasts (12)

    Valuation (15)

    Risks (18)

    Appendix (20)

    This is extensive analysis of the company.

    Cunard (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't consider the company to be sufficiently notable; the retention of this article is not going to improve the project. WP:TNT also applies; the article is non-neutral and is not helpful to readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I removed a promotional section from the article. There is negative coverage in the "Revenue reporting concerns" section. I think the article is not overly promotional, but if you have suggestions about what else to remove or reword, I am open to acting on them.

    Cunard (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  • (Marginal) Keep I noted that a previous commenter suggests there is some "controversy created by the previous CEO", presumably Philip Letts (formerly CEO of Beenz.com). The existing article does not mention him, yet web searches suggest that, as CEO of Blur/Maistro, he was in charge as it encountered various financial difficulties, running through at least three CFOs (see Guardian in 2015) and Blur shares suspended on AIM in June 2017, after which he left the company - a departure noted in The Times. Fleshing out the history of the business may therefore bring in additional material from reliable sources (for example, I've noted some pieces - example - on a site called Spend Matters - not sure of its reliability). If time allows, I will have a crack at rewriting/expanding the existing article - otherwise, yes, maybe WP:TNT. Paul W (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Partial rewrite/expansion done - Paul W (talk) 20:57, 6 August 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. Clearly not delete, but no consensus whether to keep this as a stand-alone title or merge to Anti-Americanism#Germany. That discussion can continue on the talk pages with no need for further AfD involvement. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Anti-American sentiment in Germany (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 relies on WP:synthesis and opinion pieces to make its point. Rolling together WWII, Cold War East Germany, and refusing to send troops to the Iraq War does not an actual topic make. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States -related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is an expansion of an existing section, it contains NO factual errors as far as I know, and is more than relevant. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Note that we have articles on Anti-American sentiment in.... Russia, Iran, Argentina, Pakistan and Korea. In addition to Anti-Irish; Andi-Polish and many other Anti-(fill in nationality or ethnicity) articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep article needs improvement, but topic is legitimate and copious sourcing is out there. Including scholarly articles (Markovits, Andrei S. "On Anti-Americanism in West Germany." New German Critique, no. 34 (1985): 3-27. doi:10.2307/488336; Gassert, Philipp. "The Anti-American as Americanizer: Revisiting the Anti-American Century in Germany." German Politics & Society 27, no. 1 (90) (2009): 24-38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23742778.; Gienow‐Hecht, Jessica C. E. "Always Blame the Americans: Anti‐Americanism in Europe in the Twentieth Century." The American Historical Review 111, no. 4 (2006): 1067-091. doi:10.1086/ahr.111.4.1067.)
WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Just tag it for improvement, better sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
It is, in fact, a paltry article. A significant topic, but a paltry article thrown up in a hurry by an editor about whom I have significan doubts after encountering him at 2 AfDs..E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - there is certainly plenty of coverage to satisfy the notability grounds, even stripping out a number of sources, and more can be found online (a few are given by E.M Gregory). Additionally it is a massive topic - 2 G8 countries, the negative links between them is easily significant enough (I'm not sure what specific grounds this point was premised on, so apologies for a vague response). Nosebagbear (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • KeepMerge - The article is poorly written and skewed toward recent events. Unfortunately, in most cases, no matter how poor the article is, it is not enough to delete it. I suggest either sending this to draft space or find a competent writer ASAP.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Leflyman and Alpha make good points, and I just cannot get over the fact how dirt-poor this “article” currently is. Hence, a selective merge, hopefully not overly skewed toward recent events.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 12:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 12:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For discussion on the merge-target, primarily.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBG 10:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Note that article creator has been blocked.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Note to closing editor, Comments above argue for deletion or merging on the grounds: "how dirt-poor this “article” currently is," "doesn't have enough content for a stand-alone article," "Content is not detailed enough to merit a separate article.", that merge target is superior to this paltry article. All of which is true. However, the topic actually is significant, and, given that our articles on parallel topics are titled "Anti-American sentiment in ...(wherever)", it might be better to DELETE this article altogether and leave the topic available for a knowledgeable and willing editor to create a solid article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an important sentiment which has potential. The article is not in great shape but that is not a great rationale for deletion. ~EDDY ~ 23:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Eddy is totally correct. (see my comment near top of discussion).E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Note that contrary to assertions above, the section at the merge target is woefully out-of-date, and significantly inaccurate. This is an important topic in need of an editor. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment: Excepting the nomination, the !votes entirely are split between merge and keep. The arguments presented are:
  • The article is on an important, notable topic, with no factual errors and significant coverage in reliable sources.
  • However, it does not have sufficient content to justify an independent article, and regional context may be valuable.
I believe that both options have merit, and on review of the articles in question, it seems that both options would require significant ongoing maintenance. The existing spinoffs from Anti-Americanism#Regional anti-Americanism are of inconsistent size and quality, and the whole section is overly long, at >50k characters. I still believe that a merge is appropriate, and that Regional anti-Americanism is the most appropriate target, but I will be taking actions to clean up the article.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:06, 5 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

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

No evidence of notability can't find any suitable sources. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10 18:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 18:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 18:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 18:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 18:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
information Note: Nominator is now a CU indeffed editor . Kpgjhpjm 03:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:21, 31 July 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 08:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Michael A. Lytle (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)

While certainly accomplished, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show that they pass wp:gng, nor do they meet any of the other specific notability criteria (e.g. wp:nscholar or wp:nsoldier). Onel5969 12:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete The article's sources do not come close to meeting the GNG. My own search did not find the significant independent coverage I believe is needed to meet the GNG. I was surprised by the number of people named "Michael Lytle" or "Michael A. Lytle" that my search found and admit that separating them wasn't easy.Sandals1 (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

(OLQuiroz (talk)) I am willing to search and add more references. What kinds of articles and sources should I include? I have included some of his work, and articles that express his honors and titles. Please help!

(OLQuiroz (talk))User: XXanthippe I'm sorry, Im not sure what you mean by "Nothing in GS for WP:Prof. I would like to correct this bio as much as possible, please show me what im missing, please.

  • Delete I checked WP:Prof, he doesn't meet criteria 1 in that I couldn't find any independent sources to verify a significant impact that he made. And he doesn't meet the other criteria for it. And he doesn't meet WP:Solider. Doesn't pass WP:GNG.JC7V-constructive zone 21:27, 8 August 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. Opinions are divided between deleting because she fails the notability requirements for academics, and keeping because she meets WP:GNG. Sandstein 08:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Gladys Ngetich (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 found three sources congratulating Ngetich on an award and a mention in a BBC-article. I would argue that does not meet WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS. Kleuske (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
All that the sources say are that she is an engineering student. As yet there is no achievement. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC).
Given that this argument appears to be based on general notability not academic notability, no achievement is required. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Some sort of notable achievement is required to pass even WP:GNG, and I do not think that gaining admission to a graduate engineering course is enough for that. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC).
  • Comment I nominated, with some trepidation, because all sources available refer to the same fact. I should have mentioned WP:NOTNEWS in the nomination, though. Kleuske (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Leaning delete. This is a well-sourced if brief article about a hard-working and intelligent woman but unfortunately, I don't see notability here in Knowledge (XXG)'s terms. Aside from profiles and routine coverage by the university, she has been mentioned in only a couple of newspapers and then only for being awarded a Rhodes Scholarship. It's a prestigious award, but let's not forget that 100 awards are made each year and it is essentially a funding grant to people who are about to begin their doctorate. Are we suggesting that everyone who receives it (and most will get some coverage in the news) should be given articles here? Or for that matter, any doctoral student who has won a substantial funding award? Even given the adversity she has faced and the remarkability of her achievement relative to her background, WP is about sustained coverage of her or her work in secondary sources which typically (in academia or the professions) amounts to a long-standing and original contribution to her field. She doesn't meet that standard (indeed, it's hard enough getting tenured professors to pass AfD these days). She may be set for big things, but this article has landed too soon. As someone who creates articles in this area, take it from me that there are plenty of far more notable women in academia and engineering who lack articles where our efforts are better directed. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC).
  • Delete per the cogent deletion arguments above. Very impressive and all that, but clearly fails notability at this point. Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: If the decision is delete, then move to draft space, there appears to be continuing news coverage so it is not unreasonable to think that this person will reach the Knowledge (XXG) notability threshold fairly soon. John Cummings (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree that she does not pass our notability guidelines for professors, in large part because she is not a professor. She also doesn't pass our notability guidelines for politicians, soccer players, or astronomical objects. The relevant guideline is WP:GNG. Multiple recent (July 2018) Kenyan news stories profile her in depth , and the BBC in January 2018 included another in-depth profile of her as part of a story about the scarcity of female engineers. (There's also coverage here and here which can help provide content for the article although not contributing to notability.) She is a Rhodes Scholar and has won multiple other less-famous awards. Her recovery after a poor showing in the Kenyan high school entrance examination has been described by media in other African countries as a test case for their own exam systems . None of these individual accomplishments are automatically notable, but they put the lie to the assertion that there is nothing of significance in her history, or only a single event to which this article could be redirected. For that matter, having a significant accomplishment is nowhere in GNG (see any number of "famous for being famous" celebrities). The clear wording of GNG is that when someone is covered in-depth by multiple reliable sources they are notable. Either we follow that or we revise GNG to be explicitly based on editors' opinions of the significance of the subject rather than based on outside coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • David Eppstein: the WP:NPROF guidelines, despite their abbreviation, are not just confined to professors but academics, defined as "someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education". As a DPhil student and Rhodes scholar, she is an academic in that sense so WP:NPROF applies to her where WP:NSPORT and WP:NASTRO don't; hence the fact that she fails NPROF is important. As you point out, GNG is a different matter and the outcome will probably depend on it's interpretation here. —Noswall59 (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC).
  • Keep - Multiple reliable sources have done in-depth coverage of her. She may yet do more, and we can only speculate about her future, but she seems to have ticked the central box of WP:GNG easily already. Mattyjohn (talk) 22:36, 6 August 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

List of busiest port regions (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)

Page subject not referenced in any of the references. Original research. Fob.schools (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

To add, I have never seen a list of port regions, so it is very difficult to pick out the busiest port regions. None of the links to the 'port regions' in the article links to an article about a 'port region'. They link to a variety of articles about geographical, political and cultural areas, but none seem to discuss the ports of the region. It's just a piece of WP:LISTCRUFT. Fob.schools (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Fob.schools (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fob.schools (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fob.schools (talk) 10:50, 31 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Non-notable company. The vast majority of sources provided are press-releases, advertorials or entries on list sites. The former lacks reliability, the latter merely confirms its existence. Google search did not result in required independent editorial coverage of the product to establish notability. pseudonym Jake Brockman 06:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman 06:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman 06:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman 06:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
every company operating in the UK will be listed in companies house. Every payment processor in the UK will be listed on the BACS site, every regulated financial services company in the UK will have an FCA entry. This is business as usual and insufficient for notability. As for the rest, most are PR which lacks independence or are about routine company business. Please provide examples of independent editorial coverage that satisfies WP:ORG. pseudonym Jake Brockman 06:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I just added few independent reliable citations such as Dnevnik (Bulgarian newspaper), Capital (newspaper), International Business Times, El Economista (Spain) and Pymnts. These resources must not the press releases. AntiNom (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@AntiNom: thanks for this. I cannot access the Dnevnik article as it is behind a paywall. As for the others, they are hardly suitable. Capital: broad overview of the POS market, with a passing mention of the subject; IBT: topic is Amazon Go, where the subject is again mentioned in passing only; El Economista: definitely a press-release; Pymnts: advertorial - an "interview" with a senior figure of the company about how they can "help" the taxi industry. Hardly independent. pseudonym Jake Brockman 12:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I have added so many Independent Reliable Resources. I think these resources are enough to justify the subject notability. I request to all editors please check the all citations before delete this article. I just added few independent reliable resources such as Talking Retail, quotidianpost.it, IB Times, pctechmag, Total Croatia News, Gondola (magazine) and Business.com. AntiNom (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
This is really all more of the same. A mixture of mentions in passing, reproductions of PR, advertorials, etc. pseudonym Jake Brockman 10:59, 8 August 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. Deletion reason: WP:A10. Deleting admin: by User:RHaworth. "(A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Batman (disambiguation))" (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

BATMAN (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 disambiguation article for Batman is the much more complete Batman (disambiguation). This incomplete all-caps duplicate should be deleted. Fbergo (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Tyw7: CSD A10 is for recently created articles, this one is dates back to 2002. Fbergo (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Shall I be bold and redirect? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:20, 31 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Mike Sheffield (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)

Almost completely unsourced article about a non-notable individual. Reads like an obituary, which happens to be the article's lone source Saget53 (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article might originally have been created to support a unsuccessful run for the seat on the Georgia Court of Appeals in 2008. I don't see any reason to keep the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:08, 31 July 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) ∯WBG 10:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Simply does not meet WP:NFOOTY. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The Soccerway profile shows the S.League accompanied with the Singapore flag. See also this FourFourTwo article, where they preview Harimau Muda's 2015 participation in said S.League. They were a Malaysian club playing in the S.League, similarly to what DPMM FC (Brunei-based) do currently. There were/are a few 'Harimau Muda' clubs: A, B and C. Amirul Ikmal Hafiz featured for the 'B' side in the S.League, the article itself only directed (now changed) to the overall Harimau Muda article which only mentions the Malaysia Premier League history; hence this confusion it seems. - the FFT article states it was the 'b' squad in the 2015 S.League. R96Skinner (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for the clarification. It seems the S-League has pretty recently (2018) rebranded as 'Singapore Premier League'. Only adds to the 'fog' surrounding this one: after clarification seems NFOOTY is achieved. I have struck, and redone, !vote above. Eagleash (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:25, 3 August 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 Tommy Gunn. Merge can take place from history at editorial discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Tommy Gunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:LISTN for lack of significant coverage of the subject's awards. The article is cited to PR industry materials which are primary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 31 July 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 - wrong forum. Merge discussions take place on article talk pages (as pointed out when the nominator proposed a merge for the same article at AfD less than two weeks ago). Michig (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

List of post-metal bands (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 deleted all the unreliable sources, (wich were the majority), and now it look like this. It doesn’t have too many entries now, so it’s better to merge it here. ~SML • TP 01:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge, per my reasons. ~SML • TP 01:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:08, 31 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Shaun Owens (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)

Was deprodded with the rationale: "article not eligible for PROD (previous PROD in history, contested by recreation)". Even though no prod is in history. This leads me to believe that the article was prodded, deleted, and recreated. However, still fails wp:nfooty, as neither of his senior league teams is in a fully professional league. Onel5969 00:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:26, 3 August 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. Seems a legitimate number of potential search terms that might cause confusion, despite rebranding of terms (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

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

All of the topics listed on this page are on Xfinity Center. We do not need two different dab pages with the same topics. JE98 (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 05:06, 31 July 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.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑