Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 4 March	6 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akhadir Recordings Amsterdam

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

Apparently shameless self-promotion, no indication at all of notability. It's already been deleted once as A7 (which surely applies to this version too), but that doesn't definitely solve the problem. I tried moving it to draft space so that the author could try to do something about it, but he/she submitted the draft and then moved it to mainspace while I was declining it. Delete and salt, please. Note: another apparent deletion in the log is the result of an unsuccessful hijack of Digital Distribution Netherlands. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: I see the article creator has now blanked the article, presumably in an attempt to stave off this AfD. Clearly a one-man outfit (the one artist on the label is also its owner), with no evidence of notability... fails WP:NCORP completely. Richard3120 (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Too late to bundle but the author, presumably the same "one-man" has created AIX1 which essentially duplicates this one.PRehse (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt this is the third or fourth incarnation, the previous 2 were A7 deleted, as a promtion for a self release label that does not pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As PRehse says, AIX1 is essentially a duplicate of this. I tried redirecting it, but was reverted. Now nominated for deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to find secondary sources discussing this label and I couldn't find a single one. The sources in the article are not independent, so can't be used to contibute to notability. Lonehexagon (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and failure of WP:NCORP. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bucklind Beery

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

Delete: ludicrous joke of a non-article. Quis separabit? 20:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable actor and no significant reliable sourcing MLKLewis (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable actor and WP:NOTINHERITED also applies....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are a few sources other there, mostly local newspaper articles and passing mentions in books, which could potentially be added. But even then it'd struggle to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Biggest claim to fame is being the third in an Beery acting dynasty, and of itself that's not enough to justify this separate page. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NACTOR and no refs. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kenwrick Taylor

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

doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG, unreferenced (there is an external link to the A Very Handy Man publisher but not WP:RS) since creation in May 2009, not necessarily an issue but doing gsearches ("Kenwrick Taylor", "Kenwrick Taylor Dumb Jungle", "Kenwrick Taylor A Very Handy Man") brings up nothing useable, unable to confirm if Dumb Jungle on the Vogels shortlist but curious that WorldCat has not listed it at all, A Very Handy Man is in 12 libraries, way below "well known" threshold. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Coolabahapple (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find much of anything. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ran a proquest news archive search on his name, guessing he lives in Townsville because the only hit I got was in the Townsville Bulletin which runs a charming feature where each local bookstore is invited to name that week's "Top Reads" and the Progress Book Shop listed one of Taylor's novels. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:BASIC and no WP:RS. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vraddhi Sharma

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

With a single non-starring role in one movie, this individual does not meet WP:NACTOR. Nothing else in the article content or its references suggests meeting any other aspects of WP:BIO either. Peacock (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with the previous vote. Barely anything notable. Does not meet WP:ACTOR Geymarfan (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as does not pass WP:NACTOR at this time, but may in future Atlantic306 (talk).

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

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

The result was redirect to Keycloak. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JBoss SSO

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

Nominating for IP in the 37.13./whatever range; see this discussion. I did a quick source search and didn't find anything useful either. Wouldn't be opposed to a merge and/or redirect somewhere myself. ansh 666 19:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WildFly or Keycloak per WP:NPRODUCT. I can find no coverage in independent, reliable sources. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. No objection to Delete. Jbh ^Talk 22:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 23:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 22:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless i am missing something, there are no references out there Geymarfan (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Keycloak. I've added a little to that article which should make the redirect sensible (ideal world would have dug out references too .. actually I've just found something for Keycloak). Was a bit concerned about how the previous merge proposal was removed with seemingly little chance for concensus.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC) The article is also linked to from a couple of articles, redirecting to Keycloak means it is not imperative to change those links.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are a couple of books entitled JBoss SSO with isbn's. However digging further would indicate they are fake books.
Merge and redirect to Keycloak. Preserve the history in the merge. That appears to be the same product with a new name. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keycloak. Plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zzap!64

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

Not many sources and most are from the magazine's site. Someone Not Awful (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the magazine had a long run, I find it notable enough to keep--provided, that is, other sources are added.TH1980 (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not as easy as I thought to find coverage online, but there's some. Zzap!64 was featured in a documentary, according to [1] from The Independent. According to [2] from Eurogamer, Retro Gamer featured an extensive retrospective in one of their issues. This book says, "...Zzap! quickly became the main reference for all C64 gamers...". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the sources are not independent. Fails the basic notability criteria. Geymarfan (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources out there per NRP above. While I do not see a lot of coverage from quick searches what I do see gives me a reasonable expectation that there are better/more in-depth ones out there. This is a pretty classic NEXIST keep. Jbh ^Talk 02:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly a notable publication. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews in this publication have been used to support many C64 game articles. While the sources could be improved, it's as notable as any home computer magazine. Dgpop (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the most notable gaming publications of the 1980s. Even I've heard of this mag, and I've never owned a Commodore computer or even had an academic interest in it. Certainly more sources can be added than what's in the article at present; for starters, as noted in the article itself, Retro Gamer did a big feature on Zzap!64 a while back.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surya Jayaweera

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

An editor WP:CANVASSed me to take the {{advert}} tag off this article. This may have been a mistake. Being an obliging soul, I looked at the citations in the article and conducted my own search. I found nothing to get this article past WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. I found nothing more than quotations from him in articles about other topics, and social sites. I found no independent WP:RS sources at all about him. Delete.

This may be the same article as Surya K. Jayaweera, deleted per WP:G11 in 2014. Narky Blert (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a similar search of my own leads me to vote delete per nom. SportingFlyer (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to canvass, I was mostly concerned about how to better improve the article. But I understand the notion to delete. Are there any references that could be added to improve it? Dodgetherocks (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Find and add some sources. I couldn't find any. They don't have to be in English. Sources in e.g. Hindi would be great, so long as they're WP:RS – in particular, if they are independent and are about the topic of the article. Narky Blert (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would this article help? Dodgetherocks (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports clubs playing in the league of another country

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

WP:LISTCRUFT page that appears to fail WP:GNG via WP:LISTN as the topic of the list Sports clubs playing the league of another country does not appear to be widely covered topic in general. (Per LISTN, the general requirement is: "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list".) This page originated as List of association football clubs playing in the league of another country from December 2006 to May 2016, a topic that does at least appear to be well-documented as the governing bodies in football are recognized and organize designated national leagues. That topic was recently re-split from the nominated page in January 2018 (creating a WP:Parallel histories problem for edit history attribution).

The nominated page appears to have taken the sourced topic of football national leagues and foreign team participation and then used original research to synthesize an extrapolated list of so-called national leagues and teams, when there is no documentation that says that a league or team is a representative or sanctioned by a national governing body. (The lead even says Conditions for competing in a "foreign" league, as well as in a continental/confederational competition, are set case-by-case by the international sports federation as well as the respective confederation and national sport associations involved.) A good example of this here is American and Canadian gridiron football, which has no national governing bodies for professional leagues, yet it has the American expansions for the CFL (which decided to that on their own through their own board of governors) and Canadian and Mexican teams in indoor American football (which again has no sanctioning and is entirely up to each league's operators).

Some of these sports probably can be sourced with national governing bodies (some rugby is sanctioned I believe) and should be taken on a sport-by-sport basis, splitting into new single-sport or league articles. But as an overarching general topic, all sports do not necessarily have actual "national" leagues (despite their names sometimes, like National Hockey League, which is definitely neither a solely Canadian or American league). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ice hockey clubs playing in the league of another country for a long discussion of this. Yosemiter (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm voting delete for similar reasons I voted delete for the other AfD mentioned above: WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and the fact there's no real criteria for the list. I would vote strong keep for the association football list, though, as that's well referenced and has clear criteria due to the way in which the sport is internationally administered. SportingFlyer talk 23:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absoutely list cruft. Thinking of the U.S., where I live, the NBA and MLB are not "leagues of the U.S." They are based in the U.S. and have most teams in the U.S., but the Toronto (and Montreal and Vancouver) franchises are equals to the U.S.-based teams, with no reason for this call out. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong point, strongly worded, worth remembering. -The Gnome (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking notability or usefulness qualifications, per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Adkins

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

Part of a group of 3 linked COI pages to promote a non notable musician. Fails WP:Music and WP:GNG. Consider in unison with [3] (the band's article - nomination) and [4] (bandmate's article - nomination). Rayman60 (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mellow Down Easy

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

Part of a group of 3 linked COI pages to promote a non notable band. Fails WP:Music and WP:GNG. The entire article is just supported by 3 low level sources that back up small snippets of info. No significant coverage. Consider in unison with the two bandmates - nominations are [5]here and [6]here. Rayman60 (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails BAND and GNG. Search for "Mellow Down Easy" returns results for a song of the same name, unrelated to the band. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Wayne Dasher

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

Part of a group of 3 linked COI pages to promote a non notable musician. Fails WP:Music and WP:GNG. Two references, one of which is from a tiny blog and is now a deadlink. Consider in unison with [7] (the band's article - nomination) and [8] (bandmate's article - nomination). Rayman60 (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Autism 30

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

There is no indication of how this podcast passes WP:GNG or any other notability guideline.

The sources cited seem to all be either self-published or authored by someone affiliated with this publication. I am not seeing any third-party publication talking about this podcast which would indicate notability. A quick Google search returns no obvious sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the references are reliable sources. My own search for coverage turns up nothing. Fails to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything on this topic that would fulfill notability guidelines. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No validating sources found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Consensus was to delete, and the page creator requested it as well. – Athaenara ✉ 14:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voxel Tycoon

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

Fail WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. No coverage whatsoever from reliable video game web sources. The1337gamer (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While it is true that there is not much outside information on Voxel Tycoon yet, this is because it has not yet been released. I would prefer if the article were kept until the game is released, and then if it is still not sufficiently covered by independent and reliable sources a reasonable amount of time afterwards (say, a week or two) then deletion is an acceptable action to take. DesertPipeline (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original nominator is correct. Deletion immediately is completely reasonable. I will recreate the article when there are reliable, independent sources on the subject of the game. DesertPipeline (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you create an article on topic that no coverage whatsoever from reliable, independent sources? We don't create articles on topics that aren't notable and have zero coverage. Your keep vote means nothing if you can't back it up with policy-based argument. Your reasoning actually supports my proposal for deleting the article because you've admitted that their is no coverage whatsoever. Saying "Hey, there might be some websites covering in a couple of weeks." is not even close to an acceptable argument for keeping the article. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't zero coverage. There are videos people unrelated to the developers have made talking about the game. On the first page when Googling "Voxel Tycoon" (quotes included) there is a site called "gamingonlinux" that talks about the game. On the second page, "indieretronews". It's not much, but it's not zero. There are people aware of this game, and what is the harm in an article on it? This isn't another one of those utterly awful "games" released by a "developer" on Steam for quick cash. DesertPipeline (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Videos from random people on the internet are not reliable sources. This is encyclopedia that has a policies and guidelines. We write articles on topics that have significant coverage from reliable sources. Otherwise we'd have millions of articles on nonsense. There are thousands of trash games released on Steam every year but we don't have articles on all of them for a reason. There is reason we have deletion policy. Spend some time reading it, as well as Wikipedia's other policies, before you start creating articles. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not notice where I said (not in your words) that this game is precisely not another "trash game released on Steam"? If that were the case, it would already be released, because people who try and make a quick profit off a very poor quality game don't spend effort on it. They just make it as quickly as they can and then release it, hoping that at least some people will purchase it and then for whatever reason fail to refund it within the specified timeframe. And do you have anything to say regarding the two websites that cover the game, "gamingonlinux" and "indieretronews"? DesertPipeline (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Developer's intentions aren't important. Only thing that matters is coverage from reliable sources, as I've reiterated. Indieretronews is an amateurish blog, not a news publisher or media website with team of editorial staff. Same goes for gamingonlinux. Neither has been vetted as a reliable source at WP:VG/RS. Furthermore, none of the dozens of reliable sources that we do list at WP:VG/RS cover this game, hence why I have nominated for deletion. Even if these two websites were considered reliable sources, the articles they have on the game are composed of two short paragraphs. That's not significant coverage or in depth at all for page on generalist encyclopedia. It's about as bare bones as you can get. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are fair. I certainly do not like it, but I will accept deletion of my article. I have copied the contents from Source Editing to a text document so that I can recreate this article when it does have sources. However, what am I going to do about the game logo uploaded? It is specifically for use in this article, and it would be frustrating to have to reupload it again when the game is released. Is there anything that can be done about that? Regardless, I don't want this deletion discussion dragged on any further. You are correct, as is the commenter below regarding WP:TOOSOON. I would appreciate if the article were deleted immediately. Nothing will save the article right now, all I can do is wait for the game's release then recreate the article with independent sources. DesertPipeline (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to move this page to my draft space for now. Is it possible to do that while the article is AfD'd? I agree with the deletion, I don't want this to drag out. I apologise for creating the article too soon. DesertPipeline (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a page at [[9]] for the draft of the article. I have no objection with the actual article being deleted immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertPipeline (talk • contribs) 23:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DesertPipeline: I deleted it as per your WP:CSD#G7 tagging and moved the talk page to User talk:DesertPipeline/drafts/Voxel Tycoon. – Athaenara ✉ 12:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. While this game could definitely get some coverage when it's release (Metacritic's already got a page for it), it's probably too soon to have an article for it. Alternatively, we could move it to draftspace for now. JOE BRO 64 20:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic page means nothing. They are automatically generated from databases like Steam's. Just check the PC games section on Metacritic. Has thousands of game pages with no reviews whatsoever. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify If nothing else, it's definitely WP:TOOSOON. I'd give DesertPipeline the draft because it could become notable on release, but it will not be automatically notable. SportingFlyer talk 23:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Such refs as do exist do not meet WP:RS or WP:GNG. DaveApter (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ouvry

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

This company employs 15 people and does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP in my opinion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails ORGDEPTH a passing mention and 3 PR pieces are not enough to prove notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wheels of Poseidon

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

Non-notable name for Bioluminescence phenomenon. Very few results on google not derived from wikipedia. Porphyro (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to bioluminescence or Delete. No indication this neologism has spread notably beyond the person who coined it, and a redirect would take those few familiar with the term to the page with information on the subject, but of the Google search results, if you eliminate the Wikipedia mirrors, most of what remain refer to a (non-notable for Wikipedia purposes) folk-metal musical group and not the oceanic phenomenon, so a redirect may not be appropriate. Agricolae (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely a neologism, but I'm not seeing usage in sources to indicate it would be a redirect term people would actually be using as Agricolae mentioned. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment It was also used in Clarkes's 1971 novella "A Meeting with Medusa" but apparently just never caught on. I don't have a strong opinion as to whether the redirect is justifiable. Mangoe (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've found enough WP:RS to possibly support a section in Bioluminescence on "phosphorescent wheels", but not this 1967 neologism for it. See this report, this report, this paper, this discussion in Nature, and this, and even this French meto wikilog of sighting , and this report from the US Naval Oceaonagraphic Office and this from the National Institute of Oceanography in Surrey. But I still don't think this particular article merits retention. (I'll pop these refs in the Talk page for Bioluminecence in case someone ever wants to pick up on them.) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shanka Jayasinha

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

Article is devoid of WP:RS. A BEFORE search on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com fails to find any references under subject's name. Fails WP:NATHLETE. Chetsford (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Likely a hoax. The claim of being on the Monaco national team links to a roster reference which lists a Shanka Dias not Shanka Jayasinha in the roster. The claim to being on the university of Miam i football team in 2014 is contradicted by the team's web site which lists the 2014 roster with nobody by the name of Shanka on the roster. Considering that the Hurricane's are an NCAA Division I team, and the considerable coverage of college football in the US, it's rather telling there is absolutely no coverage of a "Shanka Jayasinha" playing college football. -- Whpq (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An anonymous user had inserted the subjects name in the wikipedia article 2014 Miami Hurricanes football team, (stayed there for 16 months). On the teams web site isn't a Shanka Jayasinha on the 2014 roster (see Whpq's source). This looks like an attempt to fool the reader, or a hoax. The only remaining claim for notability is the National basketball team of Monaco, turnes out to be U16 and U18 Category C (small countries) European championships 2012 and 2014 [10] which fall under WP:YOUNGATH (High School athletes) and fail WP:NBASKETBALL. What remaines in the article is a young man who earned a bachelor degree in BA from the University of Miami. Ben Ben ^(talk) 20:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I don't think the Monaco basketball team claim is true either. The source doesn't list the subject name on the roster. -- Whpq (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - I see in the archive that he has compound name of Shankar Dias Jayasinha. But agree that youth teams aren't usually notable. -- Whpq (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I saw nothing to back it up and the links are far from verifications. Waste of time even talking about. TVGarfield (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seen to meet WP:NATHLETE. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Speed skating at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics. Sandstein 21:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speed skating at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics – Qualification

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

This article lacks the coverage required to establish notability. A redirect to the main article was challenged (in 2015). Whpq (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete anything worthy of an encyclopedia can be covered in the main topic page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With Speed skating at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics as appears to have been done for other Youth Olympics articles. I'll note that qualification articles for the regular Olympics are generally considered notable, but not so the Youth Olympics, as they receive significantly less coverage in reliable sources. Smartyllama (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Speed skating at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics. Per above. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Freethinker

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

Fails WP:ORG. Appears to be nothing more than a blogger whose organization occasionally gets only passing mention in blogs and occasional local news sources. Article was PRODed, but the creator removed the tag after about 7 days. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find independent RS MLKLewis (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect and protect The majority of the non conflicted positions are that this topic is not sufficiently independent for its own article therefore closing as "redirect". As there has been a lot of disruption around this topic will be fulling protecting this article. Work to clean up the other articles created by what appears to be a large family of socks still required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Eddy Vodka

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

Notability concerns. The references are egregiously low-quality, generally press releases about product releases or about non-notable awards. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have cleaned up the page to include good sources. It is one of the fastest growing spirits brands in the world according to most alcohol related websites, so I think notability is not in doubt. Nidhi.b.dalal (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Nidhi.b.dalal (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Keep - I was checking the names in the "List of vodkas" page and most of the vodkas are less notable but still have reviewed pages. While Deep Eddy doesn't have a HuffPost or CNN covering it, very rarely do local spirit brands get that sort of coverage (unless you are Johnny Walker). most spirits focused coverages exist. Take Laphroaig or Grey Goose , two major spirit brands - they have badly written pages but rightly reviewed. Compared to that, this page is an improvement. If you're in Texas, everyone knows this brand. I agree with the author - notability is fairly certain. I do think better sources still exist.Caninelover (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC) — Caninelover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Have added thespiritsbusiness as a source, as well as other helpful references. Would like to improve the articles more but I think passes WP:GNG all major spirits publications have covered it. Godzilladude123 (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Caninelover. This article subject passes WP:GNG. Donald1659 (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note the first 3 !voters are blatant socks. CU are on it. SmartSE (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Pick out relevant information, and merge that into Heaven_Hill (and optionally set up a redirect to Heaven_Hill)
This is the English Wikipedia (of the world), not to be confused with the Texas Drinks Guide Wikipedia.
(And, to be blunt: The article holds 30 references, yet you certainly do not need to spend hours, meticulously reading everything in every one of them, before becoming highly suspicious of somebody trying to blow a lot of smoke, hoping that quantity of references will help sneak the article to dodge the notability requirement.)
--DexterPointy (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My own searching failed to find anything more interesting than the fact that you can buy this at Walmart. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - passes WP:GNG, WP:ORGIND and WP: AUD is met here. Enough industry specific sources -- CBcleaner (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see any Keep-"votes", which are firmly & convincingly arguing their case.

So far, I'm only seeing two kind of "arguments" being swung:

Arg.Type.1.: The subject/article passes WP:Something, being stated without any attempt of providing evidence as to why it passes WP:Something.

Problem: Without presenting any evidence (or any proper evidence, i.e. evidence, which is argued & actual evidence of passing), then you might as well say "It passes notability, because it's notable!" (or "It passes notability, because it's notable, and here's a picture of my cat, which clearly proves notability!").

Arg.Type.2.: The subject/article passes notability by having many mentions/coverage from multiple alleged quality/reliable sources.

Problem: I'm betting I can find an even greater number of sources of far better quality and reliability, when it comes to the weather forecast for Texas 21.Feb.2018.

If notability and mentions/coverage are interchangeable (synonyms), then "Texas Wheather on 20. February 2018" is far from the only article, of higher importance, needed to be created on Wikipedia.

--DexterPointy (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To explain my "Strong Keep" vote better, I have edited the page to add better references and removed press releases. Houston Chronicle, Kentucky.com, Wall Street Journal, Houston Press should help establish WP:ORGIND and WP:GNG. The articles in these publications didn't have Deep Eddy as mere mentions, they specifically focused on the brand. BevNet, Bar Magazine, BarBiz Mag references would cater to WP:AUD since these are industry specific. CBcleaner (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you here please list just 3 references (URLs), which you regard as the most important ones, for serving as clear evidence of notability? DexterPointy (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, these are the four most relevant ones:

1. Wall Street Journal covering the acquisition. Heaven Hills or other spirits major players seem to keep buying brands. Only the major ones make it to WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/heaven-hill-brands-buys-deep-eddy-vodka-1440107007

2. Spirit business has the imp sector links here. The brand hitting one million case sales. I did a little bit of digging here - in the spirits industry, one million is usually an important landmark. It is when (within the industry), your brand comes in the big league. With deep eddy, the "focus" has also been on their growth. Second link is an award.

https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2017/03/deep-eddy-vodka-hits-1m-case-sales/

https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2017/06/vodka-brand-champion-2017/

3. The third one I think highlights their importance locally to Texas or Austin in particular. If one Google's "Deep Eddy Buda distillery", it got significant coverage https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2016/09/21/deep-eddy-vodkato-leave-dripping-springs-lured-by.html

Owing to the above, I feel WP:GNG and WP:AUD is met.

-- CBcleaner (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect : I now no longer hold doubts, that "Deep Eddy Vodka" is probably a notable part of "Heaven Hill", and thus:

- "Deep Eddy Vodka" should be merged into Heaven_Hill, and

- A redirect from Deep Eddy Vodka to Heaven_Hill should be made.

Ironically, one of User:CBcleaner's references, namely: https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2017/06/vodka-brand-champion-2017/ , actually helped remove my doubts, by the US-Vodka-market table it includes: There are 39 brands included, and Deep Eddy Vodka shares bottom placement with 3 other brands (at 1.00 for 2016, which is the most recent year included there). That Deep Eddy Vodka can present high grown rate, isn't impressive: Anything can display high growth rates, when starting from a point of obscurity.

-- DexterPointy (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect This seems like the best approach. Surprised it hasn't come up before, but Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deep_Eddy_Vodka_Distillery closed as delete only last month. The coverage is routine and in specialised magazines. We do not, and should not, aim to be a product listing service. SmartSE (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse: (semi-off-topic) : Is there anyway to find out who created & edited the deleted Deep_Eddy_Vodka_Distillery article? (Note! I'm not an experienced Wikipedian, so if you don't known why I'm asking, then it's most likely because I've failed pinging you, some hours ago.) -- DexterPointy (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - to support my argument, I have outlined a couple of points here

1. I think there is an inconsistency in the way we are judging pages. Have a look at the page titled List of Vodkas. Ignoring the pages that have got flagged, we have several small brands where the pages have been reviewed and made stable by new page reviewers and admins. Is notability different for different brands in the same category? I'm not saying one wrong decision means we accept all but as a community, there should be consistency.

2. Second thing that concerns is that most people here have little knowledge of the spirits business. I have worked in the sector (though no where connected to Deep Eddy or any related party). Reaching 1 million cases is an achievement in this sector. The specialised magazines are major sector coverages. It's like how tech related news is more detailed in tech magazines or publications or journals. San Francisco World Spirits Competition is the second most prestigious one in the sector after International Wines and Spirits.

3. Local references are strong. Apart from Tito's, this is the only major Texas brand. Merging with Heaven Hills takes away the local focus which the brand has sustained before being bought out.

WP:AUD and WP:CORPDEPTH is met in my opinion. (Zicorulz (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC))) — Zicorulz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment as nom I nominated this page after I saw it on WP:NPP. This page was created after Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deep_Eddy_Vodka_Distillery was closed as delete. I'm not opposed to a redirect to Heaven Hill. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Subject is notable by WP:GNG has anyone who wanted this page merged even bothered doing some researched if you did you would note that this brand has countless articles written about them only 30+ were used for citations and that more than enough for this article to stand alone. There simply no need to be merged with Heaven Hill. I also want to point out that besides the quantity of coverage is great the quality of coverage is also great and consists of major media outlets that are not connected to and don't usually run stories about brands of alcohol.Nottoohackneyed (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Some thoughts

- Respectfully, I disagree with some of the comments posted here. Given the fact, that most people are now commenting either merge or keep, I suppose everyone agrees to some degree of notability.

- A merge is usually done with the subject is not independent enough to stand on its own. Deep Eddy has a lot of coverage independent of Heaven Hill. The awards Deep Eddy Vodka has won are independent of Heaven Hill. A merge will not do justice to all the independent coverage it has

- Take an example of any liquor brand. When you google any name (I tried googling grey goose), the first 15 links are not news articles. They are all places to buy it from or events and random videos. I think that is the nature of this industry. The ranking of the selling websites is high. It doesn't and should not affect our judgement on notability. Fightforsocialjustice (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary - Commenting on some of the most recent contributions in this AfD.
- "there is an inconsistency in the way we are judging pages." : Wikipedia is, for various reason, a huge pile of inconsistencies. To strive for consistency, is a noble quest, but not a practical/usable argument, because: There is no consistency in the collective set of article, and no consistency amongst Wikipedians about what the consistency should be.
- "...concerns is that most people here have little knowledge of the spirits business.", and "San Francisco World Spirits Competition is the second most prestigious one in the sector after International Wines and Spirits." : From what I can tell, then the SF competition's outcomes looks like most Wine & Spirits competitions, in that about half of all participants end up getting a medal. (I only did a quick very rough estimate, so don't go quote me for saying 50%). Also, it was half a decade ago, since Deep Eddy won anything in the SF World Spirits competition.
- "... When you google any name (I tried googling grey goose), the first 15 links are not news articles. ..." : I don't see anyone having attempted to make a Google search into an argument, but just to prevent that from happening, then I'd like to note that: Googling something will nearly always return results, whenever that something actually exist, but that doesn't tell any tale about notability. (If I google my phone number, then I find it listed on various directory sites, i.e. it's mentioned "a lot" on the web. Yet, I don't think my phone number deserves a Wikipedia article.)
DexterPointy (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A merge would categorise deep eddy as one of the 20-30 odd brands listed on the Heaven Hill page. Deep Eddy doesn't fall in the same category or is definitely more notable than those. Most of the recent coverages for Deep Eddy are not related to the parent company. I don't agree with the merge votes. Independent notability is certainly established.

Hunter VanHook Hunter VanHook (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC) — Hunter VanHook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. "fastest growing" is the only potential claim to notability , and it usually means Not Yet Notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Been following this debate for a while. Same as a number of editors here, I think this article has significant coverage from reliable sources and it sure passes WP:GNG, same as WP:ORGIND

Merging of a page to another is done when the page in context is not independent and can't stand alone probably due to lack of strong third party sources but I don't think any of this applly to this article. Fregib (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC) — Fregib (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep- There is a big difference between the quality of references in the first version and the edited version we have now. References are credible and reliable. None in the blacklist. Why are they not enough? I don't think having Deep Eddy makes us a product listing website. It qualifies under 3 metrics of sufficient coverage, reliable coverage and independent of deep eddy. My vote is definitely keep. 22:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryannair05 (talk • contribs) — Ryannair05 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - I have been looking at the article for some time now, including the edit history. I must say that the article has tremendously evolved from how it was originally posted, which I believe was the initial reason it was scheduled for deletion. Reliable and strong references have been added. Based on my own research, I believe Deep Eddy Vodka is fast rising the ranks to become one of the world's most popular Vodka brands. I believe notability separate from the parent company exists in every coverage, and its popularity might keep rising making it even more distinct from the parent company in future. I don't agree with the rationale to merge. Give the article a chance.Coolsam726 (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC) — Coolsam726 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this as keep but after looking at it a second time I believe I did not pay sufficient attention to the breadth of editing experience of many of the participants and am no longer comfortable with my decision. For full disclosure see this interaction on my talkpage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note I initiated an SPI after this was closed the first time, but miraculously none of the new accounts !voting here are technically related... I've asked some other admins at WP:COIN to take a look and judge them on behaviour and also invited more people to comment here. SmartSE (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and Salt Almost all the sources are routine press releases and are therefore non RS. No coverage except in industry journals, fails to assert WP:SIGCOV. Fails to assert WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, SALT, and ban all keep !voters This article is ad copy and for good reason: look at the sources. They're all bought-journalism. For example, there are citations from Austin American-Statesman which might confuse some editors to think there's notability but look at this piece: "Deep Eddy Vodka, champions of easygoing summer sipping, have released a new vodka to their portfolio... Deep Eddy’s PR firm dropped off a sample for me to try. I was surprised by how much the aroma resembled that of a bottled grapefruit soda." (emphasis mine). How about this gem from Houston Chronicle: "Let's begin with the fast-growing Deep Eddy brand, which started with a straight vodka and added Lemon, Ruby Red Grapefruit, Cranberry and Sweet Tea flavors to its lineup." It's a literal mixology recipe. Many of the other citations (this, this, this, this, and this) gush about the corporate shake-up, and are evidently re-published press release from the lips of Eric Dopkins. This is what you get for putting your trust in the corporate media, whom shill for businesses and don't even admit they never learned how to be journalists. I also recommend every !keep voter be blocked for perpetrating this fraud on Wikipedia. There seem to be plenty of infringements of WP:CIR in this AfD, as almost nobody bothered to read the sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's just one of 45 brands listed on the Heaven Hill page, I'm not sure that any of those are notable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - A few points to support my vote - this brand has hit one million cases which is actually not a common place event. If you are from texas, you know this brand. I agree on the Austin American Statesman article point that the previous editor raised and I will edit it out but that is not the article that justifies notability. Wall Street Journal, Kentucky.com are definitely credible publications. Heaven Hills, a Kentucky based brand owns over 30 brands. Only 3 made it to Wall Street Journal or Kentucky.com. The other two have Wikipedia pages.

One other thing I have to say, the anger in this discussion would prevent anyone from commenting in support of the debate. The whole idea here is to have a healthy discussion. If someone is violating Wikipedia policies, then surely ban them but I don't think the strong language used here is healthy for a community. Godzilladude123 (talk) 07:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already voted keep above. It is worth that WP:AFD is not simple count of keep versus delete votes, it is a discussion on merits and value of notability of the article in question.scope_creep (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Alloway

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

Television journalist of what seems like very slight personal notability - insufficient to my mind; basically "person x got job y" mentions. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I can find in terms of independent news sources are numerous repeat mentions that "Every week, hosts Joe Weisenthal and Tracy Alloway take you on a not-so-random walk through hot topics in markets"... which means that GNG is not met.104.163.148.25 (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted) JJ Hantsch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjhantsch (talk • contribs) 03:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, totally blown away by the depth of reasoning and articulate voice.104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty standard TV reporter CV. --Calton | Talk 15:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Becoming reporter of a highly notable television is not really enough. D4iNa4 (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delelte Initially was surprised to see this here: I love the podcast, and she's excellent on it. Did some digging for sources, and yeah, there just isn't anything out there about her beyond "Bloomberg hired her." Great work, not notable. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teun In der Maur

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

I do not believe this individual meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I admit the article is extremely lacking. But from the sources subject seems notable. The article needs improvement for sure. If it is found that subject is not notable then I will support delete instead. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit stubby, but the sources are there and he won a reasonably important national level sailing trophy. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not as an adult. Every article is basically showing results at youth competitions. Papaursa (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 16:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: GF relisting after adding to new delsort category - I personally think the transport delsort category was not an appropriate place to put this
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 16:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I went through the sources and could not find any significant independent coverage of this young man. All of the competitions mentioned are junior/youth events. The last competition I could find him mentioned in was 2016 and records show he was 17 at the time. Sailracer [11] shows his finishes in world boys events as 118th and 119th, hardly notable, and with no events since 2016. This site [12] shows him as finishing 48th in the 2015 Optimist world championship under-18 division. No significant coverage and nothing to show he's competed at the highest level of his sport as WP:NSPORT requires. No evidence is given that he is closely related to the In der Maur family, but even if he is that's not grounds for notability (see WP:NOTINHERITED). However, if he is closely related that does give a possible target for a redirect. Papaursa (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 21:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Down Below

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

This disambiguation page does not actually point to a single existing Wikipedia article. All entries are red links. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There are two entries that meet WP:DABMENTION. This could be resolved with a redirect and a hatnote, but I have no sense of which of these would be primary. bd2412 T 17:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added 3rd entry The Cruel Sea (band) and deleted redlinks with no article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any reason to delete it now that it's been cleaned up :) Lonehexagon (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mother 2

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

Non-notable movie; no reviews to be found, sources provided are promotional interviews, launch blurbs, and YouTube links to trailers. (PROD removed by author). Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the most famous Armenian comedy movie. There is a significant coverage about the film and the producer is the most well known in Armenia also. Harut111 (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see the refs then. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These 2-3 people are nothing more than lungers in their lives, and the joy of their lives lies in the shamelessness of the ruling system. Let me tell you, they are always high above their own people. Naturally, these hate every successful person's successful work. And only the idea that most of our people liked our film is already killing them. Only the idea that more than 300,000 spectators came to the cinemas and rejoiced to kill them, the idea that people in dozens of towns and villages have come to watch and enjoy themselves in the temporary cinemas we have created. The fact that at the end of all the screenings there were always applause in the halls, that idea was killing them. The fact that people in the border villages remembered (honest, not just before the elections) The film was shown for free and people enjoyed a little bit of life, that idea kills them. And in general, when the Armenian people are just happy, that idea kills them.^[13]

- An Armenian news report on the film. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has been the subject of national news coverage as shown above Atlantic306 (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hachia

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

Promotional page for a non-notable Youtube channel. Absolutely zero secondary source coverage that I could find. Current "references" are all self-published (press releases, etc). Rockypedia (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. 655,897 views since May 2016. Fails WP:WEB. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nomination by blocked sock, needs more input by real users.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing I can find that is indicative of notability. MT Train^Talk 06:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any WP:RS, and there aren't any in the article. SportingFlyer talk 06:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invariance mechanics

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

This page is mostly unsourced, low quality content. One of the key sources was withdrawn by the author in 2007. We have other articles that cover issues of invariance in physics, such as Noether's theorem. Porphyro (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I declined this for a prod feeling that it needed a full AfD under srutiny from experts in the field (rationale here). However, I did this with great reservation; the article has many hallmarks of WP:OR. I am prepared to change my mind if evidence of this being an actual subject in physics is presented, or even a common term that can be redirected, but at the moment I'm not seeing it. SpinningSpark 15:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the one to PROD it, after a discussion at the physics WikiProject. I apologize for not linking to that discussion in the PROD notice. My concern stated in the PROD still sounds right to me: The page is garbled restatements of textbook material heaped on top of a "theory" that is sourced to a single arXiv paper which was withdrawn by the author. No links to the page occur "organically" in article text—only in "see also" lists and in a template created by a user blocked for disrupting physics articles. Google Scholar hits for the phrase are false positives. In short, despite having been created all the way back on 28 March 2007, it's a humdrum case of OR. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any secondary reliable sourcing for this topic. The article itself is written as someone's personal reflections on applications of their original research. Without any reliable sources, this article cannot stand. --Mark viking (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a bad article, but without RSs it has to be deleted. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. E.M.Gregory pretty much called it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renato Mariotti

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- he needs to win the election, not just run for it, to clear WP:NPOL, and otherwise he needs to demonstrate and properly source that he would already have been notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of the candidacy itself. But that's not what this article shows: his prior work as a laywer is referenced to two primary sources that cannot support notability at all, and one source that tangentially verifies the existence of a court case while completely failing to even mention the subject's name in conjunction with it (thus failing to be coverage about him.) And other than that, all we've got otherwise is campaign-related coverage, not even slightly out of scope with the volume or breadth or depth of campaign-related coverage that any candidate in any election could simply and routinely expect to receive. This is not enough to make a candidate notable just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that under WP:NPOL, coverage during campaign itself can suffice to pass WP:GNG if a candidate attracts an unusual amount of INDEPTH coverage beyond his local area.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice; completely agree with nom. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mariotti was notable before he declared his candidacy. He was the lead prosecutor in the first-ever anti-spoofing case, and he's a well known legal commentator. You seem to think that running for public office automatically makes a person NON-notable, regardless of his or her other accomplishments. Or maybe you're just nominating it because I created it, and you have a problem with me. --MopTop (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MopTop personalizing a discussion is generally a bad way to go. You say he was notable before his candidacy but based in which sources? The legal case entry cited doesn't even mention his name. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The question of whether he was notable before he declared his candidacy or not is a matter of whether the article shows sources which were covering him before he declared his candidacy or not. No article about any person can ever claim anything that hands them an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing even if the sourcing isn't there to carry it — but there are no sources here which support your claim that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons before becoming a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 12:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mariotti was a famous prosecutor long before he declared his candidacy for Attorney General. See updated 'Career' section with several news references from before his candidacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderlisa (talk • contribs) 02:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources that have been added are not about Mariotti for the purposes of demonstrating preexisting notability — with one exception which isn't enough all by itself, all of the others just namecheck Mariotti's existence within coverage about other things or people. That's not what we're looking for. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mariotti was an assistant US attorney, not the district attorney. If he had been the later he probably would be notable, but he wasnt, so he isnt at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A non-notable person. There are 170 assistant US attorneys in the Northern District of Illinois alone with many infamous convictions. Because Wikipedia supposedly has unlimited storage does not mean we should have a article on everything known to man or we end up with articles like List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States or Virginia A. Seitz (two years and resigned).
Keep - he's clearly notable as a lawyer and legal commentator. FWIW, I follow him on Twitter. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by reliable source coverage in media, not by who you follow on social networking platforms. But the sources here aren't demonstrating notability at all — in every single footnote here that predates the campaign coverage itself, he's merely namechecked as a giver of soundbite, not covered as the subject. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a man already well known as a successful public prosecutor and well-known pundit on air, in print and on twitter BEFORE he launched his candidacy. And, of course, it is true that press coverage during a campaign can be sufficient to pass WP:GNG. This discussion reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Canova, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conor Lamb - we couldn't reach consensus there, either.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Public School, Riyadh

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

No indication of notability per WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES or WP:GNG; no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources in English, Arabic, or Hindi. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now you guys only find my article in this world to be deleted. The fact is, none of you contribute to improve the article. You just put a label of speedy deletion or proposal deletion.

Now, DPS is a worldwide franchise of Indian schools in India as well as abroad and these schools are in the maximum of their cities. Now deleting this article doesn't make sense.

Hamza Ahmad Wiki Scientist (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of other articles being considered for deletion at any given time, Hamza Ahmad Wiki Scientist. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Current discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CollaborateCloud

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

Non notable company, fails CORPDEPTH. Sources available on the web don't seem much reliable. MT Train^Talk 12:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything that would fulfill notability guidelines for this topic. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo article. scope_creep (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not good references and too promotional. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ori Feibush

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

Non notable real estate developer. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. promotional article with overemphasis on local political details. Missed comment added by DGG. scope_creep (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 21:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Althia Raj

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

no actual evidence of notability . All available sources seem to either be items she has written herself, of passing mentions. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep additional references have been added. Ottawa Bureau Chief for Postmedia and HuffPo is notable. Nixon Now (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can reference it better than this. The references are a press release from the Huffington Post on a press release distribution platform, the primary source directory of her own writing for the Huffington Post, an "our contributors" blurb on the website of a TV show she's a contributor to, and a Q&A interview on a blog — which means that exactly none of them represent media coverage about her in reliable sources that are independent of her, because the ones that are reliable aren't independent of her and the one that's independent of her isn't reliable. A person does not get a Wikipedia article by having "coverage" from her own employers in staff profiles and press releases, or by getting interviewed by bloggers — she has to be the subject of reliable source coverage in real media other than her own employers to clear WP:GNG, and no journalist (no, not even Rosemary Barton) can ever make any notability claim at all that "inherently" exempts her from having to have that reliable source coverage just because her own employers' websites technically verify that she exists. Regardless of what a journalist's notability claim is, it's not the making of the claim that gets her over WP:JOURNALIST, but the quality of the sourcing that can be provided to support the claim — but blogs and staff "coverage" from her own employers don't cut it. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- By this argument all stubs should be deleted because they are not extensively sourced. The question is not whether sourcing is extensive but whether it is sufficient to establish who she is and what jobs she's held. It is. Then does the fact that she has been the Ottawa Bureau Chief (ie chief political correspondent) of several major news organizations make her notable? Are the positions notable? If yes then the article should remain even if sourcing is rudimentary or at stub level.Nixon Now (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, people are not kept just because their own primary source profiles on the websites of their own employers verify that they exist. It's a core principle of GNG that a GNG pass is based on the existence of appropriate and substantive and GNG-passing reliable sources, not on their all necessarily being in the article already, so that doesn't automatically translate into a blanket "delete all stubs" rule — one has to check whether better sourcing is available or not before deeming a stub to be deletable. But if somebody questions such a stub, then it's not enough to just theorize that maybe better GNG-worthy sources might eventually start existing — GNG-worthy sources have to be shown to exist before "GNG is based on the existence of appropriate sources, not the state of sourcing present in the article right now" becomes a valid reason to keep — and it's not enough that her own primary source web presence on the websites of her own employers nominally verifies the fact that she exists. She has to be demonstrably, not just theoretically, the subject of reliable source coverage in sources other than her own employers before a Wikipedia article becomes appropriate. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again without prejudice; I looked for good independent sources and fell completely flat, as per @Bearcat. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't need to be a critical biography, it can be a stub. Sources are sufficient to establish who she is and what jobs she's held. Is being and having been Ottawa Bureau Chief (ie chief political correspondent) for several important media organizations notable? If so, then the article has merit.Nixon Now (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No job that any person can hold is so "inherently" notable that the article would be automatically kept just because her own primary source profiles on the websites of her own employers verify that she exists. To be notable for this, independent reliable sources have to be writing their own editorial content about her and her work — even a stub still has to have some evidence of reliable source coverage about her, not just her own primary source presence on the websites of her own employers, before it can be kept. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable journalist who regularly appears on television media, has moderated an Ontario PC leadership debate. -- Evans1982 (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on television and moderating debates are not automatic inclusion freebies that exempt a journalist from having to be the subject of reliable source coverage about her. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Informed political commentator who appears frequently on TV. A clear thinker and good communicator. -- Quist (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do not keep a inadequately sourced article just because of editors' opinions about the subject's communication skills. Our notability standards for journalists are based on being able to properly source the subject as having attained certain specific, quantifiable accomplishments, not on people's subjective opinions about whether they're good at their jobs or not — every single person who exists at all could always find somebody who thinks they're good at their job, so if somebody saying that were all it took to get an article kept we'd have to keep an article about every single person who exists at all and then we'd just be LinkedIn. And conversely, everybody who exists at all could also always find somebody else who dislikes them and thinks they're bad at their jobs and should therefore be deleted. So it's reliable source coverage about her that has to tell us whether she's notable enough or not, and individual people's opinions about the quality of her work carry no weight. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:JOURNALIST, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Her work is regularly cited by other news organizations that she is independent from. Additionally, she passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Lonehexagon (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What significant coverage in sources that are independent of her is being shown where, exactly? Even in the new sources that have been added since this was initiated, she's the subject in any non-trivial way of exactly one of them, while all of the others are still mere namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things. Those are not the kind of sources it takes to make a journalist notable. Bearcat (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks an adequate level of independent, in depth coverage. In addition, far too many of the article sources are produced by someone she is associated with (e.g. HuffPo), which is the same thing-- non-independent.104.163.148.25 (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The references include several reliable secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of those reliable secondary sources are about her, but all just namecheck her existence within coverage of other things. Every single source here that's about her to the degree needed to count for a bean toward demonstrating her notability is non-independent "coverage" from her own employers. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not every single source: 'You're lying,' Huffington Post reporter says to senator about spending audit leak. Also, Samara, which posted an interview with her, is a charitable organization promoting civic engagement and an independent third party: HOW'D YOU GET THAT JOB? SAMARA INTERVIEWS ALTHIA RAJ, HUFFPO'S OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF Raj is not an employee of Samara. Nixon Now (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Q&A interviews in which a person is talking about themselves do not assist in demonstrating notability, and "coverage" on the organizational blogs of charitable organizations does not assist notability. So no, Samara doesn't provide an ounce of help for two reasons. And as for that CBC article, it contains less than 100 words of editorial content by the CBC itself, and is otherwise just screenshots of a tweetstorm — so it doesn't count as a data point toward passage of GNG either, because people do not get to tweet themselves into self-published "notable because they tweet" status. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it shows notable enough to be interviewed by an independent non-partisan public policy organization such as Samara. There's certainly no reason why a feature interview (where by definition the subject is talking about themselves) would not be evidence of notability as long as the interview is conducted by an independent, credible third party. I see nothing in WP:Notability that excludes interviews as a source showing notability. Nixon Now (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Notability can be demonstrated only by media outlets (not organizational blogs) writing about the subject in the third person, and can never be demonstrated by any source — regardless of provenance — in which the subject is talking about themselves in the first person. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability does not say say notability can be demonstrated "only by media outlets", but by "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Samara fits the bill. Nixon Now (talk)

The very definition of a reliable source is that it's some form of media (e.g. a newspaper, a magazine, a radio or television newsgathering organization, a documentary film or a book), and not the self-published blog of an advocacy organization that isn't a media outlet. So no, Samara does not fit the bill. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing the term media referring to mass media and media referring to communication medium (ie audio, video, text etc). Nixon Now (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not confusing anything. In Wikipedia's notability criteria, "media" does not mean "any audio, video or text based evidence whatsoever, inclusive of blogs and Flickr photos and YouTube clips and primary sources", but "media outlets in the sense of newspapers and magazines and books". So I'm using "media" correctly, in terms of how "media" relates to "notability" on Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate the source of this quote: "media outlets in the sense of newspapers and magazines and books". I cannot find that statement in either WP:NOTABILITY or WP:RS or anything approximating it (which is actually the point I've been making). Nixon Now (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V includes an explicit and specific list of the types of sources we're looking for: academic journals, university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, mainstream newspapers and radio or television content as long as it's verifiably archived somewhere. It also explicitly deprecates blogs, outside of content published in blog format by a media outlet that would still be a reliable source otherwise (e.g. Kady O'Malley's content on the CBC News website is not deprecated just because she "blogs" shorter pieces throughout the day rather than filing a single report on a big topic, because she's still doing it for, and still accountable to, the CBC.) Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so can I conclude from the above that your quotation wasn't an actual quotation but just something you made up and put quotation marks around? In any case, WP:V deprecates blogs that are self-published sources, not blogs belonging to an institution. Nixon Now (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People are allowed to summarize Wikipedia policy, and are not restricted to quoting it literally verbatim. My summary was 100 per cent correct about what "media" means in a Wikipedia notability context, and the fact that it was a summary of our reliable sourcing rules rather than a verbatim copy-paste of the entire policy document does not make that fact less true. And no, WP:BLOGS does not only deprecate individual Blogspot blogs, but does also deprecate group blogs — the only way a blog gets exempted from WP:BLOGS is if it's content published in a blog format by a newsgathering outlet that would still otherwise be an acceptable reliable source anyway (i.e. Kady O'Malley at the CBC) and therefore falls under the separate rule for WP:NEWSBLOGS. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing is one thing, fabricating a quotation is quite another. Nixon Now (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody fabricated any quotations. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You put "media outlets in the sense of newspapers and magazines and books" in quotation marks even though that statement wasn't a quote ie you fabricated a quotation even if you did not intend to. In future, do not use quotation marks unless you are actually quoting a source. Nixon Now (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation marks do not only indicate a direct quotation from another source; they can also be used to simply encapsulate an entire phrase as representing a single concept, such as contrasting "X as in this definition over here" with "X as in that other definition over there". Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Such usage is incorrect and unprofessional. See Quotation marks in English. Nixon Now (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Taber

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is indication of notability of the company he is CEO of, however the sources are primarily about the company, not about the person. Little, if any, coverage of the person independent of the firm. Relation to a notable topic does not establish inherited notability. Article should be deleted or redirected. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't substantial coverage of him? Strong Keep. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: did you actually read the source? The article is about Kevin Horton, an engineer working in the company. Taber is mentioned twice in the article. Again, this is only passing mention of Taber which does not establish notability. Horton is a different story. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent company. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Brockman: @FloridaArmy: Taber is highly notable within the video game industry for being the only person openly advocating and materializing the preservation of classic video game systems with FPGA technology. Without Taber, there wouldn't be any of this. I've posted a few more articles to help illustrate this on the main page. Also reorganized a few things more appropriately based on the above comments. It's important to be aware of the video game preservation movement and FPGA technology to understand how important he is in these categories. If there is any better way to showcase this on the article, please suggest. These articles are the most useful in terms of supporting Taber's notability: ^[1]^[2] ^[3]^[4]NESphreak (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)NESphreak[reply]

References

@NESphreak: those sources are similar to the ones in the article. They are about the firm or the product, not really about the person. To be relevant for the bio of an individual, you should be able to learn something about the individual: where was he born, where did he go to school, what's his academic or professional career, philanthropy he is involved it, family/personal stuff etc. All we learn from the articles is related to the company/product. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Brockman: Each of these things, details about his family: "Taber attributes his steadfast adherence to this enthusiast mentality to his late teenage years, which he spent re-evaluating the games of his childhood with his younger brother. Once they depleted their considerable collection of Genesis games like Sonic the Hedgehog and Streets of Rage — Taber describes himself as “more of a Sega kid than anything” — the Tabers decided to browse eBay to check out the games they missed. “I remember thinking, ‘Well, what if there were other games that were even better?’ And that just fed into the hobby,” he recalls. He points to the oft-overlooked late Genesis cult classic Ristar as an ideal example of this sort of legwork paying off. “That set the precedent for me,” he says. “That’s when I first encountered the enthusiast community, reading about forgotten gems like Ristar. I joined those communities. I was hooked.”" where he went to school: "Once the boxes piled up enough, Taber was selling more than he was buying, and making a fair bit of change at it. It was only then, in college in Montana, that he realized the commercial viability of his hobby. Eventually, he took the plunge, opening a small online storefront. But it was when he started futzing with the electronic components inside his prized plastic that he started to make a name for himself." are included in the Polygon article, the article is literally written about him. The other articles are filled with information directly from him about his company and advocacy for preserving video game history (GQ article, SCMP article, Polygon article)NESphreak (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Horton may be notable, but Taber clearly is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nn CEO; affiliate with one company Analogue (company) and a promotional CV. Notability is not inherited from the company, and there's nothing better. I would *oppose* a redirect to the company, as I'm not a fan of BLP redirects to corporations. Companies may get acquired, be renamed, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ankalamma. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angalaamman

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

patently WP:NOT / WP:BALL, WP:PLOT in current shape, WP:NOCITE. Devopam (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with Ankalamma. Feel like the Temples section at least can be saved and sourced. Honestly do not understand the WP:BALL component of the AfD. SportingFlyer talk 06:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect – Agree with SportingFlyer even a quick search of Google Scholar gives numerous references to Angalamman deity as shown here [14]. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swing Swindlers

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

Fails to meet WP:NOTABLE, more specifically does not meet any criteria of WP:BAND. Citations given in article are either band's own website, links to commercial sites selling albums, or passing references in news items which do not support the band's notability; many of the 'citations' do not mention 'Swing Swindlers' at all, although some of them do mention Mart Sander who is said in the article to be the group's founder and conductor. This article was flagged by me for speedy deletion, but swiftly reverted with the addition of a number of specious citations of this sort by User:Martsander - who has also previously contributed extensively to the article. As Mart Sander is (apparently) the founder and conductor of the group, if he and the reverter User:Martsander are one and the same, there is also an issue of WP:CONFLICT. User:Martsander's contributions to Wikipedia indeed seem to consist mainly of edits to this article and to the article Mart Sander. Smerus (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further 'citations' added by User:Martsander following my AfD referral are equally invalid. They include this link to a music agency representing the band, and this link to a music sales site which gives no support to the very unlikely claim that the record was made Jazz Album of the week by the Evening Standard and "earned positive reviews globally". Another 'citation', which is said to be review of the band's album, is no such thing, but is an article about Robert Farnon on what is apparently a junk website of odds and ends. Basically it appears that User:Martsander is just using WP for WP:PROMO and this is another reason for deletion.--Smerus (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerus‘s comprehensive analysis. My own searches failed to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpIndia.com

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

A PROD tag was removed from this page, hence the nomination here. I am unable to find evidence that this website meets the general threshold for notability. There are passing mentions in some reliable sources, but nothing in depth; the article as it stood before my cleanup relied on self-published sources and twitter. Vanamonde (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: the promotional version of the page has been restored by an editor now blocked for disruption. I have no intention of violating 3RR over this issue, and so the promotional version will remain until someone else cares to do something about it. Vanamonde (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I disagree with the proposal. The portal is very well known on Social Media, its page ranks are better than some sites from established media. This Proposal for deletions seems like an ideological vandalism to me. — Rajuonline (talk • contribs) 2:14 pm, Today (UTC+5.5)
Delete There is just a single passing mention in each of the two secondary sources in the article, nor can I find other independent sources that indicate this is notable. MT Train^Talk 08:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to reliably assert notability. Fish+Karate 09:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable news website with no assertion of significance, no third-party references. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : This seems to be politically motivated deletion request. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.177.236 (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)GauravonwikiIND (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC) —Blocked sock. MT Train^Talk 06:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : This proposal to delete more of a personal or ideological vendetta than a valid criticism. Opindia is young but a well known digital media portal with a dedicated reader base which is only growing in number. Shaz0224 (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC) —Blocked Sock. MT Train^Talk 06:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a random political website. The page mentions 'achievements' few others than the owner of the site would even notice. No notability, no authority, no credible references from independent sites. Listed in several places among political propaganda publications of India's ruling BJP. 150.242.199.11 (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per nom.No non-trivial covg. about the subject in RS.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - not notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aye Minn Htet (politician)

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

Non-notable youth politician or activist at local level. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to establish Notability. References consist of listings. No in-depth or non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: This article may meet WP:A7. --Phyo WP (message) 17:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: This article is use fake information from blog. Kyal Sin Sita (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a role that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing, but the article is referenced entirely to primary sources — 75 per cent of them being his own blog — that cannot support notability under WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: as per WP:A7. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 08:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo de Ramos

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

Not notable; only claim to notability is a few appearances on reality TV, which doesn't meet WP:ENT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 4 of the 8 references are IMDb and YouTube, which are not reliable sources. The other 4 references are the BBC, The Star and Lupus Films. Even with those reliable sources, this person is not notable enough to have a article. --★Yexstorm2001★ (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor contestant of reality tv shows, refs don't support notability. Szzuk (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities with computer engineering programs

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

List is very dynamic with no context whatsoever, not verifiable per WP:V. Wikipedia is not indiscriminate collection of things, WP:NOTGUIDE. This comes under WP:LISTCRUFT. Störm (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

Delete all. Unencyclopedic. --Michig (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and WP:NOTDIR. MT Train^Talk 07:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Wikipedia is not an enrolment guide for universities. Ajf773 (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because we're not a university admissions guide. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some more related lists, they are:

Delete all names and scopes of programs do not always line up. This also changes a lot over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magic in Once Upon a Time

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

Totally unsourced, completely in-universe article, does not meet general notability guidelines. -- Alex^TW 05:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like unsourced original research to me, and I doubt it can be adequately sourced. If anyone feels any of it can be sourced and merged to the series article(s) I would be ok with that. --Michig (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and unlikely to be a notable topic. Ajf773 (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete this painfully WP:FANCRUFTy WP:ESSAY. Mangoe (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Compare to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wizards of Waverly Place spells; a list of unnotable plot devices. Nate • (chatter) 19:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the entire articles content is more appropriate for a fansite not an encyclopedia. Esuka323 (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the above discussion. I would not be opposed to a redirect to the article on the main television show, but I doubt enough people would type this phrase out in full during a Wikipedia search to justify it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of unsourced research as stated above. Delete as per WP:ISNOT, since this appears to be a personal essay. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The clarification of the role led to many keeps being withdrawn and the weakness in the sourcing has not been overcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A K M Abdul Awal Mazumder

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

The article is extremely promotional with poor sources. The largest number of citations is to a website of a book publisher. It also uses the Bengali language wiki as a source. From the content and citations used it appears the subject does not meet GNG or the notability requirements for writers. This also appears to have copied sections from his official CV.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (per WP:POLITICIAN) as he was a National level civil servant for seven years, served as the Secretary for the Ministry of Education and deputy secretary for the Ministry of Science and Technology in Bangladesh. The article is unduly weighted to the fact he then went into the private sector to run large companies and universities. It could use some improvements. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have removed peacocky words from the article which has way too much details, the majority of it unsourced, so a lot more work needs to be done (probably remove at least half), agree with Prince of Thieves that Mazumder should be a ~~keep~~ as having held senior government positions, although some more citations to these would be nice. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- how does he met WP:POLITICIAN, he was not elected to any post but was a bureaucrat. The head of a Ministry is the Minister. He clearly does not meet GNG.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you have to be the head of a ministry to make you notable default for that position. Maybe if you are a top ranking deputy minister. However the secretary of a ministry is not a notable politician, but a background functionary. So there is no default notability there. The sourcing is wweak and does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the posts are roughly equal to United States Deputy Secretary of Energy and United States Deputy Secretary of Education. If that does not meet WP:POLITICIAN #1 - "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." Then this would have to be a delete for lack of sources and WP:PROMO issues. Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Deputy Secretary post would equal either deputy minister or State Minister. United States Deputy Secretary of Energy is a political appointment while he is a career bureaucrat.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you define a bureaucrat from a politician? Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a bureaucrat (civil service officer) he would have joined the Bangladesh Civil Service as an officer after an entrance examination. He would reach the rank of secretary through promotions and after years of working in the civil service. A politician (minister/State Minister) is appointed by the Prime Minister, the Head of government, to oversee the ministry.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What confused me is that both people are operating in the higher levels of government at a similar level, but I can see the distinction, !vote struck above. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, having read the above, i too have struck out my "keep", thanks to the more experienced editors for their succinct explanations/reasoning. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find sources that meet AUTHOR or POLITICIAN or WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very Weak Keep~~. This is a tough call. He is an important person. However, he doesn't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:NPOL won't apply. He appeared in many important roles. But, we don't have a clear WP:Bureaucrat. WP:ANYBIO is debatable. Sources aren't scarce, but not overwhelming either. So, may be, we can keep it! --nafSadh did say 22:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renchi

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

A non-notable website. As a Hongkonger, i never heard of it. Available source in google search were reskined press release. 人氣, which could transliterated as "Renchi", was another generic term that should belongs to wiki-dictionary. Matthew_hk t c 05:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the website did existed as a trading website. [15] but seem no mention in Cantonese media (the native language in Hong Kong is Cantonese language/dialect), only on internet forum and company directory. Matthew_hk t c 05:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 05:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finally found one article from Apple Daily for the company [16]. However, the newspaper was famous for tabloid journalism and paid article, not sure it can support the notability of the website or not. (the newspaper was not bad as a citation for routine fact BTW). The article itself was about the website and the founder's (鄭維章) new website zh:享樂團購網, as well as his start-up experience. Also, it did mentioned Renchi.com was headquartered HK but target customers were America and Europe. However, i can't find reliable secondary source, only press release and forum links. Matthew_hk t c 06:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it played a key or pivotal role in the online gaming scene, perhaps some enthusiast will show up here and tell us so. Absent that, Matthew_hk's analysis is clear, and I could find nothing about the website elsewhere. – Athaenara ✉ 10:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per above. Not notable at all. - Wefk423 (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mercer County Community College#MCTV 26. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MCTV 26

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

Unsourced article, appears to be full of original research. I'd actually be okay with merging this into Mercer County Community College, but cannot verify the accuracy of any of the information. The station's website no longer exists (leading me to believe the station doesn't either) and a search doesn't bring up anything either. Without any sources to satisfy WP:V, I think deletion is the best option. Rusf10 (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mercer County Community College. It appears that it does exist, at least as of Dec 2017. There's a few snippets of info here and there available. Most of this page can be deleted in the merge; a short mention should be enough. Rockypedia (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mercer County Community College#MCTV 26 section I just created. Non-notable college run tv station with limited media coverage. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to West Milton, Ohio#WMPA-TV. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WMPA TV

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

Public Access station, fails WP:GNG. There are no sources, the only thing I could find was on the town's website. Even that doesn't have much information, so we're looking at a page full of original research. Rusf10 (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge verifiable content to West Milton, Ohio. It's true that there's very little online to even verify that this station exists, but there IS a little... so I think it's safe to assume it exists. Most of this can be deleted though (like the grilling the cat story, and much more). Probably deserved a short section on the West Milton article. Rockypedia (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to West Milton, Ohio#WMPA-TV section I just created. Local community access cable station for small community, and with no corresponding media coverage. Fails WP:GNG TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to West Milton, Ohio#WMPA-TV. Plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mz7 (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roman language

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

Every entry on this page is essentially a misnomer, there is no "Roman language". - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: they are all (or most) terms which someone might think to be called "Roman language" and are likely to be helpful to some readers. WP:IAR if need be. PamD 09:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems a perfectly reasonable search term in any event. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an obvious search term for which disambiguation is needed. Our article on the Roman language (which is called either Romanesco or Romanaccio) is at Romanesco dialect, not an obvious title if you happen not to know, or to have forgotten, that name. Clearly it needs to be distinguished from the Ancient Roman language. The other items are all plausible too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely enough entries that could plausibly referred to as a "Roman language" (Latin, Roman empire languages, Roman Italian dialect, Romance languages). The others, even if not referred to as a "Roman language" are certainly close enough that their inclusion would be helpful for readers, even if that has to be under a "See also" section. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a useful disambig page. I would maybe reconsider the "You might be looking for:" header at the top of the page, as that doesn't seem very standard to me. There should be a better way of wording that. Rockypedia (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There may not be a Roman language; but that is why this page is useful. Its is certainly a plausible search term.TheLongTone (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure how you would reference a page like this but as a subject, it deserves a Wikipedia page Geymarfan (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not that this discussion needs more help, but I can easily think of times I would have found this page very useful. – Athaenara ✉ 11:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Tedesco III

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

Non-notable county politician and mayor, fails WP:POLITICIAN. No significant coverage other than in the local newspaper (and most of those stories are about election results). Rusf10 (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to meet GNG, there is no expectation in the GNG that county politicians have national or international attention, just "multiple reliable sources". The GNG trumps any other guideline. The consensus at County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey was to merge all smaller county executive articles into a single list. Someone needs to start County executives of Bergen County, New Jersey.--RAN (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the articles are about his local political career; fails WP:POLITICIAN. SportingFlyer talk 02:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine citations in minor, local (northjersey.com, bergen dispatch, etc...) news only. The General Notability Guide is a presumption of notability, not an ironclad guarantee. An article for every runofthemill small-town mayor or councilman would truly be indiscriminate trivia. TheValeyard (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN is the important note here, as there's no way he meets GNG. A local politician would be expected to have coverage in multiple local publications; such coverage is routine and doesn't mean he meets GNG. Agree with MT Train and TheValeyard on this one. Rockypedia (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like routine coverage stuff to me, as others have also noted. Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every local politician on earth would always pass WP:GNG if all we had to show was "some local media coverage exists", but every local politician on earth is not deemed to automatically pass WP:NPOL just for existing — so RAN is wrong, politicians at this level do have to show a credible claim of being more notable than most other mayors and municipal councillors and school board trustees could also show. But that's not what's being shown here at all — the only discernible notability claim here is "some local media coverage exists", which isn't enough for politicians at the local level of government: there has to be enough media coverage (in either volume or geographic range or both) to show that he has a credible claim to being more notable than most other people who hold the same role elsewhere without getting a Wikipedia article for it. Bearcat (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete contrary to what some editors believe we do not have special exemtions that make virtually every local office holder in New Jersey notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be undeleted and/or draftified on request if the subject plays at a fully professional level in the future. Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Holthusen

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

Not a notable athlete. Unsigned by any pro club. deathgripz 00:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not being signed by a pro club at the moment doesn't mean the player is not notable. Quidster4040 (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While in future my end up pro it would be WP:CRYSTALBALL. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. NZFC^(talk) 04:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify We really don't have anything better to do with these WP:FOOTBALL articles regarding players that have every chance of playing in a professional league but haven't reached that threshold yet, as he's on trial with a professional team. SportingFlyer talk 05:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as stated by others, fails all the usual notability tests at the moment. Might be notable later but it's still WP:TOOSOON to tell. Rockypedia (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while I completely agree with the delete votes above, there's every chance he'll get a professional contract in the very near future, and the article is pretty good in spite of the lack of notability. Really think this one's a Draftify. I can shepherd it. SportingFlyer talk 17:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep He played 14 games in the top level of New Zealand football and has played at Under 20 international level. A definite keep. Cls14 (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those two criteria pass WP:NFOOTY, unfortunately. SportingFlyer talk 08:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Danilack

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

Not played a professional game or even signed for a pro team deathgripz 00:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even a WP:TOOSOON as he doesn't appear to be with a professional organisation anymore. SportingFlyer talk 02:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete good example of WP:TOOSOON and it looks like he may never reach the professional level. Can always be recreated if he ever does. Rockypedia (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify good information here that could placed in a future article if he plays for Bethlehem Steel FC. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Genderqueer. History remains undeleted; selective merge to be done at the discretion of any participating editor. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enbian

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

This neologism is only sourced to Tumblr, and I don't find any reliable references. I don't know whether it's a plausible redirect term or not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opening the discussion! A big problem today is that a lot of discussion of marginalized groups happens in closed groups in social media platforms etc. The term enbian is indeed very very young, however it is spreading quite rapidly in nonbinary groups on social media, where people have long been looking for a term similar to gay or lesbian to describe love between nonbinary people. I would argue that this term will become quite significant and widely known in nonbinary communities in around a year, currently it is just starting to spread. I have split opinion regarding deletion: Indeed the term is not yet widely known, however in my opinion it is a term that is unlikely to have competition to become the primary term to refer to something that like gay and lesbian is in strong need of a term. for it to become widely known, a Wikipedia entry is helpful since for many it is the first place to look for information, maybe even when searching from other articles on orientation etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of course, and not about primary information, so thats why i have split opinion. Maybe i can ask in some nonbinary groups if there are bloggers who are using the term.--Mangostaniko (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete look even if there was a reliable source, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is simply a word for a concept that already has more than one article, but the topic is best covered at Genderqueer. If it is not yet widely used outside the LGBT community, then it may be better placed at LGBT slang. Either way, I can't see how we can support a whole article for a simple definition of an existing topic. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(in case it wasn't clear) I am suggesting this article is deleted, but pointing out the content can be written into either the Genderqueer or LGBT slang articles, depending on which is the best fit. It could be considered that this page is made into a redirect to an {{anchor}} on either page. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that it wouldn't be appropriate here even if it were sourced, as it's just a word, and would do fine as a dictionary entry. Not even close. Rockypedia (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LGBT slang or possibly Genderqueer. It's definitely a word in use, but the sources are basically all primary and none secondary; i.e., the lexicographers haven't caught up with it yet. XOR'easter (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if redirect to a section in Genderqueer is possible, i would be in favor of that. Mangostaniko (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a section in Genderqueer, per talk's argument. I will also point out that we do have quite a large article for the word that describes a relationship between two heterosexual people: Marriage --Theredproject (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage is tied up with all sorts of legality, ceremony and tradition that make it a thing onto itself, and anyway, an Enbian couple could get married too, it's not specific to heterosexual people. Maybe in 20 years this will have a long article and lots of sources, but right now it is fledgling term for a developing concept, that is already covered in other articles. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Genderqueer, agree with the redirect folks' rationale but merely redirecting will not be helpful as there is no description of the term there. --J04n(talk page) 13:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.polygon.com/2018/2/5/16965328/analogue-super-nintendo-super-nt-making-of

[2] ttps://www.gq.com/story/the-fight-to-preserve-nintendos-past

[3] ttp://www.scmp.com/culture/arts-entertainment/article/2118165/retro-gaming-gets-21st-century-boost-analogue-consoles

[4] ttp://www.nintendolife.com/news/2018/02/analogues_christopher_taber_opens_up_on_the_super_nt_and_future_projects

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]