Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 March	2 April >

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello in different laguages

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, including a language dictionary. This content might be more suitable for Wikiversity, since it appears to be written as a guide, which is not the tone we strive for on Wikipedia. The references are all pretty much just Google Translate, which is not sufficient for providing the nuance/accuracy of a more reliable source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy delete This is not an encyclopaedia article and it never could be one. We already have an article for Hello and the Wiktionary entry for Hello covers a large number of translations in good detail too. Also, we are not taking linguistic advice from people who can't spell "languages" correctly. :-p --DanielRigal (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Out of scope for an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions because misery loves company. DanielRigal (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as out of scope and non encyclopediic conten since Wikipedia is not dictionary and doesn't teach people meanings in various languages. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a phrasebook and, as DanielRigal noted, we already have articles that cover most of what the author is trying to say. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 01:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Granted, I like this and think it is cool, but this is out of scope for us. Seems to fall afoul of WP:LIST, and we're really not a linguistic resource to quite this regard. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, that's what Wiktionary is for. Graham87 05:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor a foreign translator. Ajf773 (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notable topic, but inappropriate. wumbolo ^^^ 19:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adios and sayonara, but hopefully not auf Wiedersehen or au revoir. Il neige (it's snowing). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tchuss, ja. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a topic of encyclopedia. --Yeoncong323 (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it sounds interesting, I do not think it belongs on Wikipedia. Expertwikiguy (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasta La Vista, Baby! - wikipedia is not a place for lists of words. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:26, 8 April 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 redirect to Ubisoft. WP:SNOW redirect, seems cut and dry. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UbiWorkshop

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

"Ubi Workshop" appears to relate to Ubisoft's merchandise store. I couldn't find any reliable sources (or any sources for that matter) detailing exclusively a short film company by this name, but an in-house merchandising team (far from a subsidiary). The only source presently in the article appears to be unreliable AND dead. Smells like original research to me. In any other case, it would definetly fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Could perhaps be turned into a one-liner on Ubisoft Montreal and redirect there.^[1] Lordtobi (✉) 22:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ubisoft, it is their merchandising store, 1 dead ref in the article. Szzuk (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ubisoft per above (possibly merge, if source can be recovered). ansh 666 17:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ubisoft. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:44, 4 April 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) 13:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chihiro Hasegawa

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom, the sources (while botched in their own right) and not independent of the subject matter nor reliable. Considering the subject matter, this seems to be a BLP violation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being in lots of non-notable videos does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have lot's of proper references, and I think having done over 100 porn videos makes this person notable in the industry she is in, maybe she is not a famous person but we need to look at it as a niche. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:55, 7 April 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 Jungle de Ikou!#Natsumi Rokudo/Mii. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mii (Jungle de Ikou!)

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

Was AfD's several years ago. Has been re-created and still has no established notability. Current references are imdb and what appear to be two fansites. Was returned to redirect, but recent creator thinks the current sourcing is enough to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - Character from a fairly obscure and old OVA series, that has no real-world significance or coverage. At best, maybe a redirect, but considering the series is mostly forgotten now and thus the title might not longer be a viable search term, I wouldn't be opposed to a delete. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. The sources cited are 1) IMDb (Not RS), 2) MyAnimeList (Not RS), 3) Fan site that is mainly just a bunch of screen shot pictures (Not really RS) with no content to analyze the character. There is no notability shown for the character independent of the series. Editor would be better served updating the descriptions on the Jungle de Ikou! page for all the characters and referencing those to episodes or RS websites. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:19, 3 April 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 Withdrawn by nominator after stubification by another editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Houghton (died 1559)

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

The contents of the article do not relate to the subject, but, I suppose, to one of his ancestors and appear to have been copied and pasted. Rathfelder (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - article restored - to a stub. Rathfelder (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep having reverted to good version before an IP dumped a load of unsourced content about a different person on 14 Feb 2018. (@Rathfelder: might you withdraw this nomination now, as it's a perfectly respectable sourced stub for an MP?) PamD 22:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy to withdraw my nomination. Apologise that I did not think to roll the article back. Rathfelder (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Withdrawing_a_nomination. PamD 22:47, 1 April 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tudela FC Los Angeles

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

No evidence of notability. A Google search yields nothing more than their site, videos, blog posts and social media profiles. JTtheOG (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not only that, but it's full of redlinks. This seems very much a WP:NOTPROMOTION issue. Jay eyem (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a soccer group for kids hosted by someone who may or may not be a pro (no data on Mr. Tudela), but 1) doesn't really meet WP:NSPORTS and 2) I couldn't find anything on Mr. Tudela. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article creator is producing lots of these stubs. I would be surprised if there isn't a COI here, but he created this after I made him aware of the guidlines.Deb (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Does not look notable and most of content not referenced! Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yikes. SportingFlyer talk 07:23, 8 April 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceCrafter

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

The article has no references and has no indication of notability. And hence, doesn't qualify WP:NSOFTWARE.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 21:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete copy paste from somewhere in French, stubified, declined speedy, prod removed, no refs in the article, nn. Szzuk (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:28, 8 April 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 07:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of open access repositories in India

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. The list consists of a bunch of websites of non notable repositories. More of a project for Wikiversity Ajf773 (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looking at the two policies that would seem to apply, WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and WP:Directory (specifically, points 1, 4 and 7), I don't this really violates those. These are lists of open repositories of information. I wouldn't call that "loosely associated topics" in any way. They are pointers to other reference materials. My take is that the policies are designed to prevent business listings, pure statistics, current events listings, and the like. While we need to be careful with the criteria, I feel this topics are acceptable for an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about WP:NOTLINKFARM? Ajf773 (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Croatia~~ Since others make up these kinds of lists, the idea presented is not original research, and the list is compliant. The list for India and Africa appears to be a copyright infringement of http://www.opendoar.org/countrylist.php?cContinent=Asia, which only allows its data under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike license. so delete List of open access repositories in India and List of open access repositories in Africa. Strange this did not show when I reviewed the Africa page but does now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete List of open access repositories in Australia as a copyright infringement of http://www.opendoar.org/countrylist.php?cContinent=Australasia, delete List of open access repositories in the Americas and List of open access repositories in Canada copying http://www.opendoar.org/countrylist.php?cContinent=North%20America Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to understand how Croatia is different? The nature of the list is exactly the same, lists of websites where each list entry has no established notability, not even mentioned in most of the educational institutes either. Ajf773 (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:CIL and per nom, non encyclopedic content per WP:NOTDIR. @Graeme Bartlett: I believe Croatia is also copyright of this. --Muhandes (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig thinks Croatia are different enough, but on eyeballing it would also be a list copyright violation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Reason 1: The reuse of OpenDOAR content is not a copyright violation. According to the OpenDOAR official website: "OpenDOAR's data is available for re-use under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike license." Under the CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license "you are free to: [1] Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. [2] Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material." Reason 2: This list is similar to the List of libraries in India; List of institutions of higher education in India (part of the broader Education in India); and List of archives in India. All function as enriched directories with contextualizing wikilinks. -- Oa01 (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reason 3: The wikified, sortable list is fair use of OpenDOAR's information, since the new list in Wikipedia is meant to provide context about both open access and each host institution in India. In contrast, the "heart" of OpenDOAR is its extensive data about individual repositories. The wikified list does not focus on detail of repositories, but simply gives names and URLs. -- Oa01 (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Oa01 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

*facepalm*. The CC BY-NC-SA licenses are incompatible with the CC BY-SA licenses. The BY-NC-SA 3.0 license has a "ShareAlike" clause too (hence, BY-NC-SA), which requires all derivatives to use the same license. BY-NC-SA =/= BY-SA. --stranger195 (talk • contribs • guest book) 13:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia. --stranger195 (talk • contribs • guest book) 13:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the list here is a derivative work, and therefore not a copyright violation. -- Oa01 (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The SA with NC, means that the derivatives have to also include the -NC. So posting it here claiming that NC does not apply is a copyright infringement. It may not be an infringement to put it on Wikipedia, but claiming the wrong license makes it so. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how you feel about any copyvio, all of the lists in this AfD are a clear example of what Wikipedia is not. Ajf773 (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For Reason 1: Clearly a derivative of BY-NC-SA must also be BY-NC-SA, otherwise everyone can crop a BY-NC-SA picture and make commercial use of it. Since BY-NC-SA is not a compatible license on Wikipedia, we cannot use this material. For Reason 2: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so other lists cannot be used as an rationale per se. The other lists are may or may not be WP:CIL and WP:NOTDIR. This one is. --Muhandes (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete India. WP:NOTDIR. Also content will eternally fail the inclusion criteria WP:CSC so list would just be a blank page. Cesdeva (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all these pages are just replications of the information available at http://www.opendoar.org/countrylist.php . While they appear up to date now (all created on 1st of April), I can't see how they will stay concurrent with the source data. The OpenDOAR wiki page exists as an entry point to this database. Teraplane (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. However, if it is a suitable project for Wikiversity, deletion should wait until it's moved there. Cambalachero (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No opinoin, but not a copyright vio I do not see any copyright violation. It is okay to copy lists like this, even if there is a claim of copyright, when the information is not eligible for copyright. A "list of obvious things by region" is not copyrightable because it is a statement of facts. If the list were "recommended things by region" or a matter of someone's choice rather than fact, then it could be copyrighted. Wikipedia does not have clear policy on list like this. However, all of this information can go into Wikidata, and each of these organizations can have a Wikidata item. Although the functionality does not exist now in Wikipedia, I think that soon somehow Wikimedia projects will make it much easier for anyone to generate and share lists of things like if they are in Wikidata. I recommend considering Wikidata as a place for this regardless of Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:SAL, these don't seem to fit the stand-alone list criteria. Natureium (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I don't see why we should copy lists maintained by others, copyvio or not. This kind of linkfarms is also being added to other articles (see for example Open access in Italy). --Randykitty (talk) 22:23, 7 April 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) Iffy★Chat -- 15:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aqualandia

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

No sources, let alone being a non-notable waterpark Lewwitness (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 3600 reviews on tripadvisor. Szzuk (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tripadvisor reviews are completely meaningless here and can't be used to establish notability. That said, I did find Holidaymaker 'nearly dies' on 33m high water slide in Benidorm and COMUNICADO: Aqualandia presenta Cyclón, su gran novedad para 2018, which would seem to be enough to establish notability by themselves, so I would opt to Keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a tourist attraction, and as such there will be coverage in newspapers, travel guides, etc. We need to have a wp:Tourist attraction (currently a redlink) guideline or essay or whatever, to cover this subject towards reducing the number of useless AFDs about them. --Doncram (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But needs improvements to add references. Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Trip advisor reviews are effectively meaningless for the purposes of Wikipedia, however, I do concur that the sources brought forward by Dennis Brown seem to indicate notability, and I also concur with Doncram's assessment. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:48, 9 April 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. Consensus is that she meets WP:PROF (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susan M. Dray

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

I had originally put this up for speedy deletion, but the author came in and added sources. This said, the sources provided are all biographical sources and at least one article that the subject has written. My assertion is that this is not demonstrating notability as per WP:GNG and the sources are insufficient as per WP:RS. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have retracted the speedy deletion on the basis that more has been added, but the sources are yet questionable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Author: I am still not sure why this user thinks the sources are "questionable"? There are lesser traces of this person online and so these are the best sources I could find. In addition, could he please elaborate as to which exact sources are deemed "questionable", most of them are directly from organization's websites and the person's official CV. Once he does, I will go through each one of them to prove their reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsh6 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kumarsh6: They are unreliable exactly because they are from the person's CV. Fails WP:RS/SPS, w.r.t. "the article is not based primarily on such sources." deadwikipedian (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CVs are allowable for factual and uncontroversial information about the subject (like her education and employment history). They do not contribute to notability, but in cases such as this one, notability is based on the criteria of WP:PROF, not on the availability of sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article seems blatantly advertorial, with peacock words like "...an experienced American HCI...". If kept, it would need to be rewritten to be encyclopedic and comply with WP:BLPSTYLE deadwikipedian (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:RS. The article is primarily based on selfpublished sources. deadwikipedian (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too many sources that are actually articles written by her, not establishing notability. Other sources that are not independent from the subject matter. WP:GNG is the bar, and I don't see this passing it. Any BLP should have at least a few rock solid sources and this doesn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author: I have made numerous edits, please review them and let me know if the problem still exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsh6 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not, Kumarsh6. Please read up on our general notability guidelines, then turn your attention to our notability guidelines (more to the point than GNG) as well as our reliable sources guidelines - then focus on verifiability. If you need a "sanity check" on your work, that's fine - but please don't just find stuff, throw it up there, and hope for the best, because often times that still won't make the grade! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable if this is who I think it is. Susan Dray has a GScholar h-index of 17 and a total of 3343 cites including four works with 890, 791, 486 and 137 cites respectively. That passes WP:PROF. James500 (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. That's her. Hmlarson (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In light of the info James5000 has posted, I'm changing my opinion to keep. Passes WP:PROF, article has been updated so that doesn't violate WP:RS completely deadwikipedian (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. The article (like most) could be improved. StrayBolt (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ACM Fellow is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C3, along with the pass of #C1 discussed above. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C3 as argued above. The remaining problems (e.g., instances of overly promotional language) can be fixed in the normal course of editing. XOR'easter (talk) 14:46, 5 April 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CID Vs Adaalat – Karmyudh

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

Non-notable, non-reliably sourced article about a crossover television episode fails WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW. The only provided reference is from a non-reliable source and the article was originally started with a copyright violation. Aspects (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TOI, Indian Express, NDTV are all just episode summaries. TOI(2) is a passing mention. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM as coverage doesn't go beyond just announcement and non-critical summary of the episode plot. WP:TVSHOW is too vague concerning individual episodes Cesdeva (talk) 17:00, 2 April 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. G5 - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A23101990/Archive SmartSE (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knovos(Software company)

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

No reliable source to establish notability, fails WP:NCORP. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fluffy sources, primary sources, not real way to show it passes NCORP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See:
Knovos (5 revisions deleted)
Knovos (Company) (3 revisions deleted)
Knovos (Power Over Data) (6 revisions deleted)
Knovos (Software Company) (2 revisions deleted)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A23101990/Archive.

I am closing as G5. SmartSE (talk) 16:12, 2 April 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. Per WP:NBAND #6 as stated. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Jieqiong

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

non-notable person, fails WP:NMUSIC – the article was restored with an explanation that she is receiving a "significant individual coverage in China and Korea", which is not supported by sources in this article since this whole article is about the band she is a member of, all sources are just trivial and short, nothing in-depth, and she has ZERO solo releases in music. Snowflake91 (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – Article needs work, but her notability is beyond reasonable doubt. As the only Chinese member of two popular K-pop bands who often performs solo on Chinese TV shows, Zhou Jieqiong is very famous in China and South Korea. A Baidu search of her Chinese name yields a whopping 4 million pages, and a Baidu News search returns more than 200 recent news articles about her, with significant coverage from numerous media outlets. -Zanhe (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a few examples of those in-depth news coverage? A short articles "Zhou Jieqiong did that", "Zhou Jieqiong did this", "Zhou Jieqiong will guest on a TV show there and there" etc. is not a significant coverage. Snowflake91 (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See e.g. IJQ starbase, 360.cn, and the news site Edushi has a news portal dedicated to her. -Zanhe (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pristin: per above - individual has not acted nor have they released any solo music. Abdotorg (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense to redirect to Pristin while ignoring her significant career with I.O.I. Besides, many members of I.O.I have individual articles. -Zanhe (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reason; yes, some of those articles about IOI members (especially Yeonjung) probably doesnt meet criterias, you can AFD them if you want. And what is her "significant" career with IOI? Simply being a member of the band does not make her notable, no matter how popular the group is. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course simply being a member of the band does not make her notable. But didn't I already give you evidence of WP:SIGCOV above? -Zanhe (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Note that before nominating an article for deletion, checks such as a search for sources should be performed per WP:BEFORE, and simple news searches would reveal numerous sources - e.g. in Chinese and Korean. She qualifies under WP:NBAND #6 as a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. There is no requirement for solo releases nor for having acted. Hzh (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Besides, she does act as a dance coach on the popular reality show Idol Producer. -Zanhe (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Results on search engines are not relevant, there can be only a few results in reliable media, but all of them could be an in-depth coverage of the person with many details; there can also be a huge number of results, but however, all of them are just a short routine / trivial reports of her (or her group) activity, like in this case. And that #6 criteria has been discussed a lot on the talk page, it even reads "Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution", and how do you determine if she was just "a member" or a "prominent member" of the large group as I.O.I, she didnt even make top 5 in voting and was not a lead singer of the group either, so why is she a "reasonably prominent member" ? Snowflake91 (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to question the suggestion given in WP:AFD on what to do when starting an AfD and why you are right to ignore its guidelines, I'd suggest you do it in the talk page there, not here. I'm not sure you have checked the hundreds of news sources to say "all of them are just a short routine / trivial reports", given that first few pages already contain news article that cannot said to be short. Also that "reasonably prominent" would imply that it includes members who are not necessarily the most prominent, which you have arbitrarily cut off at top 5, perhaps you should explain why first. Hzh (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all of them are trivial random reports of what she was doing – "Pristin members will sign an endorsement deal with the cosmetic company", "Jieqiong was spotted at the airport wearing this", "Jieqiong posted this on instagram", "Jieqiong will appear on a tv game show as a guest" and that kind of fancruft reports. While the chinese sources – pretty much every single Chinese result are just a short reports/reviews of Idol Producer episodes, where she is mentioned as a cast member. Do you know what is a "significant, in-depth" cover of the person? Something like this, and not trivial reports in 4-5 sentences like those Korean/Chinese news articles. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that you haven't actually read much of the articles. I only glanced through a small number out of the hundreds of news links, and they show that she plays major roles in a few TV shows (one show is on wardrobe, perhaps that is what you refer to what talking about what she is wearing), and therefore she also qualifies under WP:ENTERTAINER #1 for significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. The sources you dismissed like this [1] in fact show why she qualifies because of the prominent roles she has in those shows, they are not just trivial passing mentions. I hardly know who she is because I don't pay much attention to modern Chinese or Korean pop culture, but just going through the sources it is clear that she qualifies under multiple criteria. Hzh (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Snowflake91, you asked for evidence of sigcov, and I gave you multiple articles from mainstream entertainment and news websites above, yet you still repeatedly claim there's no sigcov. This is a typical case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please stop. -Zanhe (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See those GNG criterias again – I cant help if you cant distinguish between "Coverage" and "Significant coverage". Again, none of those mainstream entertainment sites you listed are covering her in-depth, we had many AfDs for K-pop group members and the articles for persons with zero solo musical releases were always deleted, if thats the case, then every single member of any K-pop group could have an own article, because all of them would get a lot of results on search engines (mostly trivial mentioning of their activity – K-pop is so huge, that you would literally get dozens of articles if one random member would just dye their hair or something like that), but that doesnt mean that the subject is covered in-depth. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pristin: per above - I went through all links that would load, so far no in-depth coverage - just passing mention in results of the group or Idol Producer. With no solo exposure and no significant roles, it's just typical Kpop member as usually. Agree with Snowflake91 here. Evaders99 (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NBAND #6. Hmlarson (talk) 07:42, 4 April 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)} 16:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Bagration-Gruzinsky

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

Fails WP:GNG Non notable 14 year old daughter of Ana Bagration-Gruzinsky notability is not inherited, the sources are a blog and Facebook. No in-depth coverage. Theroadislong (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article appears to be non notable and sources shoddy/non reliable --Sau226 (talk) 09:34, 5 April 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 07:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Independence of Azerbaijan

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

The article looks a bit Forky and I think any material here should be merged with what ever article [Declaration of Independence (Azerbaijan)] [Azerbaijan Democratic Republic] [This is a good article. Follow the link for more information. Listen to this article Azerbaijan] maybe most appropriate, I am really not seeing what purpose this article serves. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This is bringing together two unrelated states occupying the same territory: a republic 1918-9 from the break up of the Russian Empire and which later federated into USSR and a successor republic to USSR. I feel sure that we have adequate articles on each without needing this one too. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an unneeded split of the history of Azerbaijan. Two unrelated entities do not make sense being placed together like this. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 7 April 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) 13:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heavenkid

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

The article as it stands is a collection of self-promoting links. Virtually no third party reference to verify notability. The original PROD was removed by a major editor of the article. COI is suspected. Mys_721tx (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only non NTD reference is a press release from a film festival. -Mys_721tx (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A quick check on the links indicates no clear indication of having won all of those awards. I'm not entirely convinced it meats WP:N. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've never seen a show that won every award it was nominated for, and only two (one?) SPAs have edited it, which makes me suspicious about those awards as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:37, 1 April 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. Not much interest either, at this point no reason to re-list. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Halloran (ABC sportscaster)

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

Subject fails notability threshold under GNG and JOURNALIST. He is one of many, many local US TV News/Sports/Weather on-air talent. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 19:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stongest possible keep there is LOTS of coverage of this individual's work as a sportscaster, his books, and his illness. Here's just one example. His Micky Ward book helped inspire the movie and is widely reviewed. I don't understand this nom. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The Fighter is NOT inspired by Halloran's book, but was inspired by High on Crack Street: Lost Lives in Lowell. Halloran worked as a consultant on The Fighter. That's not a ticket to notability. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 02:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to reliable sources Halloran's book DID inspire aspects of the movie and is credited in it. This author was a consultant on it and a Whitey Bulger film, another subject he wrote a book about. See here. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The most that can be said, based on that source, is that he wrote some book. Not a ticket to notability still. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:46, 1 April 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Bishop

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

An LDS mission president, community colleges president, or an author of a few obscure religious books does not make for notability; rather, individual is notable for one event: accusations that are better covered on its own page. Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - wp:1E: "... The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. ..." --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(As for the wp:Notability_(events): "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" - I believe this is the case here. This is not just a routine news report about a minor event. The news have already made its topic notable.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

striking duplicate !vote. Primefac (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was my only !vote.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination itself was your first !vote. WP:AFDFORMAT says "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line". Dorsetonian (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bishop was President of Weber State University which meets WP:PROF "#6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Therefore he definately gets an article. The whole assault issue was not in the article when I approved it and that issue has been largely added by the nominator. If the assualt allegation warrants a mention, it needs to be a short and sweet mention - and definitely not an entire article. I've tried to counsel the nominator on this but hey clearly are not getting my point. Legacypac (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weber State Univ. did not exist 1972-1978. (Neither did Utah Valley University.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Edit conflict with Legacypac). Weber State University is hardly a "community college". He held the highest position there [2], and as a result meets WP:PROF. Acebulf (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire. 1st Pres. of Weber St. U. in fact was Paul Thompson...in 1990. Pls see: (1) List of Weber State University people#Principals and presidents (2) a quote from a recent profile of Bishop (owing to recent events) in the local[-to-Weber] Ogden UT Standard-Examiner: "Bishop contributed to Weber State’s shift from a college to a university...".--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At least as of 2004 Weber State Univeristy barely granted more bachelors degrees than did Henry Ford College which is a community college. In the 1970s Weber State University was a two year community college just begenning transitioning to giving four year degrees. We already have a seperate article on the accusations against Bishop. Bishop is the author of a few books virtually no one has heard of, ran a place that in the 1970s is best described as a community college, was a mission president (which is clearly not grounds for notability), was president of the MTC (which is also not grounds for notability, and so not defining I could not even tell you who the president of the MTC was when I was a missionary there). He was also a professor at BYU, as best I can tell the director of some of its teacher education functions. I do not think any reasonable interpretation of Academic notability point 6 would make Bishop notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is deleted we should delete the article on Wilford M. McKendrick. Even if it is kept, McKendrick was the principal of a high school for two years. Although there may be more info that might indicate notability for McKendrick.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What are we going to do about Joseph Bishop sexual abuse allegations? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally speedy keep. The nominator significantly expanded the article's controversy section, split it into an article of its own, and now wishes to delete the original article. That would be a cut and paste move which will lose the earlier edit history and the talk page discussion, and should instead have been been done by moving the page to a new title and removing the extraneous content. Therefore, even if we support the nominator's proposal that there should be an article about only the event and not the subject, the nominated article should still not be deleted. Dorsetonian (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and also delete the spin-off article about the unsubstantiated accusations. This person is not notable and we should not have an article about unproven accusations about a non-notable person. That article is a blatant BLP violation since there has been no conviction, and the alleged offense, though serious, is commonplace. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cmt - Accdg to wp:1E, wp:GNG & wp:Publicfigure are incontiguous. In the US, one inadvertently becomes a public figure when accused of a crime, as far as 2ndary sources covering the same in the news media (in this paricular case, the NYT, WaPo, FNC, HuffPo, USNews&WorldRpt, etc.) is concerned. WP does not have to follow suit, of course (e.g., a recent Mass. court decision controversially renders even victims as inadvertent public figures). (IMHO, due to the present case's notoriety, due to the alleged abuser's non-notability otherwise, perhaps a reasonable compromise will be to render him into the generic "the Missionary Training Center's mission president '82-'86 and have it a child article to the parent article "Mormon abuse cases." -- And, such discretion w rgd those inadvertently become public figures should be done across the WP project, not just here. [Cf.: "Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Boston," "Catholic Church sexual abuse cases"], etc.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the related page Joseph Bishop sexual abuse allegations is currently renamed 2018 allegations of 1984 LDS missionary-trainees' abuse. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 allegations of 1984 LDS missionary-trainees' abuse Dorsetonian (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no clue how to engage with this non-visual editor so my apologies to other more experienced Wikipedia editors. I am the original submitter of the entry. I appreciate the efforts of others to make sure Wikipedia is not used as a tool to engage in character assassinations of others. A lot has been added to what I originally wrote around the sexual abuse controversy. I tried hard to be very neutral in my original coverage. If the additional edits have gone to far, then pare them down. The whole minimization of his role as a President of Weber State College seems like an effort to protect unfavorable association. It is quite easy to see that other Presidents of Webster State / College have Wikipedia pages and they perhaps are of equal notoriety for better or worse. (I didn't dive into whom of them were still living.) I just question the motives of trivializing Weber as not being major academic university. In terms of there not being a "conviction". There probably never will be due to the statute of limitations on this. There has been an undeniable confession by him to the police that he asked her to expose her breasts and that he was serving in a position that all within the LDS church would revere as quite significant. Faithcrisis (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No one "revers" the president of the MTC. We have never even gotten a full consensus that all general officers and general authorities of the Church are notable. Area Seventies, who are probably higher in the hierarchy than MTC presidents, are by consensus only notable for other things. If I had asked Every Mormon I know, which is a lot, who Joseph L. Bishop was 2 months ago, I doubt any would have known. While from a religious perspective Bishop asking a woman to expose her breasts is wrong, I find it hard to construe it as a criminal act, especially in light of the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:PROF is a hard standard to meet and if you meet it you meet it. It is nonsense to say Weber State College is not the same as Weber State University - same school. Additionally even if one argues that he was not notable before these allegations, all the press on the allegations makes him notable now. Legacypac (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Change my delete !vote above to: Speedily close AfD & delete blp! per extremely applicable considerations @ Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#BLPCRIME.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Commment in the last 10 or 20 years there has been a strong tendency for educational institutions to adopt more prestigious titles--in the US, many former technical institutes have become community colleges, many community colleges have found some method of granting a bachelors degree and called themselves colleges, many colleges have devised some sort of graduate programs and been relabelled as universities. (I believe a similar process has taken place in the UK). Though WP:PROfstates that we regard presidency of a major university as not just implying but proving notability , in practice we have been extending it to all universities and to 4-year colleges. DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there are many places in the US that do not grant anything above a bachelors degree that use the name university. Southern Virginia University is an example of this, but by no means the only one. There are regional issues as well. In the east we have Boston College and The College of William and Mary that are by any definition universities. In Utah and some surrounding states, university is pretty much designating any institution that grants 4-year college degrees. BYU-Haweaii and BYU-Idaho are other examples of the all undergraduate university. On the other hand in Utah, Wyoming and Idaho, there are junior colleges that are Snow College and similar. It should be kept in mind that community colleges and junior colleges are different. In almost all cases community colleges are junior colleges (although I am working on a post-bachelors certificate from Schoolcraft College which is a community college, so the issue is complex), but classic junior colleges like Snow College are not community colleges at all. The community college tends towards lots of technical programs, career orientation, while also having an emphasis on preparing people for universities. Most key it is almost always a multi-campus entity, with a clear attendance district that it seeks to serve. The junior college is a college that tends more toward liberal arts and general education, has most of its students transfer, will at times have a single campus, dorms, and some are even private institutions. Some also evolved from regional academies which were more at the high school level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cmt

Per wp:PUBLICFIGURE, if it turns out any 4-yr higher ed. institution pres. is automatically notable, all bets are off. You can't be part-way pregnant and more/less granularity of allegations would not necessarily translate to more/less libel (which wd not be legally actionable w rgd a public figure in any case).
W rgd nature of allegations as being not much, etc., yes, like most such, 'tis "He said, she said"--he: "Never anything nonconsensual"; she: her (attempted) rape![3]. (Cf. e.g. Bill Clinton's/Juanita Broaddrick's conflicting accts.)
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not emotionally involved in the whole LDS exposing breast scandal thing. If he is guilty of clergy sexual assault that is between him, his God, the girl, the church and maybe the courts but has no bearing on if he has a page here. He led a 4 year degree granting state owned school. Notable under Prof - full stop. The rest is a side show. Legacypac (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with earlier comment that Bishop was President of Weber State University, a major university which meets WP:PROF "#6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Therefore, he is a notable figure who should have his own page. He also wrote several books and academic articles, and served as the two-time president of the largest missionary training center for a major world religion. I see no legitimate justification for deleting this page.the truth matters 14:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pblowry (talk • contribs)

Keep This person, especially regarding the rape allegations, are highly notable in a region of the US (Utah/Idaho/Arizona) and more broadly as the \#metoo movement filters through different parts of society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.81.218 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the WP:PROF arguments above. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:12, 9 April 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. The page has been much improved since originally nominated, and I am convinced by those saying this passes WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Uribe

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

No plausible claim of biographical notability or general notability.

Google search shows that she exists and uses social media. Wikipedia is not Facebook or LinkedIn. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Looks like as clear case of WP:TOSOON. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. And I'm not even sure we can say this is WP:TOOSOON, because she is 63 years old and has been exhibiting for almost 40 years since she graduated from art college. If this is the most information we can find about her after four decades of work, I don't think she's suddenly going to become more famous in the near future. Richard3120 (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this person is Ana Lucía Uribe, not to be confused with Ana María Uribe, the niece of former Colombian president Álvaro Uribe... she has some notoriety due to drug trafficking charges. Richard3120 (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: Please add her full name with a source, not least to help readers who may be looking for the other Ana. Thanks. PamD 08:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are some sources Drexel show [4] Mention in Mother Jones article [5] another Philly mural book [6] Art Guide Texas [7] Offering here without interpretation or claims that they do/not establish notability.--Theredproject (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some sources from Newspapers.com and Project MUSE. Many individuals who have careers in the nineties aren't going to pop up on Google searches. Muralists are especially poorly covered, IMO. She passes CREATIVE. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please point out how she meets WP:CREATIVE? I do not see how that is possible.104.163.147.121 (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Creative is certainly not passed here, as it calls for major widely recognized contributions to the field. The contributions here are not minor and barely recognized, as evidenced by the difficulty to find proper sourcing.104.163.147.121 (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I would strike this !vote but my 121 IP above has expired. She does seem notable now that I look more closely.104.163.158.37 (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with @Megalibrarygirl this artist has met WP:NCREATIVE, as well as WP:GNG. Antonioatrylia (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Earlier comments need revisiting in the light of article improvements
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Her coverage in media was within Philadelphia in the context of overall arts and murals in the city, not herself specifically. Not meeting Wikipedia:Notability (local interests).Acnetj (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) was a failed proposal. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NCREATIVE + WP:GNG.Hmlarson (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her murals have been mentioned in two books about murals in Philadelphia,[8][9] and in newspapers [10]. One of her murals is featured on NPR.[11] I think she passes WP:ARTIST for her murals as "The person's work (or works)" have "become a significant monument" (they are significant monuments in Philadephia) and have "won significant critical attention" for the coverage in books, newspapers and NPR. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notability under WP:CREATIVE is a bit on the weak side, but the article is in decent shape and the sources check out. I don't see that the project would significantly benefit from the deletion of this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Her murals are significant monuments for the Latino community in Philadelphia. Her work is mentioned in two books from a major University press. She is featured in interviews in Spanish and a feature-length documentary about art and rural life in her native Colombia. In interviews, she mentions that because her primary medium is murals, some of her work in lower-income sections of Philadelphia have not survived over her career, due to arson, fire or demolition, making her current works more important to document as she gets older.Dorevabelfiore (talk) 20:09, 8 April 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apollos University

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

Does not meet WP:N. All references provided are questionable (from business listings and promotional services). No trusted media coverage to be found in a Google News search. The primary editor seems to have an interest in this institution. Umhsbrek (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News, Google books show nothing. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Huge private university. Obviously notable per WP:SCHOOLS. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in existing references suggest that it is a "huge private university". This article fails WP:N and WP:ORG. There is no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to satisfy WP:GNG. All references used in the current article are either first party, unreliable or trivial mentions. Most of the references are for the accreditation the organization has but they all do not establish the notability of the subject. Please see WP:RS on identifying reliable sources. Umhsbrek (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ARTN to educate yourself away from the popular fallacy that the sources presently in the article have anything whatsoever to do with notability. They do not, which is a fatal flaw in your nomination. You ought to consider withdrawing it. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a fallacy I was only relying the lack of reliable source in the article to establish non-notability. There are no reliable sources outside of Wikipedia. I quote WP:ARTN, "If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable." This is the basis of my nom. Umhsbrek (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Large private university with full government certification; do some WP:BEFORE. The nine-edit account seeming to know how to do two AfD's also raises some alarm bells. Nate • (chatter) 20:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and attack the argument not the arguer. I wanted to improve the article but I couldn't find any sources from Google. Most mentions of "Apollos University" are about people who have graduated there but not the university itself or business/university/course listings. Both types of sources do not establish notability. Umhsbrek (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Everything can be examined and scrutinized within an AfD, including the age and intent of your account. When you bring a nomination, you also understand that you have to build a proper case for deletion, which I have not found here. This includes your record showing that instead of regular edits, you immediately swerved to bring two schools to deletion, suggesting you've been here before and are certainly no new user. Nate • (chatter) 23:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you cared to look at my crosswiki contributions, you would have seen I have done a fair bit of editing on Wikidata. I came across this article there. I have also made it my policy to read as much as possible before contributing on another project. The proper case of deletion has been stated a number of times already, which is that there is no reliable sources to be found publicly available to improve the article. Let's analyze the six results from Google News:

[12] - Press release by the university republished on BusinessWire, a business distribution platform for press releases (not a reliable source because a press release is promotional and lacks meaningful editorial oversight).
[13], [14], [15], [16], [17] - Newspaper reports on people who have obtained degrees from the university or have worked at the university that are only trivial mentions of the university (does not meet significant coverage criterion of the general notability guideline). Umhsbrek (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:SCHOOLS standards. And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My own searching fails to find any WP:RS. There's first-party pages. There's directory listings in various education sites. There's facebook, linkedin, twitter, glassdoor, yelp, etc. But so far, I haven't found a single article in a newspaper or anything that I could use to get past WP:GNG. I don't understand And Adoil Descended's comment above; WP:SCHOOLS isn't a standard. It's not even a guideline. It's a list of other pages related to schools. What does Passes WP:SCHOOLS standards mean? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:13, 9 April 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 08:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poonam Jha

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

Casting director of only one notable film and revived a non-notable industry award which is not sufficient and does not establish the notability. The BLP was nominated for speedy deletion back in 2016 by @AllyD: but apparently tags was removed by the creator. The article has existed for over 1 year without having expanded any further.. Saqib (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I previously analysed the weakness of the article sources at Talk:Poonam Jha and it has not improved. The sources confirm that the subject has worked as casting director on a TV soap and in that role received an award which does not appear to be notable in itself. Searches are not finding better: not enough for WP:BASIC encyclopaedic notability in my view. AllyD (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AllyD above and WP:TOOSOON, the subject has not received enough coverage in reliable sources to qualify for an article. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:09, 2 April 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 08:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjana Banerjee

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

The subject has received some trivial coverage in independent RS but no significant roles in multiple notable films and apparently no large fan base thus clearly fails to meet WP:NACTOR. Saqib (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doea a fan base decide the legitimacy of a celebrity? That is a very flimsy argument. And there are various articles on Sanjana Banerjee in the reputed media house like Times of India and also Bengali media. More citations may be added to make this read well. Starlight 09:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpadma (talk • contribs)

Why not? How one can become a celebrity without having a fan base? See the point no. 1 at WP:NACTOR. --Saqib (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 1 April 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. As postdlf points out, similar deal with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional historical events. This one is less detailed, and, notably, is missing Unification Day. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Real dates in fiction

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

An indiscriminate list of "real dates" used in fiction. Most of the fiction work uses real dates. (Not Alice in wonderland, it has a different calendar).

I cant see the encyclopaedic value of this article, or any educational value either. Borderline OR. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way, way on the "indiscriminate" side of any reasonable line that could be drawn. A select few dates from fiction have gained special distinction and become events in their own right, like Festivus and Bloomsday. We could have a list of those, but this isn't that. XOR'easter (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this will result in an indiscriminate list of little use. Pretty much every movie or tv show has a real date mentioned somewhere. What is the use or value of this information? The list is not supposed to include "parallel universes". Well isn't every work of fiction a parallel universe, e.g. when city mayors, police chiefs, presidents etc have fictional names? _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the list is far too indiscriminate. If a specific date from a work has attracted critical and/or academic attention, it is better to include that information on the article on that work. Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously indiscriminate and original research. Ajf773 (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insanely indiscriminate; basically "everything in any work of fiction ever made described as happening on a specifically identified date". See also discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional historical events, which was essentially the same concept. postdlf (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Would fail WP:GNG and require WP:OR. -- Dane ^talk 04:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what they said. Derek Andrews (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A11. wumbolo ^^^ 19:08, 3 April 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 and redirect to 2K Sports. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PAM Development

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

No signs of notability, fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH. Lordtobi (✉) 08:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why can't it be merged/redirected to 2K Sports? Regards So Why 10:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The company was independent for 10 of its 13 years of lifetime, yet we have just about no information on it. The one-liner on the 2K Sports is not quite enough to justify a redirect, as the reader will find out practically nothing if they were sent there. Lordtobi (✉) 10:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they will learn that the company was later part of 2K Sports. If we delete the article without a redirect, they won't even learn that. So how is the latter preferable? Regards So Why 11:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Truly a good argument, but I think it should be cleansed of its history so it is not restored over and over by uninformed users (I'm often seeing this on redirect-AfD'd articles that some random users wish to keep against consensus and keep restoring post-closure). I think I'd not be opposed to re-redirecting it afterwards. Lordtobi (✉) 19:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Their products were notable to have their own pages and one was licensed from a major (if poor) film and the other licensed a highly popular football player, the company will have more than enough sources out there to sustain an article.217.43.203.61 (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:INHERIT, this is not a valid reason to keep the article. There are sources that say that the company developed a game, but there is no actual info about the company. We don't even know who the company was founded by, for example, or when it was bought by Gaia Capital Group (which it was at one point). Lordtobi (✉) 19:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - This outlined above is probably the best outcome. As it can't satisfy it's own article, and is later purchased by 2K sports, a redirect is preferable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to and/or merge with 2K Sports. That is most likely the best outcome that could arise as it can't stand on its own. As for deleting and then redirecting, would just semi-protecting (or higher) the redirect suffice? That would (at minimum, depending on level) prevent IP and new editors from reverting it. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:53, 9 April 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. In addition to what has been said below, I will make the following comments. The article is blatantly promotional. It contains elements of copyright infringement, with text copied word for word from a web page about a completely different poet. It contains what appear to be elements of hoax, such as the claim "she is resident Editor Khabrain Manchester UK" which a look at that organisation's web site shows is not true. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Umber Lodhi

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

Subject does not appear to meet GNG and WP:JOURNALIST and even lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful, unfortunately. Saqib (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete-Admixture of A7 and G11.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:32, 4 April 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. Zyc1174 _chat? ^{what I did} 06:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Government websites in Sudan

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

I don't see the purpose of such a list. Saqib (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I wouldn't be opposed to a G6 (housekeeping) for a speedy myself. This is not what we are here for. I'd have to think of it more if it were a list of Sudanese government organizations (and links thereto), but this really isn't the best place for it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum - see WP:NOTDIR for why this doesn't belong here. In short, we aren't a directory. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY WP:NOTLINKFARM. Ajf773 (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Why is this even here? Zyc1174 _chat? ^{what I did} 12:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT - Article has been removed after I tagged it for A3. We can close this, I'll hold off for somebody else to close. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:34, 2 April 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 08:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yips

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

Slang term for "nervousness" in athletes. This term is sometimes mentioned in articles about underperforming athletes, but is not encyclopedic. Natg 19 (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This sort of hedges on WP:DICDEF but explains it more - which is great, but perhaps a redirect to a relevant article would be better here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's more than nervousness.. it's an actual condition that has ended the career of several athletes. There are plenty of sources that discuss this issue so it easily passes GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and, if they pass WP:GNG, edit the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seems to me you ought to be checking the sources if you're proposing deletion. Nigej (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If this article is deleted then pretty much every other sports terminology article should go too. Nigej (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:ALLORNOTHING. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point is that there is nothing in your proposal that is specific to the yips. You could cut and paste your proposal, and with minor edits, put it (together with dictionary argument above) on any sports terminology page. Surely an AfD needs more that is specific to the article being proposed. Nigej (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well documented mental condition, though it could stand to have a bit more about the cause of the condition and underlying science. Pinguinn 🐧 17:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the 'See Also' section, is there a better name for it? I can't help but wonder if there's a better name for this. I don't have the knowledge, honestly. =) Again, a redirect (possible merge) would be the best bet given the assertion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yips is, i think, the original name. Dartitis is essentially the same thing but the expression is more recent and a much less common term. Dartitis could indeed redirect to Yips. Nigej (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Documented in the sources and appears to be an actual condition. -- Dane ^talk 05:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whether it's a diagnosable medical condition is irrelevant, I think. It is a term regularly used in sports to define the unexplainable. There are lots of sources documenting cases of it. It definitely seems to meet GNG, to me. heat_fan1 (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I hadn't heard of the condition until I encountered it in a CNN Bleacher Report story on a major league baseball pitching prospect becoming a highly-rated NFL football prospect. Seems notable to me. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per argumentsLyndaship (talk) 07:28, 7 April 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! 19:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akilnathan Logeswaran

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

Written like a promotional text and clearly Wikipedia:Too soon. Pure highlighting memberships and awards without noticeable impact. --DonJusto99 (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional material for sure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Lim (talk • contribs) 09:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everything mentioned is verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources, therefore not Wikipedia:Too soon. In what way do you see it as promotional? Everything mentioned has references. --Wedderkop (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No real relevance has been highlighted in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people). Where is the actual encyclopedic pertinence in a cumulation of memberships? The "Publications" mention an estimated 50-100 contributors for a couple of pages of content (http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Renew_Europe_report_2018.pdf). It clearly seems like a lot of hot air. --DonJusto99 (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clear relevance as the person has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. That one publication has more contributors does not make the article less relevant. --Wedderkop (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second one doesn't even mention him as author. The third one is again a collection of 30-40 contributors. --DonJusto99 (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I mistakenly added that one to publications. Besides from that the publications are just a small addition to the article. The rest of the article retains validity and significancy according to the Wikipedia guidelines.--Wedderkop (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The structure can be improved, but considering all the verified facts and achievements, this is hardly a Wikipedia:Too soon. --dracona94 (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another indication for relevancy, DonJusto99 also considered the German article for deletion. The article will be kept as sufficient publicity of Akilnathan Logeswaran is evidenced by media mentions. See: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/1._März_2018#Akilnathan_Logeswaran_(bleibt) --Wedderkop (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dracona94. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppet investigation has been closed with no action: “Unrelated to each other.” --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the level of coverage to be shown to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think so? There is plenty coverage from reliable, indpendent sources like Forbes, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Deutschlandfunk Nova - to just name a few. Can you further explain your point of view? --Wedderkop (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't like multiple relists but I can't pull any consensus out of this. Here's hoping for more input...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. A political activist still in his 20s, so it could simply be WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, everything mentioned is verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources, therefore not Wikipedia:Too soon. In addition, there is plenty coverage from reliable, indpendent sources like Forbes, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Deutschlandfunk Nova. Can you please reason your statement? Malala Yousafzai is just 20 and a relevant political acitivst (with an article since more than six years). Age has no relevance nor is a factor for notability. --Wedderkop (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sole mention I find in Forbes is a listing one year in Forbes 30 Under 30, one of twenty 30 under 30 lists in that Forbes publishes annually. This is not sufficient to source an article, the fact that it is almost the sole available source in English is more of aconfirmation of this being a case of WP:TOOSOON. He has a page in the German-language Wikipedia, which is probably a better fit for an individual who has insufficient notability in the English-speaking world, but, frankly, I scanned the short list of gNEws hits, almost all in German, several quoting him about a notable cat on the campus where he was a student Augsburger Campus-Katze wird zum Facebook-Star others merely essays he wrote for HuffPost, and it made me doubt that he has sufficient notability to support the page on our German version. Page is heavily sourced to outfits he is involved with; there is just not enough independent sourcing to support a page. Delete as PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. The general notability guideline explicitly says that sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Therefore German sources count as much in the English-speaking world as English sources. The Süddeutsche Zeitung for example is one of the largest daily newspapers in Germany, Deutschlandfunk Nova is part of national German public radio broadcaster Deutschlandradio. The cat story is just a side story. --Wedderkop (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Forbes 30 Under-30 list for Europe in "Law & Policy"; finalist of the Global Social Venture Competition; among the Youth Champions at the 2018 Davos; Stand Up For Europe co-founder; etc - all properly sourced. The text needs clean up so that it no longer comes across, as it now does, as a promotional piece, but, as a political activist, the subject is already notable enough. -The Gnome (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was, according to page and sources cited, Logeswaran was one of the co-founders of the Munich Hub of the pan-European citizens' movement Stand Up For Europe. That is not a sufficient claim of notability. Nor is are the prizes for youthful activism. Recent efforts oat expansion make this appear to be a clear case of oversourced PROMO and WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The text being highly promotional, as I already noted myself, does not by itself merit an act of defenestration. If that were the sole criterion, it'd have been quite easy to rid Wikipedia from myriads of ego-boosting, paid-hack-created, fluffery & puffery BLP garbage on arrivistes and related fauna. The question is, and this is how this article is dragged to the stand, whether or not the subject is notable. End of story. Methinks it meets WP:GNG. You might think otherwise; I couldn't possibly comment. -The Gnome (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a talented person in terms of self-marketing. The Global Shapers have around 6,000 members according to my brief internet research, while only very few of that group (Akilnathan Logeswaran included) were smart enough to issue a press release following their acceptance. I am still tending towards delete as I think that a rational reader should take at least a 50% haircut on the achievements stated in this promotional article. --2.126.23.98 (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback 2.126.23.98. I don't know how you can "still" tend towards something, as I haven't seen your IP somewhere else in the comments, but I also have not seen any arguments why this article should be deleted. As The Gnome stated, the question is if this article meets WP:GNG. Significant coverage is given, secondary sources are reliable and independent. Therfore this person is notable as defined by Wikipedia:Notability. I haven't seen one comment in this whole discussion that would question this. I understand if someone personally thinks, this person is to young or too self-promotional. But this is not the question for this discussion. Therefore still strong keep. --Wedderkop (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word "still" was meant in the light of the other postings and ongoing discussion. That being said, it seems that every third posting in this thread is from "Wedderkop". A defence by one single user to keep an article is fine 2-3 times, but posting the same arguments after almost each and every comment adds some bias to the discussion for new readers. In my view, the article does not meet the notability guidelines and many points are just "nominations" (not actual awards) and "memberships". The German Wikipedia should be sufficient for this case, not need to have an English article. --90.221.107.15 (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to reasons stated over the last couple of weeks, also supported by the apparent lack of interest by Wikipdia users in a further discussion on this topic. --2.216.218.40 (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third posting in a row from a Sky Broadband IP with no other postings. Still no valid arguments. Apparent lack of interest by Wikipdia users in a further discussion on this topic does not indicate anything at all. --Wedderkop (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he appears more interested in self promotion than activism in my opinion making his claim to notability much weaker. Szzuk (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a null and void argument: There exist many Wikipedia articles, for better or worse, about persons whose sole purpose in life is self-promotion! Did I hear you say kardashian? Well, gesundheit. Self-promotional behavior that results in Wiki-acceptable notability is not grounds for deletion. I did not make the rules. -The Gnome (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I read the sources and understand a little German, and so was able to also review the sourcing at his article on the German Wikipedia.[Logeswaran] Overall, there's not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. There's no indepth profile of him - more just brief mentions and lists that he is on, but with little biographical info that would put this into the keep territory for me. Likely a WP:TOOSOON.TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:14, 9 April 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. There is no consensus as to the usefulness of the list. Some find it utterly redundant, others find it useful for certain types of searches. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of living British princes and princesses

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

Per Wikipedia:Content forking, articles on the same subject should not be duplicated; we already have lists of British princes and princesses and a list of living British royals. DrKay (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with what DrKay said. The material is almost a copy-pasted version of British prince and British princess. Besides the living royals are all listed at British royal family which holds exclusive information about all of the living and deceased members. Keivan.f^Talk 20:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful list. Not everyone wants to scroll through huge numbers of deceased prince or princesses. Credit to the article creator for writing much more accessible content for the reader. Szzuk (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from there not being huge numbers, the tables in the other articles are sortable. So, if you want to list the living ones, you simply click on the appropriate table header and they will all be listed at the top. DrKay (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CFORK says as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage. Szzuk (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the other articles are well-within the article size guidelines. There is no need for a split on those grounds. Besides, this isn't a split: it's a fork. DrKay (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The spin off is acceptable because it allows more detail about individual living princes and princesses than could practically be afforded in the large existing lists. Szzuk (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your logic we could also create lists of living former presidents and first ladies of all the countries because it's too "hard" for the readers to scroll down a few inches or change the table headers!! This article is not a spin-off, it's a fork. Details about the living members are already available at "British royal family" thus there's no point in keeping this article. Keivan.f^Talk 00:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic there is no good reason for Princes and Princesses to be in separate articles. Feel free to merge them and then we can discuss how hard it is to scroll and change headers. Szzuk (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you turning this into a gender-based issue? The argument here is that the current articles are sufficient enough and cover the essential material, yet they are not that huge to mislead the readers and get them confused. Keivan.f^Talk 23:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any relevant information can be merged into the existing articles. British royal family is only 18kB, so can easily stand expansion and in no conceivable way could be considered a "large existing list". DrKay (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But not everyone wants to read about the entire British Royal family, they want to read about the princes and princesses. Szzuk (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the Queen, the list is the same. DrKay (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with a rename, is it something you would agree to? Szzuk (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure I see why British princes are in a separate article from British princesses in the first place. WP:LISTN states that "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists." Given how vague the guidelines are, in this case the only thing to do is think about it logically. For example, is this article useful and does it fulfill Wikipedia's goal as a source of all knowledge? I can certainly see myself finding this list more useful than separate articles about princes and princesses, therefore I believe this article should be kept. Lonehexagon (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)::[reply]

They're not separate. They're at British royal family#Members. DrKay (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a list of princes and princesses. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Obviously, I'm all for keeping it, and I will say that if accepted I will definitely work on improving the sources. ANewStarWillRise (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it should now be deleted under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G5. Creations by banned or blocked users. DrKay (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That link says, "This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others." I see in WP:BANREVERT that "If editors other than the banned editor have made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned editor, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do." This article has had edits from non-banned users. From my reading of the guidelines, even if an article is eligible for speedy deletion, we should still be evaluating it on a case-by-case basis like any other AfD. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no opinion one way or another about keeping/deleting this, but my reading of WP:G5 is that it doesn't apply. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated above, this article mirrors information already available in 3 other articles, and is therefore redundant. Drdpw (talk) 07:37, 9 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Blithe

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

Albert Blithe was an NCO in the U.S. Army. He served in World War II, the Korean War, and the Cold War. He was in E Company, 506th PIR during World War II until wounded in Normandy. He was discharged after the War but later re-enlisted and served until 1967, dying on active duty. Blithe rose to he rank of master sergeant; his highest award was the Silver Star. Neither Blithe's rank nor his highest award qualify him for inclusion under WP:SOLDIER. His only "claim to fame" is being mis-identified by the producers of the Band of Brothers mini-series as having died in 1948. He has no general notability. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly merge the notable bit into the Band of Brothers article. A before search brings up a lot of Band of Brothers fan websites. Not notable under WP:SOLDIER. I appreciate the detailed reasoning given by nominator. SportingFlyer talk 05:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG as there is good detailed coverage of his life and so his rank is irrelevant. Andrew D. (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:SOLDIER, like all other special-purpose notability standards, is a supplement to the WP:GNG, not a replacement. If Blithe passes the GNG -- and I see TWO book references listed, something the nominator failed to mention -- then it's not a slamdunk. --Calton | Talk 15:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In those book references, is there a mention of Blythe having done something notable?--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why don't YOU actually answer that clumsy rhetorical question? --Calton | Talk 02:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, the answer is no, there isn't. And the question wasn't rhetorical. Blythe didn't do anything particularly notable. I've read the books (or excerpts where the whole book wasn't available to me). The fact that the same information gets regurgitated over and over doesn't make an individual any more notable. Blythe jumped into Normandy, got shot, was evacuated and died in '48 except he didn't really die. He served in Korea and earned a silver star but we have no details. He was a career soldier. He died on active duty of a perforated ulcer. Would you like to add anything?--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 12:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - It isn't what he did but rather that his notability stems from where others have written about him. The mistaken history is an issue of notability itself. What did this one do? Seems to be much less than Blithe...see why that line of questioning is a slippery slope?
      — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think Richard Colvin Cox did anything notable; the page is a better tale about Maihafer or Jacobs. Getting back to Blithe, if ninety-nine people said in ninety-nine books that they knew him before and during Normandy, that doesn't make him notable because he's not well known for something he did. He's just a guy whose fellow unit members lost track of him. He attended the first reunion of the division association and no one said, "Hey, I thought you were dead." We wouldn't have pages on any of these guys if they hadn't inherited their fame from the TV series, possibly even Sink (We have a lot of red-linked generals). Almost all of the guys who appeared in the books had their "life stories featured..." No, they didn't. The books are filled with anecdotes about the men.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The context of coverage matters too. The article notes: "Blithe's life story was featured in the 2010 book A Company of Heroes: Personal Memories about the Real Band of Brothers and the Legacy They Left Us." "Featured" needs clarification: was he mentioned in passing or did he have a whole chapter? Also, and importantly, the Amazon.com description notes: "Compiled from the veterans' notes, journals, letters, photographs, and the author's personally conducted interviews with the surviving contributors, this unique volume features the never-before-told stories of the Band of Brothers from more than twenty children and other family members". Thus, this book appears to primarily consist of primary sources and non-independent sources, which do not count much towards notability. If WP:GNG is not significantly satisfied, then a redirect E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) would be preferable to deletion. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - A certain dose of common sense would help when considering context. What you think of as a primary source is actually the reliable source here as it was used to refute Ambrose's book. It's completely valid and has been vetted so you can't dismiss it that easily...its viewpoints prevail and not Ambrose's/Warren's.
    — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. In addition to the book by Stephen Ambrose, the following books discuss him and lend to his notability:
- A Company of Heroes by Brotherton
- Beyond Band of Brothers by Winters
- Brothers in Battle, Best of Friends by Guarnere and Heffron
- In the Footsteps of the Band of Brothers by Alexander (another secondary source)
- We Who Are Alive and Remain: Untold Stories from the Band of Brothers by Brotherton
  — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't find significant mention of Blithe in newspapers.com or elsewhere beyond BoB-universe material. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My non-!vote comes from a different view from those above and as I haven't written out my view on BoB articles for a while, I'll write it here. After reading more about the BoB-verse, I came to view Ambrose's role not to be one of historian, but of something slightly different. In particular, Ambrose's innacuracies do not seem to be accidental, but represent a number of different things, including an interest in telling a compelling story and an interest in representing his (Ambrose's) point of view. Among the former could be writing that Blithe died in 1948 - Ambrose did not bother checking records on this, an ommission in favor of storytelling which a historian would likely have double checked. More allarming, and not so related to Blithe, are Ambrose's own prejudices and discriminatory feelings (this issue has left a serious tinge on my reading of Ambrose as a NPOV source). Having thought about these issues, my position is that Ambrose is a story-teller and his characters are based on real people but his books are not academic-quality histories. With this in mind, books related to his (in shorthand, these are a part of the BoB-verse) share in the same issues to some degree. There are authors who cover the same subject but do not follow Ambrose, Ian Gardner is an example (Gardner may have his own problems, but to me they seem independent of Ambrose's). There are also articles about the books or shows which discuss the individuals as characters in the miniseries, which if in-depth enough could lead to their suitability in the same way other fictional or semi-fictional characters are suitable for articles (but I haven't seen this). In any case, for a character in the BoB-verse to have sources required for a NPOV article, I think there should be coverage by people who are outside of the BoB-verse (for instance, a historian who publishes in an academic press and uses footnotes would be nice; Brotherton, Winters, Ambrose, Garner, etc all fail on this point, I think) or at least who write from a perspective clearly independent of Ambrose (Gardner is my example). For BoB figures who do not meet this standard, I think the pages are fine, but they fail NPOV. I hesitate to support such an article at AfD if I cannot improve the article, and thus I try to find independent, in-depth coverage. If I don't find it, I tend to make a note to that effect and move on.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that I disagree with the view that Blithe shouldn't have an article because he didn't do anything wiktionary:notable. I don't care if multiple sources are accidental or inherited, if sources exist that allow a NPOV, NOR, V article, I think it is suitable for the encyclopedia. On the other hand, I do not feel Ambrose is sufficiently NPOV for his writing and writing derived from his to be clearly NPOV. On yet another hand, I do not feel that Ambrose's issues are so severe that articles based on his writing are obviously not suitable. In such a situation, I actively abstain. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the references seem to relate to Band of Brothers. No independent notability. Just another one of the soldiers mentioned in that and written about since because they were mentioned in that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the cited book coverage combined with media coverage of his character in the series makes this barely meet WP:GNG and so it's a weak keep. Here's some of the info from one of the books for those of you who'd like to read it. Perhaps this would be a better source for the info since it's more accessible. [[18]]. Here's another brief mention in another book that's not listed: [[19]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's an on-going discussion at Talk:Albert Blithe about whether Blithe wore decorations which had not been awarded to him. That's not why I started the AfD but the page is worth a scan.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:SOLDIER and coverage is insufficient under WP:ANYBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:27, 1 April 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 08:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dipak Nandy

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

Little in the way of WP:RS to support this article, with 2 of the 3 pages of search results being WordPress websites. He appears to have written two books, but they do not appear to have many (if any) reviews of a notable nature. There is very little reliable and secondary available about him. Article is also in rough shape style/writing wise.

Based on this, he does not satisfy WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:NACADEMIC. Your thoughts are welcome. TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nandy was a very notable person in his time, but not many of the relevant sources are on line. I've improved the article, but the most important sources - the National Archives - are not on line.Rathfelder (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable British political theorist of the '60s. This stuff is fairly obscure, unless you're looking at the UK left wing of the '60s, but he was important within that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd expect more recognition given the nature of the topic for WP notability to be ascertained. Btw, the topic is not really obscure, and has been highly socially relevant for years. This is a possible re-direct, as a section in daughter's WP page - Lisa Nandy. Independently, the subject does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote 7 books and was the subject of two filmed documentaries. He was appointed by the government as an expert on equal opportunities. Rathfelder (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable with proper references. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:09, 6 April 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. A redirect to wherever is deemed most appropriate can be created editorially. Sandstein 08:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Korugar

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

How many of these things are there?!! LaundryPizza03 (talk) 07:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I am not ready to !vote on this one, but the BEFORE seems less convincing than for other articles flagged by this nom. Korugar seems to be discussed in numerous independent sources, mostly books, and in-universe style is grounds for SOFIXIT, not for deletion. I suggest that others look into the matter before !voting. Newimpartial (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Newimpartial. I think adding to the article; and making it clear that this is a page about how Korguar has been invented, published on, and discussed, would be a better way to problems with the article. Ryan shell (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sinestro. Pretty much all real-world notability for the planet comes from this character. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zap with a delete ray It is unclear whether this article should redirect to Sinestro, Sinestro Corps, or his successors. Therefore it is better off simply deleted for being non-notable comicbook fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Newimpartial.Ryan shell (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The question is if it is notable enough. Something like "Gotham City" is definitely notable due to huge coverage...but this seems to be only mentioned in a few comic books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expertwikiguy (talk • contribs) 18:13, 6 April 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 New South Wales Police Force. J04n(talk page) 15:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Security Industry Registry

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

Kept back in 2007, when standards for organizations were lower. This isn't even an organization, it's a branch of a police force with no particular significance I can see. No reliable sources for notability -- just directory information,esxcept for one recent article [20]. I'm not sure that's enough. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of official information available to verify the facts of the articleAustralian Police [21][22]. A change in regulations with the consequent threat of mass deregistrations was covered extensively in the New South Wales Press Sydney Morning Herald as are stories of firms circumventing the Registry Sun-Herald. The issue led to formal questions in parliament [23]. Careers websites emphasise the importance of the Registry for security personnel Career Trend. SpinningSpark 11:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark please note that the referenced "Australian Police" is not any official law enforcement agency or associated entity in Australia. See their disclaimer for example. Aoziwe (talk) 08:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing the notability criterion. Otherwise, merge with the article on the competent law enforcement agency. This is not worth an article on its own. -The Gnome (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect perhaps to New South Wales Police Force as a component entity, but this is not suitable for a standalone article as outlined by User:DDG above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Apart from sources provided by Spinningspark, also see [24][25]. Lorstaking (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lacked proper referencing and formatting, so I researched and added to references. Removed one Source that was a dead link. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to New South Wales Police Force, where it already has, only, a mention. Not sufficiently notable in its own right but is a very likely search term. Note that this article is importantly out of date. See the official site. Expertwikiguy please note that your good faith added reference to here is almost certainly not a reliable source. This is not any form of official site. Aoziwe (talk) 08:06, 7 April 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 08:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Ayoub

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

Subject does not appear to meet GNG and even lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. A promotional autobio apparently created by the subject. finalist in Miss Universe Canada 2016 does not makes one notable. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful, unfortunately. Saqib (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not notable because it is an autobio which seems to promote herself and her accomplishement to show people that she did more than to just be Miss Universe Canada 2016. And we don't have any reliable sources about her initiatives.Irma2403 (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 for pretty much the same reasons indicated in the nom. Reads too much like they're promoting themselves (see WP:PROMOTION). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - speedy tag removed, going to let it ride in deference to the admin who removed it. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn model, likely coi, 2 refs - 1 x her shop, 1 x entry in Miss Canada. Szzuk (talk) 20:42, 8 April 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 07:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Dickerson

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

Long-term news reporter, undoubtedly doing a good job but without any indication of notability. The sources do not constitute significant coverage and the general notability criteria are not met. A clip of his swearing on camera became popular on YouTube for a while, but that is not grounds for notability since reliable independent sources have not discussed it. bonadea contributions talk 11:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The RFK journalism award is a notable national award, which establishes the subject's notability. That he won it in the 1970s means that documentation is hard to find - it's probably only available in newspaper morgues or behind paywalls 40 years later, but it is not a type of notability that would fade over time. The Youtube clip came very late in his life, after he had stopped reporting for television. Risker (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winning the RFK award would probably be a real claim to notability although the Wikipedia article about the award is only sourced to its own website. However, Dickerson was not a "winner" of the award, but the recipient of a "special citation" which appears to be the third level (below "winner" and "honourable mention"). There is a Washington Post article confirming this: [26]. Since that is the only claim to notability I am still not convinced, I'm afraid. --bonadea contributions talk 07:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite the award confusion (thank you Bonadea) Dickerson remains a popular part of internet popularity, and an important character for many older people living in Houston. Although not cited, Dickerson hosted an outdoors segment during his media career which was very well received. Any search of the said name, "WTF Reporter" or "Tailgate Jones" will yield results which prove Thom Dickerson's notability in his later years. YouTube popularity can be an as legitimate reason for notability as an award. Your thoughts please. --collectr(u • t • c) 18:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can be, but personally I can't see it being the case here. Notability is not measured in Google hits or number of views of a YT clip, unless those hits or views have been discussed in independent reliable sources. The WTF clip is one case of a reporter being open and honest on camera which is a good thing of course, but that isn't part of any of Wikipedia's notability criteria. If a Google search would actually yield reliable secondary sources, that's great! I have not been able to find them, but maybe that's because of where I am located, so if you have access to such sources it would be excellent if they were added to the article. --bonadea contributions talk 07:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've tried using some different search engines, but I haven't come up with many legitimate references for the YT aspect. What I did find, were original recordings of some of Thom's segments. I've attached these as appropriately on the article. I'm happy to disregard the YT aspect. I still believe that this reporter deserves attention for a very long and interesting career, and I feel that this Wikipedia page would act well to bring together all of the sources. 25+ years in a reputable reporting agency (appearing on a regular basis) is an impressive feat alone. The YT videos add to the notability. I appreciate your discussion on the matter as I think it's important to have a devil's advocate. --collectr(u • t • c) 23:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough with proper references. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which references are 'proper'? There are no references in the article that aren't either primary sources or very local coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 18:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have cleaned up the article, removing the inappropriate "Internet fame" section and an unsupported claim; this also removed some primary/non-RS sources. --bonadea contributions talk 18:44, 6 April 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 07:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sofya Polyakov

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

No notability beyond The Noun Project, of which she is the CEO and a co-founder. Barte (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations can be added to the article to re-inforce WP:GNG with no prejudice towards recreation and expansion at a later date given adequate referencing. Hmlarson (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, refs don't support notability. Szzuk (talk) 19:13, 7 April 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minal Sampath

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

inadequate evidence of notability Does not meet WP:PROF, no evidence of major role in any of the projects. A gold medal school award is not a notable award. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF and cant seem to find any sources pointing out that she played a significant role in India's mission to Mars. FITINDIA 04:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass notability. Natureium (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she doesn't have to pass PROF. She's been the subject of a BBC profile, named one of CNN's 2014 women of the year and been talked about in other news sources. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a touch WP:TOOSOON, but a passable stub at this point. I don't see a compelling reason to delete the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks notable and proper references are used. Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG StrayBolt (talk) 22:48, 6 April 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 Green National Committee#Steering Committee. Consensus is that notability criteria are not met, but there is a sensible redirect target. Sandstein 07:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Farheen Hakeem

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

Article fails WP:BLP1E, WP:SOURCE, WP:BASIC, WP:1E, and WP:NPOL. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can do better. There is a potentially valid notability claim here as a co-chair of a political party, if she can be sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG for it — but there's nothing here that hands her an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing, and with two sources that namecheck her existence in the process of being about subjects other than her, one piece of purely local coverage in her own hometown media and just one source that's substantively about her and more than local, that's not enough sourcing to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In a case like this, my preference would be to find a suitable merge target; however, the most suitable one would likely be Green National Committee#Steering Committee, which would only need Hakeem's name, dates of service, and an associated source/reference. The main obstacle to clearing WP:GNG seems to be the criterion for significant coverage. There are plenty of passing and/or trivial mentions in reliable sources (e.g. [27], [28], and [29]). The only independent source with significant coverage that I could find was [30], which is already cited in the article. ([31] and [32] also provide non-trivial coverage, but are not independent.) ebbillings (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete I saw this and thought hijabi-with-serious-political-accomplishments easy keep. But I have come around to Nom's perspective. News coverage and accomplishments are scanty/minor, and petered out several years ago. note that some search hits in American newspapers on "Farheen Hakeem" are unrelated to this individual.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:39, 5 April 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 07:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Christopher Parker

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

No indication of WP:GNG notability that is evident by in-depth coverage of the topic in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article is about an actor who does not appear to have had any very notable roles. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There isn't much in the resources provided in the article beyond a couple of brief mentions. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that additional relevant remarks can be found at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Steven Christopher Parker, and a record of a previous WP:PROD (and a COI notice) can be found at Talk:Steven Christopher Parker. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Avoid putting too much faith in the previous PROD; I have off-Wiki evidence confirming what was said at the BLP board, that this was placed as a revenge for off-Wiki matters. The IP editor that placed the PROD has since been blocked. (That is not to suggest that concerns about this article are unreasonable.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand Writer Steven Christopher Parker (who seems to be the same person based on acting credits mentioned in article, gets coverage for writing and directing a musical parody of Game of Thrones (also references previous spoofs by him.) The GOT parody got him an interview and a not-bad review the NYT. The current stub does little to establish notability (and the Broadway focus of his career means that IMDB is little help) but there is significant creative work that got covered in WP:RS. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and a tip of the hat to HouseOfChange for doing the work that pushed this across the line. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not hugely notable, but the recent improvements appear sufficient for the article to meet the requirements. Favonian (talk) 13:32, 8 April 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. wbm1058 (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Beaker (disambiguation)

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

This is not a proper subject for a disambiguation page; rather than listing unrelated topics that happen to share the same name (like Mercury (planet), Mercury (element), and Mercury (mythology), this page merely lists installments in a franchise, for which there is no evidence that every installment is known solely by the name of the character. An existing page at Tracy Beaker (franchise) was improperly blanked to be redirected here, but this goes against the outcome of a previous AfD, so discussion and consensus are needed to take such a step. bd2412 T 01:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Oppose. The Tracy Beaker (franchise) merely just was a copy of information that already existed on List of The Story of Tracy Beaker episodes, List of The Dumping Ground episodes, List of Tracy Beaker Returns episodes and List of Tracy Beaker series characters and this franchise page only has TV information touches on the show...there's nothing on the books, film, spin off's etc. And more to the point, the main pages struggle with references as it is because at the end of it all, primarily just children watch it, the first book was from the 90s before the internet and the first series was 16 years ago. And you've said "no evidence is known solely by the name of the character"-this new page has done nothing more except swap "disambiguation" for "franchise" still with Tracy Beaker.

Tracy Beaker Returns, The Dumping Ground and The Story of Tracy Beaker, book and TV pages, already link in the infobox and I'm personally working on improving them. And another thing: you say they're "unrelated", but same universe, but a franchise page practically "relates" them whilst the disambiguation page merely puts The Dumping Ground under "see also" not "may refer to".Grangehilllover (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:DABCONCEPT. Differently-named installments of a single franchise are not ambiguous to each other. You have not made a single point relevant to the disambiguation problem. Please also read my rationale more carefully. I did not say that these are "unrelated", I said exactly the opposite of that; it is precisely because they are related that they are not ambiguous topics. bd2412 T 11:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: I left a message on your talk page, but if you didn't get it. Because I'm heavily involved in editing Tracy Beaker, an awful lot of vandalism occurs, but I'm going to some how work with the franchise page, but we need the disambiguation page

. Grangehilllover (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied there. Perhaps a set index article would be appropriate here (see Wikipedia:Set index articles), but not a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 11:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That is not what a dab page is for. Everything there should already be in Tracy Beaker, or in the case of episode lists, in sub-articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sppedy deletion requested – I created the page and have requested it be deleted per WP:G7. Linguist^un Eins ^uno 17:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I now understand and now agree after talking to another user. 17:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grangehilllover (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You Are My Friend (2018 film)

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

While this future film has a decent amount of news coverage, it appears to me that it is simply too soon for this film to have an article. There is only a single cast member announced (Hanks as Rogers) and it doesn't appear that they have started filming anything yet. I would suggest deleting for now and re-creating the article as the movie gets closer to an actual release. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon and one trivial mention linked. Szzuk (talk) 12:17, 6 April 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. czar 01:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nova

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The award category - "Venus Award - Best German Starlet" is not significant.

First AfD closed as "Delete" in 2007, and the subject has not become more notable since. The other AfD, for "Anna Novakov", in unrelated. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete part of our way to heavy converage of pornographic actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails pornbio and that obviously means we have a BLP that misses the GNG by miles Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:55, 7 April 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. The discussion is overwhelmingly in favour of "keep." Editors in the discussion have mentioned that the article needs an overhaul, not deletion. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JS Kabylie in Africa

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

This article appears to be repeat certain paragraphs from the JS Kabylie article and then add a number of unsourced tables of results. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK seems to apply here. Fiachra10003 (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no evidence that independent, reliable sources are collating information on their African results in this way, to warrant this stand-alone article. The article should be redirected back to the club page. Eldumpo (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sufficient content to have a separate article, mention at main page and have this as redirect. Giant Snowman 08:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Struway2's excellent research below which shows it likely meets GNG. Article needs renaming and a big overhaul, but topic appears notable. Giant Snowman 08:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Going by the number of articles in the relevant categories, this article is a dozen or so such articles about African clubs in confederation-level football, at least a similar number about Asian clubs, and more than 200 about European clubs. Like this page, some of them are proseless and unsourced, e.g. Atlético Madrid's; others are almost proseless and minimally sourced, like Everton's or Tottenham Hotspur's or the mess that is Portsmouth F.C. in European football; others are featured lists, like Rosenborg BK in European football, or good-quality articles.
There have been a number of related discussions at WT:FOOTY: a couple on notability, here and here, seemed to conclude that so long as the team had made enough appearances in confederation-level football, it was OK to have an article. JS Kabylie has more than 20 seasons in CAF competition and six titles. That looks to me like a precedent of notability generally accepted by the community, and it also makes it appear unlikely (to me, anyway) that reliable sources haven't covered their career in such competition. On fr.wiki, the club has numerous season articles, which make reference to book sources: see e.g. the 1968–69 season page bibliography, which lists three books that imply significant coverage of the club's history. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow, this is could become a particularly egregious case of WP:BIAS (yes, I know it's not policy, but it is a real issue). Maybe if we included the 200 articles on clubs in European football... But that is a discussion better for WT:FOOTY. Is this one of the April Fools Day AfDs? Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are hundreds of similar articles for European clubs in equivalent continental competitions and, even if the article needs improving, deletion is not cleanup. As Struway pointed out, there are sources available for potentially expanding this page, the rsssf link alone supports everything in the table, and the team have a significant history that supports a standalone article. Kosack (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same reasoning as those above. Rename needed though, "in African football" rather than "in Africa", right? R96Skinner (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes! My first reaction was "of course this Algerian club is in Africa!" Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard article in standard format for a club with a significant history in continental competition. Indications from Struway above suggest sources exist to show GNG. Agree with comments above regarding the need to clean up and add sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - per the discussions and citations provided by Struway2, although I am still not totally convinced that this article is notable, I would be fine with a merge as well. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a notable/viable split off the JB Kabylie page. SportingFlyer talk 07:24, 8 April 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. J04n(talk page) 15:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan

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

Agreed number of international centuries for a stand alone list is 25. Shakib Al Hasan has only scored 12 while Tamim Iqbal has 18. Suggest merging the information into the parent articles and deleting these lists. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with main article. আফতাব (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This Article looks likes better with Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket notably guidelines. Not required to comparison with other century. Riazul Islam BD (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ianblair23: You have mentioned that a list article relating to a cricketer can be accepted if he has scored at least 25 international centuries. Apart from Shakib and Tamim Iqbal there is another article that should be concerned regarding the number of international centuries - List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga Tharanga also has scored only 18 international centuries and when compared to the biographical topics of both Shakib Al Hasan and Tamim Iqbal, the content in Upul Tharanga's biography is comparatively less. So need to AfD the List of centuries scored by Upul Tharanga before heading into this. Abishe (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree entirely with the comments by Ianblair23 and think the list should be deleted. It's too short and if retained (would not perhaps set a precedent for but) would begin a trend for even shorter lists and you would end up with one about someone who scored a single half-century sometime. 25 is a milestone in this context and the minimum of 25 is sensible. Joe Root has reached 24 centuries and his list should be created when he scores his 25th, but not yet. Thanks. Protea caffra (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, no real need for these, they aren't long enough to warrant a spinout. Szzuk (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The extra cricketers added after the afd began should be removed or this might close as a procedural keep. Szzuk (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Szzuk, I'll start afresh with those. Thanks for the heads-up. Appreciated. Protea caffra (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Rather than looking to delete only this list, a limit should be introduced for the minimum number of centuries to keep a stand alone list of centuries for a specific cricket player. Currently there are many such lists with different number of centuries in Wikipedia. See List of international cricket centuries by Rohit Sharma, List of international cricket centuries by V. V. S. Laxman, List of international cricket centuries by Mushfiqur Rahim etc. Jumbojelly500 (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jumbojelly500, the minimum is 25 as discussed above. Does that help you? Protea caffra (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding the three you name to another list for deletion. All under the minimum. Protea caffra (talk) 23:07, 6 April 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 07:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Ortiz Jones

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this article because I was searching for info about Ortiz Jones. WP:NPOL has an exception that I think she solidly meets: substantial coverage and interest from RS that are independent of the politician, for example Time Magazine, Teen Vogue, HuffPo, Filipino-interest publications, and more. She is also getting coverage because she has been endorsed by DFA, Emily's List, and quite a few more organizations that value her salty, intelligent comments plus her being Asian, veteran, gay, grown up in poverty, and more. Also, thanks to suggestion from I dream of horses, the article may meet WP:GNG based on the many independent news articles already written about Ortiz Jones. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - While most of the coverage about her seems to be about her campaign, there seem to be just enough of said sources, as well as sources that discuss specifically her as opposed to just her campaign, that while her passing WP:NPOL is debatable, WP:GNG seems to be met. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I completely respect the decision to AfD the original stub based on WP:NPOL, but the article includes in-depth material from Harvard Political Review,Huffpo, Ozy (magazine), ABS-CBN, news stories that include long quotes from the subject and in-depth material about her life. The article now has 9 RS references including Teen Vogue and Time Magazine. I believe it meets the criterion of 'A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists' described in Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#cite_note-note6-8. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL at this time and not notable otherwise....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to pass gng. Rab V (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I clicked through the sources and I think she passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Lonehexagon (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was in Teen Vogue, which is one of the best fake news sources out there.104.163.158.37 (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected congressional candidates are not default notable. We should stop treating people as notable for just linking to buzz words.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are not notable by default but if they pass other guidelines that demonstrate notability they can be included. This person easily passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] Lonehexagon (talk) 17:41, 7 April 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. czar 01:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finn (police dog)

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

Non-notable dog being used as a coathanger for promotion of a campaign. As WP:BIO1E nearly says, dogs known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BIO1E and seeing no reason why the same logic shouldn't apply to a dog. Alternatively Merge into Police dog Pi (Talk to me!) 01:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one event as noted above. Szzuk (talk) 12:29, 6 April 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.

April Fools' Day nominations

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

^ https://kotaku.com/tag/ubiworkshop

[1] ttps://kotaku.com/tag/ubiworkshop

[1]