Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 April	20 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Paul

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

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial, WP:SECONDARY support. Some blogs, IMDB, and a lot of brief PR type support. reddogsix (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to edit the page with sources that align with Wikipedia's standards. Additionally, I did not use IMDB as a reference. Unfortunately, I was not able to find more articles from sources like Hollywood Reporter or Deadline that would help in the referencing process. If the Wiki staff deem this page as "non-trivial" like reddogsix states above, then, I will understand their decision as long as an explanation is provided. Elainasla (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 00:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 00:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete WP:ENT clearly isn't met (being "best known for" a single episode appearance on a sitcom borders on a claim of non-notability), but WP:GNG could be. However, the coverage in linked sources such as Variety magazine is largely trivial, and the blog interviews are borderline at best for being independent enough for WP:GNG. I note WP:TOOSOON; if the actor continues to get more prominent roles it may be a suitable topic in a year or two's time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well on his way to notability but the coverage and lead roles just aren't there yet. Delete. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Putu Suresha Roldán (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON without prejudice as to possible re-creation later if he gets some fame. I looked at the citations, and for me they don't now get him through WP:NACTOR or WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 03:40, 27 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Missing (band)

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

Fails WP:NBAND - no national hit, airplay, tours, big record contracts, significant media coverage. Rogermx (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 00:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 00:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local coverage only. Appears to be a vanity page by SPA editor. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:46, 20 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 keep. per SK1 - I've made my points on NACTOR as well as the "LOOK AT WHERE THEY ARE NOW" sources so many times at this point I've got bored arguing with everyone over it, I obviously disagree but this AFD is only going to get pile-on Keeps so to save everyones time being wasted I'm closing as Speedy Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cloe and Holly Mackie

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

Non notable actresses, No evidence of any notability, Fails NACTOR and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 23:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 23:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article not supported by reliable independent references. Thegooduser Let's Chat 00:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: reliable sources found and added (and imdb "refs" removed). PamD 09:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR for their St Trinian's roles. No Oscars or BAFTAs, but it passes WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 20 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dadi Balsara

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

Fails WP:NBIO. The sources are mainly about his death, and do not cover him substantially. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 00:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 00:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are reliable refs on Indian News website for establish his notability but its not talking about his career.آریانا فغان (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:31, 24 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 Withdrawn; mistaken nomination. A WP:TROUT will be placed on John's page as requested ;). (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

West Lafayette, Indiana

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

unneeded content fork. John from Idegon (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is, IMO, completely without merit. It would be just as absurd to delete South Portland, Maine because Portland, Maine exists. -- RM 22:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 00:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It's an incorporated city with near 50k population and the home to Purdue. I hope this is a mistaken nomination for something else; this seems very unusual for someone who seems to have plenty of experience here. Nate • (chatter) 02:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

O,ffs. I have no idea how this happened. Yeah it's a mistake. Trout me repeatedly. There was a newly created fork, List of mayors of West Lafayette, Indiana, that it was my intention to nominate. Can anyone close this as "nominated in error"? Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that's all it was. Going by that...Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 20 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gray Gallery

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

Apparently not notable by our new and more stringent our standards for businesses (and probably not by the old ones either). It carries on the routine business of a gallery, buying and selling works of art, and receives some routine coverage as a result. Some of those works are by famous artists, and thus attract media attention; but the purveyor does not inherit notability from the notability of the products purveyed – a car dealer is not notable because he sells cars of notable makes. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I googled and I thought I'd found a good ref but it turned out to be a blog entry on a reputable website. Szzuk (talk) 14:54, 23 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! 20:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EnterMedia, Inc.

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

Virtually no independent coverage, highly promotional and fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I do not believe the article to be promotional at all. All sources are external with years of existence. I have made sure to edit the wording in a way that has no promotional value. I have tagged myself according to Wikipedia's policy.

Brandfolder and dropbox (service) are competitors and there article is much more promotional. They even list features of the product. Entermedia Inc only mentions how it works not why you should buy it. Please let me know, where is the promotional material inserted before deleting? Please, I have spent hours upon hours on this to create it clean and un-promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcambron (talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jcambron See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 16:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 16:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 16:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and just used the other companies as an example. If we focus on just the content on Entermedia, Inc. you will see that there is criticism as well as one positive reception of the product, which is the only part of the article that seems promotional, if-that. Of course this can be deleted to comply with Wikipedia's terms and conditions. The references are external and have existed for years, nothing is new. Please help me understand and edit the article to make it encyclopedic. Thank you for your time and suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcambron (talk • contribs) 15:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article about the same topic EnterMedia DB (service) was speedily deleted on 2018-04-05 under criterion G11( Unambiguous advertising or promotion). The relevant policy for promotion (not allowed) is Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. If we decide that the article is not promotional, or that the promotional tone can be fixed, the notability guidelines for businesses is applicable. The article would then need to meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Vexations (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm struggling to find a reason not to vote delete, the article creator hasn't demonstrated the subject is notable with WP:RS. Szzuk (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm all for open source, but the bottom line is the references in the article don't come close to meeting WP:CORP, and nothing better has been presented in this AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 27 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Micayle McKinney

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

Does not appear notable, at best a peripheral player in the successes of others. The provided references aren't too convincing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the refs in the article don't support notability, google returning little and google news nothing. Szzuk (talk) 15:10, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

El Dur

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

Nonexistent Somali "town". The one source cited says it's actually a hill. Satellite imagery doesn't show any trace of anybody living anywhere near the claimed coordinates, just empty desert. To be notable as a hill it would need sources which give significant information about the subject per WP:NGEO. Hut 8.5 21:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I see the same: a hilly area, with nothing other than geo-clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What place? L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:22, 22 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Lawler

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

Unsourced BLP, well there is an IMDB page. Says he started in the movie Mike Bassett: England Manager, but that film's extensive cast listing doesn't list him. Plays Football/Soccer, but not at a level high enough I would think reaches wikipedia notability. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; IMDb is insufficient referencing, no claims of meeting GNG or any SNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Funny thing is I actually watched the movie Goal and I have not, nor noticed him, so that part is gone. I'd concider GNG. ACYBERWARRIOR 19:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable and since IMDb is not reliable it is unsourced. The BLP template on the talk page should not be ignored. Otr500 (talk) 23:50, 24 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dream Team characters

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

Just a laundry list of characters of a television show, no actual discussion about why this list might be notable (other than it being on television) completely unsourced. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we only need the real life cast of this show - not every fictional character, all of the blue links in this article have recently been redirected to the dream team show leaving this a meaningless list of never notable characters. Szzuk (talk) 15:21, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E Matrix

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

A model of paintball marker with no shown notability, looks like it's made by a company called AirTech which doesn't have an article to redirect to. Significant overcoverage of a minor topic in a niche industry. kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one ref in the article saying nothing, google showing nothing reliable, a paintball gun that costs US$ 350. Szzuk (talk) 15:31, 23 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, per the A7 tag that was on the article before the AfD started. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Jefferson Frazer

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

No info about the person on the page. Climax Approaching 20:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete There is no reason this should have been brought to AFD. This article is purely vandalism and will be speedily deleted in short order. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was speedy delete. A1, A7, A11, G2, or G3...the article was plainly inappropriate and didn't need to go through a full AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin sinclair

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

Blatant hoax. Climax Approaching 20:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would strictly speaking be a speedy under csd:G3 BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 20:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sungale Electronics Shenzhen Limited

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

This article is about an electronics manufacturer without significant coverage in multiple indpendent reliable sources to establish notability for corporations. There is only one source provided to a top ten review site which seems to be review mill churning out reviews. I cannot find any significant coverage in my ~~one~~own searches. Whpq (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, created by an spa last year then abandoned, 1 ref that doesn't say anything, google returning company listings and gnews nothing. Szzuk (talk) 17:17, 26 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. Additionally, moving article to Southwest Madagascar Coastal Current 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SMACC

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

Fresh Ph.D dissertation of 2018 on Wikipedia. Classic original research in violation of core policy WP:NOR. Non notable, unvetted student's assigment which didn't withstand the passage of time and rigor of top-level academic scrutiny. Promotional, and factually questionable. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This does not appear to be original research. The article cites a reputable scientific journal.[1] Mainstream science media like Live Science also cover the current under its plain-English name (Southwest Madagascar Coastal Current). The article is in poor condition, but the subject peer-reviewed research, not original research. I won't pass judgement whether it is notable yet. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree this initially looks shaky, and current sourcing is insufficient to show coverage; but as noted above, that coverage exists ([2]), and what with publication in GeoRL, it's also out of the woods re factual verification. With a bit of cleaning up and adding three or four of the secondary coverage items, this should be fine. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't link to generalized vague "Search result". Find the " actual sources" so as to dissect their content and see how they support what's in the article. Linking to search result is vague and will yield result for anything, search engine finds matching strings not actual content. There may be broad concept which has not yet existed on Wikipedia, but this is pure Ph.D project by admission of the article and cited sites. Don't let googling or using Duck-Duckgo fool us. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon. You do have a certain amount of obligation here as well to actually look at linked material. Here's the first few instances in ready-to-click form, then: [3],[4],[5],[6],[7]. That's substantial secondary coverage based on the paper. - And I really don't understand this harping on about it being a PhD thesis. If a major scientific finding resulting in a widely-noted publication comes out of a PhD thesis, why is that a reason for denigration? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I might be inclined to !vote "keep" except there is zero notability for SMACC to be used as a title. Instead of an acronym why not Southwest Madagascar Coastal Current (SMACC) so people will know what it means? I will make this simple to all except Wikilawyers: How many ocean currents are titled under acronyms? ---Zero. How many Ocean gyres are titled using acronyms? ---Zero. I am sure there is something in the policies and guidelines about following other like articles for naming. The name of course is new but covered in secondary sources. It is sort of like professor of Chemistry Kikunae Ikeda who discovered Umami. I can retire now. I have just been waiting to use a Japanese loan word in a sentence that means something Cajuns have known about long before 1908. By now everyone should be saying "That chicken is so umami" (savory). Wait! I am really confused now. Just when I learn we have five basic tastes I see evidence there are six, but umami is missing from that list so with "astringent" and "pungent" that would be seven. Maybe that choice is the wrong analogy for comparison That is off-topic but the proposed spelling would be better than the source that uses the spelling Southwest MAdagascar Coastal Current to clarify the acronym. A problem is that a search of this acronym returns the international not-for-profit multi-disciplinary Social Media and Critical Care conference (SMACC) probably because they didn't want to use three C'c.(SMACCC). Otr500 (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Moving to the full name would be indicated. I would already have done that except that it might screw up or complicate the AfD mechanism. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per notability as Southwest Madagascar Coastal Current . Can be renamed after AFD unless a major consensus for a snow close.
Keep, WP:BEFORE wasn't carried out fully - this is an essay on a very notable newly found ocean current. Szzuk (talk) 07:20, 27 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) 01:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Vauss

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL John from Idegon (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayors of small towns are not all handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist. This could be enough to get him an article if he could be reliably sourced to evidence of enough media coverage to make him a special case over and above most other mayors of small towns — but the referencing here consists entirely of his own primary source content about himself on his own self-published personal website and the municipal government's website, not to any evidence of reliable source coverage in media. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN and is also promotional.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irvington, New Jersey has population of 53,926, its mayor does not meet WP:NPOL. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 02:28, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gershwyn Eustache Jnr

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Doing well as an actor, but doesn't have the coverage or significant roles. Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing close to passing notability requirements for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR (and of course GNG). A lack of sources in a search indicates it is likely way too soon. The Hollywood Reporter (first reference) does not even rate "passing mention" as the subject's name just appears in the cast list. Neither the "TV Maze" (Tomak Bowzyk: listed as a guest cast) or "National Theatre" (Pinocchio) sources offer anything better. This is a WP:BLP and the sourcing standards have to be much higher than the unreliable IMDb that is apparently being used as a source from the "External links" section. Otr500 (talk) 18:26, 26 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 consensus is to keep and WP:CLEANUP. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural beings in Slavic religion

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

Poor article, but replacing it with a redirect is apparently contentious. I don't disagree with redirecting, and suggest WP:NOTESSAY might apply. Lithopsian (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that there are parts of this essay where revision is needed, but I would have thought the place to discuss this was on the talk page of the article. This article does include references and "Further reading", suggesting the article does have citations. Vorbee (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Vorbee, the article does not have citations (it has a list of sources which it does not use). There are just two citations and I bet that the source actually does not reflect the article's content, like I verified in large sections of "Rusalka". I am personally a deletionist and so I think that disastrous articles like this (and many others pertaining to Slavic mythology and folklore) should be trashed waiting for someone willing to re-write them completely in an accurate way.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If there are articles about supernatural beings in other religions and mythologies (such as the Lakota), there should also be an article for the various supernatural beings in the religion, folklore, and mythology of the Slavs. Perhaps the article should be reorganised to make it more like a proper Wikipedia article, or that the beings in Slavic folklore should be listed in a separate article from the beings in Slavic religion that are not deities. PulauKakatua19 (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2018

Keep - notability is easy to evidence, both from the bottom of the article, but even a rapid google books sweep brings up plenty for it to be fine as a standalone. WP:NOTESSAY wouldn't seem to apply - I assume point 3, personal essay/particular feelings was the most likely grounds for that? In any case, none of the mooted grounds seem to apply - or at least nowhere near a level of confidence I would need to warrant deletion under it. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I merged this article into Deities of Slavic religion back in Summer 2017, but recently some users from Russia insist for it to be kept as an independent article, together with a number of articles about dialectal variations of the name of single entities (cf. Nav (Slavic folklore), Mavka). The article is totally devoid of sources, poorly written, and many of the entities listed are just dialectal name variations and folklorisations of beings already listed in Deities of Slavic religion.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an editorial opinion over a merge to Deities of Slavic religion; the term tutelary deities is somewhat confusing compared to "supernatural beings". Cleanup is certainly needed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 22 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! 20:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kimberling

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

I debated nominating this for speedy deletion per WP:G4 in light of the previous deletion discussion, but as there are small differences between the two versions I am putting this up for discussion out of an overabundance of caution. There is nothing to indicate notability. The sources are all directly related to the topic. Even the source that was declared "independent" in the last discussion is an interview with the author, and is therefore not independent. I could find no other sources that weren't by him, or that weren't advertising his services or products. Fails WP:BIO. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 11:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- There are sufficient sources. For instance,
- Premarital class opens up with texting Tulsa World (OK) - January 17, 2009 -- article about how the guy uses texting in his marriage counseling classes.
- Lessons from long marriage - Family counselor's book has advice for staying together Oklahoman, The (Oklahoma City, OK) - September 27, 2008 -- Review of one of his books.

192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO for a marriage counselor that fails WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR despite the fact that he is quoted in a ~~couple~~ of reliable publication ~~Tulsa World and~~ Christian Post and despite the fact that a local paper reviewed his book. It's just not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reasonable people can disagree on this one, so I'm not disputing your conclusion. I will mention though that the Tulsa World source does more than just quote him. The whole article's about him. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsa World article is about the advice class he teaches.[8].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
192, I truly appreciate editors who take the time to try to rescue articles as you have, here. That had to have taken some real effort to find. This article is based on an interview with the subject, how is it therefore WP:INDEPENDENT of the topic? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Came here to say just this. Interviews establish notability but they're not RS for the facts stated by the subject. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this feature story in the regional daily article supports notability. But I still do not see quite enough sourcing, cumulatively, to regard subject as passing WP:N.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to the two regional newspaper stories mentioned above, there was national coverage in the Christian Post, [https://www.christianpost.com/news/marriages-arent-doomed-to-fail-theres-always-hope-says-author-of-7-secrets-to-an-awesome-marriage-141973/

'7 Secrets to an Awesome Marriage' Author Kim Kimberling Says Managing Expectations Is Key to Marital Bliss]. Nom is mistaken here, a book-and-author interview does support notability. But the three stories - plus the fact that the press in Oklahoma quotes him as an expert voice on these issues - does not seem to quite add up to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:05, 27 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) Szzuk (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karl-Erivan Haub

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

This article lacks notability. As per WP: Person, Haub is not notable for anything other than this disappearance. As neither the man nor his disappearance is particularly high profile, this article fails notability standards, and should be deleted. FirefoxLSD (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ATZNA 20:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep, notable businessman. —Kusma (t·c) 20:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep Unbelievable. Billionaire (176th richest person in the world), CEO and owner of a multi-billion dollar company with 70,000+ employees. And the nominator claims that he is only notable for his disappearance? Makes you wonder whether FirefoxLSD lacks basic competence, or whether this is just plain vandalism. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:7CCC:1C3C:F7F3:C222 (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Support preceding comment entirely i.e. "ditto". Simone2049 (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all sources are establishing notability. also he is notable as a ceo of notable company, I discover his biographr in Deutsch wikipedia Deutsch (which was created on 2008). Kamran Ali El-Batli (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - a decade on Wiki in native country, great find. WP:N.Simone2049 (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An existing Wikipedia article in another language does not mean that the subject meets WP:N. Different language versions have different criteria. --bonadea contributions talk 15:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the question here is one of interpretation of WP:BLP1E. It is not at all a simple matter one way or another. Belonging to a rich family or being the head of a major company does not mean a person is inherently notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED), and currently, a GF WP:BEFORE search yields only articles about his disappearance, which would make it look as if it is a case of BLP1E. However, I do not agree that it is a low-profile individual or disappearance (one of the BLP1E criteria) given that I find news articles about him not only in German and English, but also Swedish, Greek, French, and Polish (and that's just the first few pages of Ghits). The German-language Wikipedia article has one or maybe two sources that might serve to show notability at en.wiki as well. --bonadea contributions talk 15:32, 22 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical constant Psi

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

Article claiming discovery of a new mathematical constant without citing reliable and/or academic sources, failing WP:V. PROD where I was initially concerned this was a WP:HOAX was removed and followed with a message to my talk page. The author seems sincere in their claim that it isn't a hoax and I am extending them the benefit of the doubt in that regard. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 16:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 16:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No published source, WP:OR dated in the article from April 2018. Even if the content would deserve a publication (which is not the case), it should be removed per WP:Crystal. D.Lazard (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: standard case of pure OR, someone writing an article on something they spent time thinking about. Also, we already have Sophomore's_dream. --JBL (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even though I kind of like the phrase "the most undiscovered numbers". XOR'easter (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: yeah I thought that was really charming, too. --JBL (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:A11, or Delete as clear original research without cited sources. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 20:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claim of novelty is pretty clearly false, especially since this information is mostly duplicated at Sophomore's dream. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, and I see JBL already pointed out the other article! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; clearly WP:OR and a duplicate of Sophomore's dream. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete, well known but not under this name. Quickly scanning some references of sophomore's dream gave no mention of the name Psi, so there is not even a case for a redirect. —Kusma (t·c) 20:20, 23 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! 20:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwanese independence referendum, 2019

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

The referendum is only a proposal, not a definite event. This therefore fails WP:CRYSTAL Daduxing (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL as not a scheduled referendum yet. However, the article was already prodded, so not sure why it was taken to AfD? Number 5 7 16:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If delete; Re-draftify instead so that the article can be made up to scratch in the event it does go ahead — IVORK _Discuss 01:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redrafitfy per IVORK. ToThAc (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do note that source 1 links to source 2 which means there is only 1 source. 'But holding such a referendum envisioned faces a major hurdle. Though Taiwan's Referendum Act was amended in December 2017 to allow lower thresholds for initiating and passing referendum questions, questions related to constitutional issues, including sovereignty issues, still cannot be decided through referendums." - source 2 will indicate that this fails WP:CRYSTAL. I will say draft will go no end as this will not happen anytime soon as clear threshold is still not met and will most likely into draft for too long. The draft will simply be a permanent draft. I would add that WP:NOTNEWS will also apply. delete as per norm will be better. (Cavaet: If some editor can find more sources / reactions or etc to make it notable) --Quek157 (talk) 19:45, 23 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 by User:Dlohcierekim. Primefac (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naraly Rosas

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

Subject does not meet WP:N or WP:ANYBIO. Lacks sufficient coverage in wp:reliable sources unconnected with the subject. Was a BLPProD. Deprodded by creator. (There was a source in a prior iteration). I had deleted per CSD before I saw it had been deprodded. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this makes no claim of anything. I can't even verify they exist. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have re speedied per this discussion and retagged again for csd.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:26, 19 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cotton King

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

insufficient evidence of notability . A previous speedy was declined. DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Company does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 15:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Szzuk (talk) 17:13, 26 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed AlNeaimy

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

Not a notable person. No reliable source discusses him significantly and the sources cited in the article are mostly "How-to" guides with a single mention of him. KingAndGod 14:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious self-promotion. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ATZNA 19:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - self-promotion is possible. However he without doubt passes GNG. His pogramming is notable per GNG, please view the references in the article of the subject. ATZNA 20:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)This account is a sock Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ATZNA 20:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ATZNA 20:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. Essentially no coverage in independent, third party reliable sources. Jbh ^Talk 22:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very passing mention as a co-creator of limited interest technology, with no biographical information contained in any of the sources. Lacks substantial coverage. WP:TOOSOON is a kind assessment. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self promotion with a bunch of unreliable sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:49, 21 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! 20:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samoon Ahmad,MD

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

associate professor at NYU fails NACADEMIC; BEFORE finds no publication count and Ahmad does not hold a named chair nor has he been elected a Fellow of a learned society - also fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and lack reference. --Spasage (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I continue to work on this page to prove he is notable enough for a wiki page? I did quite a bit of research last night and came across more information. I believe the page should be given a chance beyond the introductory paragraph? (pls. advise if this is the correct way to address this discussion page - and or advice after my uploads).MegEng (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MegEng - you're absolutely welcome to continue working on the page during an AfD. Chetsford (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to participate in this discussion however due to the time constraints I am concentrating on developing the page, and learning A LOT about wiki guidelines as I go along... MegEng (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, MegEng. I noticed that your contributions to Wikipedia are mostly on this article. Are you the subject of the article, perhaps? Do you have any kind of relation to the subject? -The Gnome (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no kind of relation to the subject. I am a new contributor to wikipedia with a lot of time on my hands (retired school teacher) and I have been using wikipedia pages for information for over 10 years. Thank-you for letting me clarify this.MegEng (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that this page be re-reviewed and not deleted. I spent my free hours this past week in an attempt to highlight nobility and meet reference requirements, and uncovered some unique layers which I attempted to show without a promotional slant. I started this page because this doctor's biography showed some effort to better the world (e.g. beyond research, money and prestige). I understand the page still needs refinement which I can do with at a slower pace with help from other users and with advice from the Tea House (this is also my first and last page, as I want to turn to editing page. Thank-you for your consideration.MegEng (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)es).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Szzuk- thank-you. I am addressing existing concerns for this page with advice offered from this discussion and other users/Tea House. I am slowing my pace somewhat to ensure I meet Wikipedia expectations.MegEng (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice for lack of notability. If the article's creator wants to work on and improve the text, they can work on it and should be allowed to resubmit it at a later date. Meantime, Wikipedia is not a testing board; newcomers are advised to use the WP:AFC process. Putting up an article knowing that it does not meet Wikipedia's standards, or knowing it's there and allowing it to be up does a disservice to the encyclopaedia. See also WP:DRAFTS. -The Gnome (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per my mention of no affiliation to subject (see above) and non-partial to this subject and did not knowingly do anything. If I had known this discussion is what waited my first attempt to contribute to Wikipedia I would never have started it. I would like the chance to improve it but at a slower pace so I can learn more. Thank-you for allowing this page to be worked on and all encouragement helps.MegEng (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MegEng - having a page nominated for deletion is not an indication of any wrongdoing on the part of the page's creator. Most people who have created any significant number of pages have had a few nominated for deletion, or actually deleted. As per The Gnome's comments, you are welcome to continue improving it while it's being discussed at AfD and - should it ultimiately be deleted - are further welcome to work on it in a sandbox before reintroducing it to mainspace. In a sandbox you can work on it as slowly as you like. Wikipedia just has an obligation to the privacy of WP:BLPs that would preclude them from becoming searchable subjects on WP if there's any doubt about their notability. This is to protect Samoon Ahmad more than anything else. Have you had a chance to visit the WP:TEAHOUSE? Chetsford (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford- thank-you for the above comment and information. It is really appreciated. I had to step away from Wikipedia for a few days in order to get over my disappointment and re-group. I am now ready to vist the WP:TEAHOUSE and work on the page within a sandbox, re-read the discussion related notes and advice i was given, and work at a slower pace (as well as edit some pages that i have come across that need some notices, etc.). Thank-you again.MegEng (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MegEng - I'm withdrawing the deletion nomination due to the fact you've added a claim from an offline source that Ahmad is a fellow of the APA. This might be an automatic qualifier for notability under the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. Chetsford (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not. See below. The claim for being a "distinguished fellow" is sourced to an irrelevant link! Let's not jump the gun. -The Gnome (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Withdraw nomination.~~ A claim has been added to the article that the subject is a fellow of the American Psychiatric Association which might be a pass under criteria 3 of WP:NACADEMIC. I'm not familiar enough with the fellowship criteria of the APA to say for sure. Chetsford (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford - THANK-YOU. I hope it will be enough (and I am going to continue to work on the page to address concerns). I will keep watching the discussion and hope... MegEng (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hold your horses, Chetsford. The subject is ostensibly a "Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association." The source for that claim is a link to the Amazon website about a book ("Kaplan & Sadock's Pocket Handbook of Clinical Psychiatry") that seems to have zero relevance with the subject. Perhaps, he is a member of the APA, but this by itself means nothing; practically every psychiatrist can join the APA.^[1] So, WP:NACADEMIC is still lacking: "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)." Emphasis added. -The Gnome (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Amazon is to well respected Medical Textbook that he CO-AUTHORED and (as noted in the the reference link that I inserted on his page - under 'Index' is an in-depth profile that i found that is within the textbook). As well, here is a link indicating he was Chair at APA's 2008 Conference^[2]^{[dead link‍]} Your argument appears slightly slanted? (just an observation from a new user), then again I am wondering why his Academia standing is being questioned with the remaining/sound references (not mentioned) - they must hold little or no strength. I will look for a stronger reference.MegEng (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my insertion above does not sound disrespectful of your discussion (I am learning and will attempt not to take input personally). Thank-you.MegEng (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright. This happens many times when the discussion gets heated or it goes on for a long time; we think there's something "personal" involved. All I'm doing here is debating the 'notability of the article's subject. Nothing to do with his "respectability," etc. By the way, the link you gave about him chairing some APA conference is a dead end. -The Gnome (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with having an article deleted and then reinstated after sources proving notability are found and the text is up to scratch. You're fighting to have the article staying up in Wikipedia on the wrong grounds! Most of the arguments you're offering are irrelevant, e.g. that you're a newbie, he's a nice guy, he's well respected, etc. Try to focus, if I may offer some advice, on notability. Start by examining carefully the general criteria for a person'a notability and notability criteria for academics. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome - thanks, I think I must have jumped to the wrong source. I'll withdraw my withdrawal pending confirmation from an independent source Ahmad is a Distinguished Fellow of the APA. Chetsford (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford and The Gnome - This links shows him with general APA membership only^[3] - the website does not show a list of Distinguished Fellowships so I would hesitate how others acquire their references. His profile on the the textbook (following those of Kaplan & Saddock's profiles) clearly says 'Distinquished Fellowship" with APA. Author of a well recognizable and respected Text book (co-author, several editions as contributing editor, etc. over several years). His post-trauma award with the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies is also an option. I have read the page on Notability several times, and again today, as you are aware the Criteria per profession varies: "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." So I will present arguments for these after some more studying.MegEng (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, and to make a long story short, there is no independent confirmation of the subject being a "distinguished fellow of the APA." I'm removing the relevant claim from the BLP. -The Gnome (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, however, I added membership to APA (see reference) as a General Membership only. I am looking into the textbook further.MegEng (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Coauthor of parts of majpr textboiks, which is enough to meet WP:Prof. DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt I may be wrong about the subject's notability status. Please help me make up my mind by providing some support for the characterization of those textbooks as "major," so that criteria #1 or #4 of WP:NACADEMIC are met. Sincere thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will attempt to locate a sound reference indicating Kaplan & Sadock is a "cornerstone text in the field of psychiatry and mental health." (quote publisher)MegEng (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome- Reference for Kaplan & Sadock is a top ranked medical (psychiatry) text book^[4] Also related: refer Harold Kaplan and References 18-22 on Samoon Ahmad's page.MegEng (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You keep citing that book (Sadock, Benjamin J.; Sadock, Virginia A. (2007). Kaplan and Sadock's Synopsis of Psychiatry. Behavioral Sciences/Clinical Psychiatry. USA: LWW. ISBN 978-0781773270.) but we need primary evidence of the subject's supposed "distinguished fellowishp" in the APA. Shouldn't this be evident from the APA's logs?

And, just to be clear, Kaplan is the book that is "a cornerstone text in the field of psychiatry and mental health," and not a book by Samoon Ahmad. So far, and in so many words, we have nothing of substance. -The Gnome (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You did not appear to be considering what DGG forwarded above "Coauthor of parts of major textbooks is enough to meet WP:Prof. AS NOTED HERE: "Kaplan & Sadock's pocket handbook of clinical psychiatry" (2018 - this latest book is CO-AUTHORED by Sammon Ahmad and his name is CLEARLY noted as one of the 3 authors) - see link^[5] So why are you not making an effort to consider this? You appear fixated on the APA despite other criteria that the subject is able to fulfill.MegEng (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confrontational attitude and personal attacks do not get contributors very far in Wikipedia, MegEng, rest assured of that. You may want to consider improving your manners.

On the substance of the dialogue: I refer you to the incisive commentary by DGG immediately below. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome and DGG I want to apologize for my comments, I did not mean them to be combative or disrespectful. When I re-read them, I see now how they could be perceived as such and I am truly sorry. At the time, I was frustrated. Since I started this page, it has held a deletion notice, it got to me. That is no excuse. I forgot you both are volunteers as well, and helping with your time to ensure Wikipedia users follow guidelines. And it's needed. I respect both your advice and help. Please accept my apology and I will step back from the discussion. Sincerely, MegEng (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done; we move on. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking in more detail, authorship of a textbook or chapter is a little difficult to apply in clinical medicine, because almost all major textbooks are multi-authored, with individual authors contributing chapters in their fields. Even editor of such a book is sometimes difficult to determine, because here too there are usually several, and the most prominent name is the usually decreased famous author of the first edition. Additionally, Kaplan & Sadock's Pocket Handbook of Psychiatric Drug Treatment and Kaplan and Sadock's Concise Textbook of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry are not formal textbooks in the usual sense, but shorter books of the sort widely used for review and quick reference. Some such books can be really important or even famous, but my usual criteria will not determine this--they are almost never assigned as textbooks and rarely collected by libraries. I am no longer sure that authorship of a chapter in such a book would itself be sufficient to meet WP:PROF; but he is one of the principal current editors of the books, and that is probably sufficient. In addition to the book there are a few papers shown in Google Scholar--the most cited have 129 and 63 references--but there are almost no other papers and I don't think that by itself shows notability either. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok (it appears he was contributing editor for past 10+ years on the majority of the handbooks). An additional reference notes him as contributing-Author for a 2009 textbook "Kaplan & Sadock's concise textbook of child and adolescent psychiatry"^[6] On a different note, does he not satisfy Criteria 2 as recipient of the "Frank Ochberg Award for Media and Trauma Study (ISTSS) which "recognizes significant contributions by clinicians and researchers on the relationship of media and trauma"?^[7] which ties in with his research contributions.MegEng (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It6 is not an award of major significance. Even if the Society is a major national organization, it's highest award is its Lifetime Achievement Award, and there are other awards for "outstanding" achievements. This is just for "significant", [9]. Trying to make a case with material like this gives an impression of a possible overcommitment. A few of my first articles were deleted; try not to takes things like this as major blows, and keep going on others. DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank-you.MegEng (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being the "principal current editor" of a layman's guide, instead of a major scientific book, is IMVHO stretching the claim to notability, though I fully respect your opinion to "keep" this article. -The Gnome (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Criteria for Fellowship to the APA
^ Chair 2008 Workshop - refer 'IW11.' on page^{[dead link‍]}
^ of APA Dr. Samoon Ahmad
^ and Sadock's textbook ranking: Board Vitals
^ AUTHOR Dr. SAMOON AHMAD
^ & Sadock's concise textbook of child and adolescent psychiatry
^ Samoon Ahmad 2007 Frank Ochbery Award for Media & Trauma Study

Delete inflated claims. Writing a chapter in a text book, heading a clinical unit at Bellevue Hospital, and chairing a paper session at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association (where a few hundred such sessions are held every year) are all indications of being a respected clinician - NOT of being a notable psychiatrist. All I see is over-sourcing, inflated claims, and no indication of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 27 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.

References

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Del Mar

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

fails WP:NCORP Lyndaship (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The company seems to have been involved in a series of lawsuits for fraudulent practices. I've added this to the article. London Hall (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found a press release: https://www.hometownnewsvolusia.com/news/plans-approved-for-new-costa-del-mar-headquarters/article_16eb2bc0-369c-11e8-83bd-b70c483f4466.html

Another one: https://invisionmag.com/news/press-releases/3850-costa-launches-onecoast-campaign-for-disaster-relief.html Gidev the Dood^(Talk) 18:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I gave the article a makeover for verification and notability. I think it is worth of keeping now... Gidev the Dood^(Talk) 19:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has been updated, there are new refs that need examining
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on coverage by at least two independent analyst firms. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:16, 23 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! 20:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topaz Winters

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

Lack of Notability, for a biography of a living person. As said before WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR and was re-created after having been deleted previously with no significant changes Zubin12 (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A ref-bombed article on an 18-year old author who apparently has 8 mental disorders. I'm not checking all 95(!) references (including Facebook, Youtube, etc), if somebody feels there's any plausible importance please list at most 4 that you think demonstrate notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree on notability. Article appears similar in notability to Aaron Lee, Joshua Ip, Rain Chudori, Cyril Wong. See awards from CINE Golden Eagle Awards, Jane Goodall Institute, My Rode Reel Film Festival; publications by Cicada Magazine, Cosmonauts Avenue, Wildness; press references from The Straits Times, India-West, Wattpad; record holder with relation to a notable literary prize ("She is primarily known as the youngest Singaporean ever to be nominated for the Pushcart Prize and is a two-time nominee"); notability of "Half Mystic" section ("Half Mystic's staff, readers, contributors, and authors have been published and profiled in Best of the Net, Best American Poetry, Best New Poets, The Paris Review, Rolling Stone, NPR, The Huffington Post, The Chicago Tribune, and The New York Times, and are Pushcart Prize, MTV Video Music Awards, and Grammy nominees"); recognition for books ("poems for the sound of the sky before thunder debuted at the 2017 Singapore Writers Festival, while Heaven or This has been read by over 30,000 people"). All sources appear legitimate at least for those instances.

Article has unnecessary information which should be culled - mental disorder information, full list of publications and awards, etc. That the author is 18 years old and has mental disorders is irrelevant to this discussion. Not a reason to keep or delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lillian Paterson (talk • contribs) 06:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In agreement with Lillian Paterson. All the references are excessive but the ones I checked were for real. Also Googled the author and found a wealth of legitimate articles on her work, in addition to her record holder status for a notable writing award and recognition by Singapore Writers Festival of her last book. This person has the notability to be on Wiki but the page needs to be trimmed down. Sweetmachine 12:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Draftify-Echo Power-en-wiki.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:27, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Koovs

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

PROMO-SPAM by near-certain-UPE editor.No non-trivial significant mentions across reliable sources. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advert. Szzuk (talk) 17:25, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nadem Hossaen

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

This RJ even lacks trivial coverage from independent reliable sources and therefore does not appear to meet basic GNG and. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. The article claims he has received a bunch of awards but I don't see any of them notable (al-least by WP standards). Saqib (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per reasons put forward by nominator and lack of reliable sources.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Nom. Arman ^(Talk) 04:28, 22 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! 20:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ante Bakmaz

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the author based on a claim that the Maltese and Lithuanian top flights are fully pro. This is refuted by sources at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough here to satisfy WP:GNG for me, as for WP:NFOOTBALL, we don't always recognise playing in Europa League qualifying rounds as passing, but the coverage for that has swayed my argument for keep. Govvy (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With one exception, all of the sources listed are either match reports, statistical profiles, or transfer announcements, all of which are routine sports coverage. The only source that differs is the article titled "Ante Will Find a Way", which was written by Bakmaz himself and is not independent of the subject. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Although there are a number of references, I agree with the analysis above that they are routine reports that do not discuss the player in any real depth. Fenix down (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fauks the notability guidelines for football, and any reasonable interpretation of GNG that considers just the huge mass of information out there and takes a reasonable view of significant would exclude this article from passing it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the Latvian and Lithuanian leagues aren't included here [[10]] but this is also a great example of the types of articles WP:GNG is meant to keep: his career has been very well covered in the press by non-routine sources. SportingFlyer talk 18:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While appreciating the efforts made by this article's creator to add sources in a genuine attempt to demonstrate general notability, I don't think they've managed to. GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The independent sources present in the article are routine match reports, transfer news, and namechecks; none discuss Mr Bakmaz or his career in any detail. The only significant coverage is still the article written by the subject himself, which can't be used towards GNG. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:38, 22 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 Extreme Paintbrawl. Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Paintbrawl 4

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

Notability is not inherited, and it doesn't meet WP:GNG ^{[Username Needed]} 11:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 12:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Extreme Paintball (which looks notable--for how bad the game was). This particular iteration doesn't appear to have reliable sources. --Izno (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC) Will reassess. --Izno (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Izno: - I assume you meant Extreme Paintbrawl? Also, logically if this is being put up for AfD, Extreme Paintbrawl 2 should go with it (unless the reviews that are even worse (3rd worst ranked game)) give that one sufficient? The sources for both look pretty similar. I would imagine the paintbrawl 3 did exist, if all the others were there, but can't speak to that. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I may need to revise my comment after review then. I looked for "Extreme Paintball"... --Izno (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews at IGN, GameSpot, and Igromania. I can fall either way here. This is at least a merge if not a weak keep, probably to Extreme Paintbrawl. --Izno (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - lacking as the article is, with three distinct sources, two of which are clearly in-depth, and a potential other source (my google didn't feel like translating) I feel that WP:NVG is satisfied - its notability is self-derived from multiple sources in its own right. I don't feel a merge is necessary. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge worth a sentence, a small footnote in history. Szzuk (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Extreme Paintbrawl. And, yes, Nosebagbear is correct that Extreme Paintbrawl 2 should also be merged. A selective merge may be sufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:12, 27 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. Closed early per WP:SNOW. At 26 to 8, the possibility of a "delete" consensus emerging from this is nil. In terms of strength of argument, the issue is whether this is a BLP1E case, but reasonable arguments are made on both sides and it's essentially a matter of editorial judgment. This is therefore not a situation where a closer could find a "delete" consensus based on strength of argument. Sandstein 14:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tammie Jo Bonnell

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

The subject was the pilot of Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 which had an engine failure and decompression. She followed procedure and landed the plane safely. That makes her a reliable employee, not a hero, and certainly not notable. Likewise, being "one of the first female fighter pilots in the United States Navy" is not notable as others preceded her. Any biography that includes pet chickens [since deleted] and Sunday school teaching is clearly struggling for relevance. WWGB (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - This AFD is using a maiden name article Tammie Jo Bonnell instead of Tammie Jo Shults. Adding this section on top of the discussion to allow editors to search properly using the built-in linked search features. Using bold fonts for visibility. Bohbye (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject clearly passes WP:BASIC as there is extensive global coverage of her specifically in numerous quality sources such as the NYT and BBC. There is detailed coverage of her in sources which pre-date the latest incident and so she has multiple claims to notability. The details of her personal life are appropriate for a fully-rounded biography and the fact that such details are available further demonstrates her notability. Note that she is being compared to Chesley Sullenberger and it would be iniquitous to delete a woman's article while keeping an equivalent man. Andrew D. (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. WP:BASIC points out that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." That is exactly the problem here. Also, Sullenberger performed a famous feat of notably outstanding airmanship, while Bonnell's was mundane. Raising gender bias as an excuse is wholly invidious and speaks more to the subjectivity of the commentator. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Even Sully Was Impressed by Southwest’s Emergency Landing where he explains that such events are not mundane, “It is possible now to go through an entire airline career and never experience an in-flight engine failure". Andrew D. (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my view, this is a classic example of WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BLP1E; in fact the second paragraph of the WP:SUSTAINED description presents exactly what this person is: notable for a single event and likely to remain a low-profile individual. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply WP:BLP1E. - Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep for now per ~~the above; a one-trick pony.~~ WP:TOOSOON. I doubt that enough of notability will surface, but things are still moving too fast to make a clear call. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC) [Updated 15:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)][reply]
Keep The U.S. Navy felt that she was worthy of publicity in 1992. This is her second appearance in the news. – Maliepa (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this the source from the early 1990s?[11] It is an 1993 article in All Hands, a USN publication, about diversity in the Naval Air Forces, and quotes Shults/Bonnell but doesn't provide many details about her. Is there more somewhere else? Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom, Maliepa, and Andrew Davidson. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The subject fails WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:BLP1E, as the subject is only known for this one mishap. This is the problem with Wikipedians, generally, is that in a fit of excitement they write articles about anything that pops up in the news just so they can see their narrative on a website, lacking all thoughtfulness and objectivity in the process. Let's wait five or ten years and see if anyone is writing about her in something passing WP:SIGCOV removed from this incident. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This AFD is premature. News of her background is still surfacing. Per Australian Broadcasting Company, International Business Times, One of the first US Navy female fighter pilots, instructor, Lt. Commander. Her background is still surfacing, but enough is coming forward to keep this article. — Maile (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The day the article is created, people are already rushing to delete it. [12] Capt. Tammie Jo (Bonnell ’83) Shults is one of the first female fighter pilots for the U.S. Navy. Searching for her as "Tammie Jo Shults", her name before marriage I assume, gets some results also, sorting through all of that now. I agree with others, more about her is coming out, no reason to rush to delete this. Many like myself will see her in the news and search Wikipedia for an article about her. Dream Focus 14:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read those articles? They are just short fillers repeating the same old trivia goss, there is nothing new in them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how fortunate for Wikipedia that AFD Chesley Sullenberger resulted in a Keep. It was listed at AFD within hours of the article being started. — Maile (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable, with articles about her in high-profile newspapers. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Keep with Draft:Tammie Jo Shults I feel the article should be kept and merged with the article under development which uses her current legal name as used widely in the press. That article then can be moved into the main namespace. As for notability I think that while she is certainly now primarily notable for her actions on flight SWA 1380 in addition to that recognition of her as the first female naval aviator to fly the F/A-18 is independently notable and together make her article worth keeping. Phil (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her married name already exists in mainspace as Tammie Jo Shults. Draft space is too slow for such a hot topic. Andrew D. (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particular about which article is kept just believe that A) the article is notable and warrants keeping and B) it is more appropriate to have her maiden name redirect to her current legal name and that receiving coverage than the other way around. While I think the Draft article could have been moved to main some time ago, this AfD itself is some evidence it wasn't the wrong decision to proceed with some deliberation. Wikipedia doesn't need to be in a rush. We just need to keep moving in the right direction :) Phil (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wonder if the subject was a male if a quick deletion request notice would’ve been issued. Bohbye (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find this comment insulting. I (and possibly most in the list of contributors above) did never consider her gender when I put forward my opinion on this AfD. As User:Maile66 noted above, the same discussion happened also for Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger's bio. By the way. I don't think that bringing an article into scrutiny regarding its notability is wrong; in fact this test makes an article stronger if it survives. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rentzepopoulos Try not to let the sun go down on feeling insulted (meaning...don't hold on to it). Wikipedia is known for having a problem with gender bias, and it's been covered in the Signpost and numerous media. It's why Wikiproject Women in Red exists. I listed the Chesley Sullenberger AFD to illustrate a different issue. That nomination came from a drive-by IP. The AFD process is flawed in that way, that the nomination can be made by anyone, whether they know anything about the subject matter, or about how Wikipedia works, or even if they're over the age of 10. I'd prefer that AFD be a process that requires an article exist for a week or so, and let CSD cover the rest. But there are probably a lot of reasons why that doesn't exist, and this is not the place to debate the system, I guess. — Maile (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rentzepopoulos The simple fact that articles related to females on wikipedia are so easily catogorised as not notable or low profile, that is insulting. This person is a pioneer in military aviation who faught hard for equality in an all male dominated military and was notable way before she was the Captain of flight 1380, and in her honor she will have equality here on wikipedia. Bohbye (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As argued above, recognition for multiple accomplishments over a span of many years means that WP:BLP1E is utterly beside the point. XOR'easter (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BLP1E and the fact that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, see WP:NOTNEWS; further, fails WP:Soldier guidelines. Kierzek (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful that she fails WP:SOLDIER. She was both an EA-6B and F/A-18 instructor, which certainly satisfies "recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters". Not to mention, she was the first woman to fly an F/A-18 Hornet for the Navy. She passes WP:GNG. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable even before this week's incident - not least for being featured in the book "Military Fly Moms" - and doubly so after it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep « That makes her a reliable employee, not a hero, and certainly not notable ». A Wikipedia article is not a medal or an award that would be only "deserved" to "heroes". We have articles about hot dog vendors or groundskeepers. What makes them have articles on Wikipedia is not that they are heroes or they're reliable in their job, but there are several sources and references, in major newspaper for example, about them specifically ; so we can write a reliable and factual article about them. We're exactly in the same situation with the hero Tammie Jo Shults. --Deansfa (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons listed above. Ross-c (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the first female naval aviator to fly the F/A-18 is independently notable, BLP1E is moot ☆ Bri (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now the article documents a Congressional resolution on her actions, and Navy Times source terms her "a Navy aviation pioneer". This is neither NOTNEWS nor TOOSOON material. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to Southwest Airlines Flight 1380. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree independently notable. --Brad Patrick (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep - as notable even before this week's incident, and now much more notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of my reasons: washington post: ‘Sully’ was just a hero. Why label the Southwest captain a ‘female pilot’? => reception in a sociological context --Neun-x (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough for events long before incident. Flytilega (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. --Dmol (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because she is known for one thing, being on a doomed flight, but merging her information to the Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 article. Southwest Boat (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Looking at the Chesley_Sullenberger's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chesley Sullenberger and recent news coming up about Shults, I believe the notability will establish soon as more and more news report has started to publish report for the subject and snow effect will take place. Hence vote keep per WP:TOOSOON, WP:SNOW. Xinbenlv (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a Google search and she's talked about in depth, including her past accomplishments.[13] WP:BLP1E states that a person may not qualify for an article if they fulfill several requirements. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." That's not the case here as events from her past are covered signficantly. Additionally, it only applies "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." The event is notable enough for its own page (Southwest Airlines Flight 1380), and this individual's role was substantial and well documented. It seems clear to me that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The AfD and this discussion should be renamed or merged to properly identify with the page Tammie Jo Shults. There is so much more data under her current name Tammie Jo Shults and less under Tammie Jo Bonnell (maiden name). It only makes sense that a fair discussion will allow fellow editors to search under the correct name when clicking the links appearing on the top of the discussion Bohbye (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since Tammie Jo Bonnell is already a re-direct (as mentioned above), if you pull up the Tammie Jo Shults article, and look for "What links here", this AFD template, as well as everything else linked to Tammie Jo Bonnell is already attached to the Tammie Jo Shults article. Also, this discussion is linked to at least one tracking tool at Wikimedia Labs, and I think moving/merging would pretty much not work with them. — Maile (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell the difference between the following?

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

Just click the "News" link Bohbye (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added a link on top of the page. Bohbye (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we had two different thought lines, now that you have added those links. I believe you meant it should all be merged for the duration of this AFD. Am I correct in that? — Maile (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I first heard about her, I knew she'd pass GNG. She has a significant career before her amazing act of heroism. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple accomplishments featured over the years; first female naval aviator to fly the F/A-18. Collective Contributions (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her career and her accomplishments are emphasized in every article I've read related to the SW flight. She meets GNG. She's independently notable. .JSFarman (talk)
Comment If she passes GNG but doesn't pass ONEEVENT, then there should be no article, right? Was there an EVENT prior to this latest one that was really notable? No. So, if this latest event did not happen, would an article be justified? I think, no. So, she is really just notable for this one EVENT, and hence no article. Does that make sense? This should probably be a delete. Help me make up my mind because that is what I am thinking at the moment. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if she is really just notable for this one EVENT, this article should not be deleted, but be merged into and redirected to Southwest Airlines Flight 1380. --Neo-Jay (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There is no notable event before this plane accident. This plane accident makes one event. That means, per ONEEVENT, no article. Content in Southwest Airlines Flight 1380? Heck yes. Fill up a section. That's where it belongs, surely. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject passes policies such as WP:BLP1E because her role in the event was a major one and she had detailed coverage prior to the event. See Lonehexagon's analysis above which gets this right. Andrew D. (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A few specifics:
1. WP:BLP1E and WP:1E do not apply because there is sufficient coverage in Military Fly Moms (2012) and Call Sign Revlon (1998) to show she's known for more than a single event. The standard here, in my long experience at AFD not been "two or more events each of which is separately notable", but "enough coverage to show notability based on sources referring to more than one event." The difference is subtle but important.
2. Shults is not a low-profile individual. She has made herself the subject of a book (Military Fly Moms), she's publicly advocated Congress for female pilots (as described in Call Sign Revlon), and she's put herself the very public position of being a groundbreaking fighter pilot. As such, BLP1E point 2 does not apply, and so, BLP1E does not apply.
3. WP:1E doesn't require merging with the event, in my view, because I've seen enough coverage (e.g., [14][15], and many similar) to warrant separate coverage. --joe decker ^talk 08:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You do make a pretty darn good point there, joe decker. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Okay, I've thought about it. Joe and others make good points. I'm in the keep camp. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a counterexample, Chesley Sullenberger, the captain of US Airways Flight 1549 once also got nominated for deletion. However, due to his fame apart from the disaster, the article was finally kept. Tammie Jo Bonnell not only got famed after the incident, but also those events mentioned by other users, So I will vote for a kept.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sullenberger, who has an article here, had nothing in his life that was notable except the one incident. This woman is notable for her early role as a female combat pilot and deserves an article for that even without the recent incident. . Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's BLP1E not BLP2E. There's enough sources and content for a worthy BLP despite her part in the recent accident being inflated from important to central (unlike Chesley Sullenberger). Widefox; talk 12:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to argue, but just for the record, "her part in the accident" (which wasn't a part in the accident since it was mechanically-based) was far from inflated. How she handled keeping the plane from disaster was drawn from her experience as a Naval Aviator piloting three different tailhook jets but also having been a Navy jet instructor in the Wing. She didn't just land the plane, the steps she took prior to landing kept the incident from being total tragedy. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Close but no cigar. She is a low-profile individual and likely to remain one. We don't have articles on pilots because they safely landed an aircraft with an engine out. She is a very capable pilot but comparing her to Chesley Sullenberger is ridiculous. The argument that she is notable in part because she got decorations from the military are weak. There are plenty of decorated ex-military pilots who have pulled off hairier landings, should we have articles on them. No. - Samf4u (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samf4u, you might want to take a look at the other arguments for Keep and accompanying evidence that shows she would pass WP:GNG without the Southwest Airlines incident having occurred. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:43, 20 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Srour

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

Non-notable boxer does not meet WP:NBOX and full of promotional hyperbole. PRehse (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 10:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our very broad inclusion criteria for boxers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet any of the notability criteria for boxers. The most major result I could find for him was first round loss in the European junior boxing championships by a score of 21-6. His three pro victories have come against boxers with a combined total of zero wins and 17 losses. The coverage appears to be routine sports reporting and not enough to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:51, 24 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Juliette Louie

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

Coming the first in a Hong Kong pageant is not a claim of notability, fails WP:ENTERTAINER B dash (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Szzuk (talk) 16:15, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xftp

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. User:David Gerard previously PRODed it with the concern " No evidence of notability as a product. All but unreferenced, both references primary. Was tagged straight after creation, no improvement." SmartSE (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely delete, as noted fails both WP:NSOFT & WP:GNG. Given sources are primary, and a look round gives the only mentions in media/articles as about Shadowpad [Example], which is an exploit that hit NetSarang software in general, with Xftp as merely part of that and a tiny mention - the reference belongs on the NetSarang page, definitely not here. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Nosebagbear - David Gerard (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Nosebagbear. Not notable. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 20:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nosebagbear - definitely not notable, couldn't find any sources/mentions except some irrelevant private blogs and file distribution sites.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 23:07, 19 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right Bank Outfall Drain

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

Nothing signifies its encyclopedia value. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Too much use of "WILL".. WP:NOTFUTURE applies here. Saqib (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn drain. Szzuk (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTFUTURE. Government had approved the cost for the Right Bank Outfall Drain in December 2017.[16] There's still a lot more to come. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:02, 26 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RME Audio

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, unsourced since 2011 Kleuske (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:19, 19 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Sulser

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

Has not received coverage in independent reliabl esources to satisfy WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched, and simply couldn't find anything WP:RS about him. Two Prix Walo and one de:Schweizer Fernsehpreis would get him through WP:NBIO for me - but I can find no mention of them except on Sulser's LinkedIn page and his own website (which don't count). Narky Blert (talk) 15:41, 19 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. (non-admin closure) samee converse 13:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arishfa Naz

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

Seemingly the article appears on some notable artist but if you look at the references, all are dubious and unreliable ones. Some of the RS such as The Indian Express does not even mention the subject. Google Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person so Can't see any significance. The page was previously created under a diff title at Child Artist Arishfa .. For what its worth, this page is apparently created by the subject herself (look at the username).. Fails to meet Wikipedia:ACTORBIO and basic GNG.. Saqib (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added them, they are reliable sources, trusted especially in the field of TV shows. I learnt how to add citations, so added them myself Arishfa Naz 07:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arishfa Naz (talk • contribs)

@Arishfa Naz: are you Arishfa Naz? --Saqib (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please remove the afd template from my page i am not fake i have everything proper then why you want to delete my page?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arishfa Naz (talk • contribs) 08:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am arishfa naz full Name arishfa naz khan, i am Child actress here are my references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arishfa Naz (talk • contribs)

Are you here to vandalism? what is this? --Saqib (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just tagged the article to be speedily deleted per G4 and G5 please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arshifakhan61/Archive. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: Wow. I'm surprised to see this SPI's and old AfDs - Thank you for make us aware of these.. I would say someone ping an admin and get all the titles salted. --Saqib (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: and they are expert in hijacking too, see this and this-this from yesterday. Pinging Ivanvector if he's around to take care of this one too. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no mention of the subject except this article. Lorstaking (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This has been created multiple times under different titles (including Arishfa khan, Arshifa khan, Arishfa, Arishfa Khan Artist, Arishfa khan pathan, I am arishfa khan, Khan arishfa, Draft:Arishfa Khan, Draft:Arshu(Arishfa khan)...) by Arshifakhan61 and socks (a number of which are now globally locked). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 19 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. Sorry I cant find any consensus here without discarding policy based votes for one side over the other. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oskaloosa High School (Kansas)

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

Subject fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:GNG, and WP:ORG. Per rules, subject must have "significant coverage in independent, multiple, reliable, secondary sources," which it doesn't, except in typical listings. Some historical significance has been claimed, related to civil rights movement episode in the Oskaloosa area some decades ago, but apart from this, not much. The Gnome (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or may be merged. Generally such guidelines are not that strict when it applies to Wikipedia:Notability (high schools), and coverage does exist [17] for example. A high school shouldn't be considered notable only when some incidents that attract national news coverage occur, which unfortunately does happen. Acnetj (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just comment that the coverage mentioned above amounts to no more than mention of an incident involving a student of that school; it's not about the school itself. The school does exists; that much is not disputed and we need no proof of it. The only question put forth is whether or not the subject of the article meets the criteria of independent notability as set down by the rules. -The Gnome (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Acnetj would seem correct by bringing up WP:NHS, frequently considered. The Gnome is correct by nominating this as WP:NSCHOOL which is somewhat stricter - the key mention in WP:NONPROFIT is "[supported by news sources] outside the organization's local area.", specifically mentioning schools. In effect, looking round, the formal rules are often repudiated by AfD consensus - really WP:NSCHOOL seems to be treated more as a guideline than a policy (and yes I am aware of numbers of AfD actions between the three users here). Nosebagbear (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NSCHOOL is a rule, while WP:HIGHSCHOOL is an essay. Moreover, the latter is a descriptive rather than a prescriptive text, i.e. it describes what's happening; it does not prescribe what should happen. (Articles on high schools and secondary schools, with rare exceptions, have been kept when nominated at AfD.) But even the WP:HIGHSCHOOL essay states quite clearly that articles on schools must be able to meet notability standards, such as those at WP:N and WP:NORG specifically. This is the basis of the nomination, in fact. -The Gnome (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minor Comment - As a fully distinct point, any merge would logically go to Oskaloosa, Kansas#Education Nosebagbear (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the appropriate route to follow, if no consensus to delete is reached. -The Gnome (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only if there isn't a keep consensus, and NC vs merge usually gets a relisting Nosebagbear (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep as Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) essay points out, high school articles are typically kept. Granted there is an abundance of local coverage (so much it's hard to leaf through the listings of obituaries and other local events), but the events from a decade ago (noted by the nominator) would also clear WP:GNG and notability is not temporary. If this one is deleted, it will (like so many others) eventually be brought back when someone finds "the golden ticket" of articles printed online to show that "yes this is as good as any other high school article that we have kept."--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article about an issue regarding censorship [18] article on new teachers in 2016 [19] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High schools are generally kept at AfD. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Tagging my personal view on the dispute - in case of similar level disputes, falling towards keep is the right thing to do Nosebagbear (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Do not keep just because it is a high school. There needs to be potential to write some sort of article based on its history. There's mention of the school in some history records in Kansas, but still looking for newspaper articles or books that show significant coverage. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question According to the relevant Wikipedia article, there are some twenty six thousand public high-schools in the United States alone (2001 census). I'd guess there are at least as many in Europe, if not more, but let's not extend this beyond the US. If the default position is to allow articles about high schools to remain up, no matter what, are we to eventually have a Wikipedia article for each and every one of those twenty six thousand schools? -The Gnome (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't necessarily have an issue with that just because there is a high number of high schools. Wikipedia has articles on many things as well including Congressional and other legislative districts. I think high schools are as notable if not notable than these things, if not even more than school districts. If you're a student or a parent, you deal with school as an institution by itself. You don't consider yourself dealing with a branch of a school district. This is very different than eating at a franchise fast food chain or going to a branch of an international bank. When there's a school reunion, there's a school reunion, not a school district reunion. I acknowledge that some schools, just by virtue of status and history, will be more notable than others (such as a comprehensive high school with a 100 year old history versus some newly formed charter school with low enrollment, or a continuation school for troubled students). My point is that the notability should not be set at when the high school has gotten some kind of national news coverage. High schools generally don't get national news coverage unless it is for some kind of human interest stories, or some tragic events. Acnetj (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and accept that Wikipedia is slanted towards education. And that, consequently, it takes a more lenient view of schools, as subjects of articles. I guess this means we'd be OK with each and every one of the primary and secondary educational institutions in the world having its own article in Wikipedia. And why not, after all? The bandwidth appears to be freely available. This is very interesting. -The Gnome (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that every school should have its own article. I just think that a comprehensive high school should not be considered for deletion for the "lack of notability," with a standard that many schools cannot consistently meet. I accept the current consensus on the topic. Acnetj (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More comment And one of the things that make educational institution notable is the alumni, while a very interesting detail it is apart from the school's current status (or the status when that notable alumni were attending while not notable). I think it would be valuable that Wikipedia can include notable alumni on the school's page, but should not have the notability of the school be considered whether the school has notable alumni. Acnetj (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What you're saying is essentially a suggestion for the content of articles about schools; it has nothing to do with notability as a criterion for inclusion. Again, the sole criterion appears to be the mere attribute of the subject, i.e. of being a school; not its notability at all. Which reaffirms the position that every school can and should have its own Wikipedia page. Those who do not already have one should be made aware of this and get up to speed. -The Gnome (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no indepth indepent coverage that would lead to a show of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has been extremely rare (if not never) that an American public high school has been deemed non-notable. Sure, we delete the schools of brown-skinned people in countries with less online news content, where spammy articles without citation have been created, but that's a separate issue.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Schools are generally (overwhelmingly) found to be notable. We don't delete articles because they are incomplete. Arguments along the lines of "well if we gave every school a page..." are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not paper, there is not a finite number of pages. Egaoblai (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Therefore, in so many words, every American, public school does in fact merit a Wikipedia page ("infinite number of pages", etc) and no AfD should ever be raised again about an American, public school. I honestly did not know this. -The Gnome (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the school is verifiable (it can be shown to exist) then it will be notable too, as schools are reference points and instituions for communities. Egaoblai (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Egaoblai. You might want to follow or contribute to this discussion. And that goes for everyone else too. The issue is more significant than a single AfD. -The Gnome (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the historical and other sources in the article do provide evidence of notability, and is further confirmed by looking at the multiple sources in the search engines, please do the search appropriately, not quotes - there are sources over decades), see also, it's independently nationally ranked. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the above arguments, another reason - morbid, but practical - is that the U.S. high schools is where school shootings tend to occur. See for example: Forest High School (Florida), the site of the latest shooting. (Fortunately, no one was killed.) In general, high schools are of sufficient public interest and should be kept. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I sure hope anyone who closes this as keep does so because someone has demonstrated significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject beyond routine local news stories (i.e. WP:N), and not because of the bulk of the keep !vote rationales presented thus far. I don't know if this should be kept or deleted (I haven't researched it because I was made aware of this thread via a discussion that could be framed as canvassing, and thus won't be !voting), but I will be disappointed if the closer gives any weight at all to arguments based on a failed proposal-turned-essay, arguments that directly conflict with this well advertised, well attended, unchallenged RfC (i.e. the circular "keep because we have kept schools in the past"), or arguments that are either WP:AADD or otherwise have no basis in policy, e.g. "keep because we should keep high schools," "keep because it's useful," "keep because they're important," "keep because famous people went there", "keep because they're usually notable", or -- I don't even know how to classify this one -- "keep because someone might get shot there someday" [??]. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did not try to "canvass" anyone. The discussion I started over at the Notability talk-page I consider, of course, far more important than a single AfD process, such as this one. Perhaps I was in error to start the general discussion before this AfD closed down. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to suspect anything but good faith.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far, the voting is overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the article, running something like 8 to 1. Note, however, that the justifications provided for 7 out of the 8 "keep" votes are all along the same line, i.e. every high school is inherently notable and therefore worthy of an article:

Generally guidelines [such as WP:ORG and WP:NSCHOOL] are not that strict when it applies to high schools. A high school shouldn't be considered notable only when some incidents that attract national news coverage occur.
High school articles are typically kept.
High schools are generally kept at AfD.
Falling towards 'keep' is the right thing to do.
It has been extremely rare (if not never) that an American public high school has been deemed non-notable.
Schools are generally (overwhelmingly) found to be notable. We don't delete articles because they are incomplete. If the school is verifiable (it can be shown to exist) then it will be notable too.
In general, high schools are of sufficient public interest and should be kept.

I'm eagerly waiting not so much for the decision but for the justification the closing admin will provide. -The Gnome (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good point, I admit. High school articles that go to deletion discussions will sometimes end up at this point and on many levels I find agreement. I'll offer one more reason to keep: the policy ignore all rules. Editors overwhelmingly and consistently support having articles on high schools. Consensus is a cruel mistress...--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying, Paul McDonald, let's make an honest woman out of consensus! If our preferred mistress is "keep all school articles," then we should get married to it officially, i.e. have an rule explicitly saying so. Why have this waste of time and space on AfDs about schools? Let's make it official. That's why I initiated the general discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck to you. I can't help but agree with your logic, but I'm not enthusiastic about personally takings on such a challenge. Until then, back to this article in question I retain my position for the reasons above..--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, this is good summary of the reasons we should keep this article. Egaoblai (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well explained. It is somewhat indicative of the community being slightly lazy since otherwise we'd encourage formally changing the notability policy on it.Nosebagbear (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have precisely zero problems with Wikipedia changing the policy and allowing every single school on mother Earth to be able to have, by default, its own, separate, Wikipedia page. (Such a policy would mandate placing exceptions to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, as well, but that's trivial work.) But I'm very uncomfortable with a custom, i.e. a social consensus, nullifying a rule yet us doing nothing about the rule. That's just intellectual and social laziness, which rarely comes to anything good. -The Gnome (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to figure out how this will meet WP:WITHIN when there's nothing to say about it other than that it appears as passing mentions in random articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage in reliable independent sources of this historic public high school. Contrary to various misstatements we do not keep articles on all schools or even all high schools. Just major notable ones such as this one serving its community for more than 100 years. FloridaArmy (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted verbatim all statements, precisely so that there'd be no "misstatements." On the substance of your input, longevity does not equal notability. -The Gnome (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see it meeting GNG if that's what you're assuming. No articles have been added to the article or suggested to be added to the article that have demonstrated significant coverage. So again you're assuming it is inherently notable on the sole basis of being an American public high school that's over 100 years old. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy are you sure it's not coverage for the Iowa high school of the same name? [20] [21] [22] So I am not sure what this "plenty of coverage" is. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has the kind of coverage typical of an American public high school, and enough of it to pass GNG as it has been applied to such schools by long, long standing consensus: educational issues [23][24][25][26], sports [27], historical content [28][29][30], a notable alumnus [31], news coverage and controversy [32][33][34][35], etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historical context and related refs analyzed:

https://www.kshs.org/p/jefferson-county-schools-bibliography/13648 This shows a list of entries for Jefferson County School Superintendent. Jefferson County Public Schools Directory, 1899-1900 and other years. Only shows existence of the Jefferson County Public Schools district in Oskaloosa
http://www.legendsofkansas.com/oskaloosa.html mentions "it also supported a high school" but does not name the particular school. It is assumed to be Oskaloosa High School. Prior to that mention, it only discusses schoolhouses.
http://www.kancoll.org/books/cutler/jefferson/jefferson-co-p11.html only discusses the town's schoolhouses from 19th century. It discusses the establishment of a school district and three (and then later four) departments, but does not say what the name of the school is or what grades they teach as they haven't figured out what "high school" was.
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/kansas/districts/oskaloosa-public-schools/oskaloosa-jr-sr-high-school-8112 Lists the school as combined with the Jr. school. Directory entry as typical of American high schools.
https://books.google.com/books?id=OHmuMh2nfK4C&lpg=PA224&dq=oskaloosa%20kansas%20school&pg=PA202#v=onepage&q=oskaloosa%20kansas%20school&f=false - Strong Arts Strong Schools Only talks about Oskaloosa schools in general, not specifically the high school, and only saying they have art programs
https://books.google.com/books?id=69aeAAAAMAAJ&q=oskaloosa+kansas https://books.google.com/books?id=GvpZKhd01lsC&lpg=PT252&dq=oskaloosa%20kansas%20habitat&pg=PT252#v=onepage&q=oskaloosa%20kansas%20habitat&f=false The Child-school Interface - only discusses that University of Kansas up a research program in Oskaloosa to observe children there.
https://www.google.com/search?q=oskaloosa+bears Just general searches for sports team
https://books.google.com/books?id=WfQSnHRbe-wC&lpg=PA38&ots=W2LYgUUd2l&dq=oskaloosa%20terabithia&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q=oskaloosa%20terabithia&f=false - Bridge to Terabithia reviewing book for profanities - applies to Oskaloosa schools in general
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rural-youth-chase-big-city-dreams-1498478401 - Um, no, that applies to Oskaloosa High School in Iowa, not Kansas.

That leaves the articles concerning the student journalist who was involved in controversial publishing / censored. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After 9 years of dabbling at AfD, I can tell you this is never going to be deleted in a million years, so let's put this AfD out of its misery, we can spend our volunteer time much more productively elsewhere!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales was very clear, we gotta keep on this for another 72 hours straight, no rest, no sleep. I envy y'all volunteers. -The Gnome (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What really would be helpful would be if someone with a newspapers.com subscription would comb through the archives for "The Oskaloosa Independent" (1860-2001) and "The Oskaloosa Times" (1891-1916). A free search (I can't access the content, though) shows me the Independent has 1,874 matches for "oskaloosa high school" and 7,585 matches for "high school".--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Milowent, that would lead me to believe that significant coverage should be available more than just passing sports and random non-notable student/alumni mentions, which may still be like 99% of the articles listed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Local-media reports is most of what seems to be available for this unit; could be a criterion for future school-notability guidelines, though. -The Gnome (talk) 21:38, 24 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CTGP Revolution

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

NO evidence of notability. Only one primary source. Slatersteven (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fan mod for game. Purge. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a mention here, but not much else. --Izno (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just like Super Smash Flash its a fan made game/mod people will know about CTGP Revolution more so It is definitely keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dublinbus46a38122 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable independent sources that can be found in search. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:57, 23 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! 20:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Saghir

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

As per this reference, the subject is a Syrian economist based in New York but Google search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person so I Can't see any significance here.

Subject does not appear to meet GNG and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The subject, who is senior in age, started advising the Syrian government one year before the Arab Spring, and is known for his pro-Syrian government position. Absolutely of significance WP:N to anyone observing Syria - including the governments of the US, Great Britain and France. Would recommend AfD removed immediately, and post of link in Arabic or Russian to his profile on Wikipedia if available. Simone2049 (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HorseManJack

You need to provide evidence that this person is adviser to the Syrian government. And by the way do we have entry on this person in Arabic or Russian WP's ? I can't locate it. --Saqib (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take a crash course in definite and indefinite articles in English. And also contact your network to search for the requested articles.Simone2049 (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I fail to find any sources supporting the assertions made above, or anything that supports notability for this person. There isn't even a claim to notability in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 15:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I googled him and found a quote from him in the Atlantic,[[36]] but nothing substantive enough to base an article on. Fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtempleton (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 04:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abir Sinha

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

The article claims he won some title from FIDE, but I'm unable to verify it through RS therefore verification is failed. and I'm not sure if this Arena Grandmaster Title is enough to establish the WP:N.. Provided references in the infobox are not RS. Other than this, subject does not appear to meet GNG and 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) 07:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to verify article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 20 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zamir Cobb

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

Never appeared in any NFL games and fails GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment there appear to be sources such as Bloomberg News that support notability, but I don't have a subscription to that site and cannot verify at this time. Also passing mentions in Morning Call and Sports Illustrated about his life after football.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - added a citation, but I do not think a sufficient quantity of reliable sources exist for this subject to meet WP:GNG Kees08 (Talk) 02:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Kees08: I thought I'd give AfD a try. Would you concider GNG? ACYBERWARRIOR 19:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find some reliable sources that show he is notable, sure. Otherwise, there is nothing to write about unfortunately. Kees08 (Talk) 19:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't been able to find the coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG and it seems that no one else has, either. Hey, if I'm wrong, bring it back when the sources are found.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:41, 26 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grandfather Paradox (Doctor Who)

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

Non-notable fictional character who fails WP:GNG, better fit for the Dr Who Wiki than here. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The info from AHistory seems to be enough to pass the GNG, although I agree that the other sources provided aren't brilliant, nor have I been able to find any others from a quick Google. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- A single usable reference doesn't pass WP:SUSTAINED, therefore it still fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Grandfather Paradox, there's a workable reference here and the parent article is rather stuffy. Szzuk (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm not a Dr. Who fan, and know nothing about this character, but I skimmed the article and it appears to be well written, and while the sourcing is light, it's sourced using a Dr. Who guidebook. It is also acceptably integrated with links to other Dr. Who articles, so I don't see a compelling reason to delete it. I also don't think a merge and redirect to Grandfather Paradox will work, since the articles are quite different, but perhaps a line or two could also go there. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:01, 27 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lakes in the Timmins Area

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

List, flagged as unreferenced since July 2011 without improvement, of almost entirely non-notable lakes in and around a single city. Just three of the lakes here currently have articles to link to, and two of those are up for AFD -- so this amounts to a list of just one notable lake and 20 non-notable ones, in a city where the article claims the existence of four thousand lakes inside the city limits -- but that number's not credible absent verifiability in a reliable source, and not all of the lakes listed here are in Timmins instead of just being in the broader Timmins area. So it's not a list that there's any particular value in maintaining -- I literally can't find any evidence of a list like this existing for any other city of Timmins' modest size anywhere else on earth. Bearcat (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, listcruft. Szzuk (talk) 16:58, 26 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Pennisi

AfDs for this article:

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

No WP:RS to establish WP:ARTIST. Vanispam article for a non notable painter, with little to know legitimate exhibitions. The UrbanRiche Gallery doesn't seem to exist, and Chelsea International Fine Art Competition is a vanity competition run by Agora Gallery a known Vanity Galllery Theredproject (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a promotional biography of an artist who compares himself to Jackson Pollack and Ansel Adams. The references are to very weak or unreliable sources. This person does not meet our notability guideline for artists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto: "The references are to very weak or unreliable sources." I agree. Fails all notability tests. 104.163.140.141 (talk) 06:03, 19 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 20:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Walking on water

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

Almost entirely un-encyclopedic and a criticism of religion that has nothing to do with the article. Almost everything here is already adequately covered in other articles; lacks focus; generally poor writing style. Deletion has been requested in talk page. Chimneyrock (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - multiple grounds: not encyclopedic, functionally an unwarranted attack, duplicative, some iffy sources (though some interesting ones too - just again, found elsewhere for similar purposes, so it probably does meet WP:GNG). It definitely fails WP:NPOV Nosebagbear (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Walk on Water (and possibly move that DAB page to this location). A disaster of an article with no clear topic, it discusses both Animal locomotion on the water surface and Jesus walking on water. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 22 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 20:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Papakomeka Lake

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

Completely unreferenced article about a small lake, whose only evident claim of notability under WP:GEOLAND is that it exists. Every lake on earth is not automatically presumed notable just because it exists, however -- GEOLAND states that the notability of a lake is conditional on the ability to provide information beyond just statistics and coordinates alone, but there's no evidence of that here. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even this tourist guide doesn't say much about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails geoland. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:50, 25 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 20:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Smith (mayor)

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

There is a general consensus that articles on suburban mayors aren't notable, and that this incredibly short stub still claimed she was mayor (four years after her resignation) until a couple of hours ago suggests non-notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mayors of places that a suburbs as the term is used in Australia are not notable for such, and there is no other claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If something genuinely substantive could be said about her mayoralty, and genuinely solid reliable source coverage about her could be shown to support it, then I'd be willing to reconsider this — but mayors of Australian suburbs aren't automatically entitled to keep single-sourced stubs which just say that "she exists, the end". Bearcat (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete small city mayor with local/regional coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of significant coverage, and suburban mayors do not qualify for [[WP:POLITICIAN]. Frickeg (talk) 05:47, 22 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 20:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wingate Chronicles

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

Series of books lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with most self-published book series, this lacks the reliable sources we'd need to build a decent encyclopedic entry. /Julle (talk) 12:33, 22 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)} 21:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Navayne

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

per Mikepals:Having an IMDB page does not meet notability requirements, and the rest of the article lacks sources. 01:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, google news is showing some articles of this quality [37] [38]. Szzuk (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, had another look at the refs and they are just too weak. Szzuk (talk) 07:29, 27 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Iclif Leadership and Governance Centre

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

Despite its good intentions and founding principles, there is nothing here, or in searches, that suggest that this organisation is notable. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There's a fair supply of general sources, with ICLIF showing up quite a lot in regional news, as well as some more specifically related to their CEO and thus ICLIF's "ideology" (I've excluded those, but he writes in Forbes frequently). They are of variable, but decent, quality. They have covered some areas tagged as unsupported fairly well while leaving others absent. ~~I'm unsure where they leave the article as a whole in terms of WP:GNG~~ Nosebagbear (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Edge Weekly", "The Star", "Hindu Business Line", Strategy + Business (most directly relevant to ICLIF CEO/ideology, less about structure), "Sunday Observer". Nosebagbear (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The text reads like promotional WP:FANCRUFT. -The Gnome (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article is cruft, and needs heavy pruning to be nonpromotional. But there are just enough RS listed that are *about* Iclif to meet the GNG bar. (There are also articles in the sources which are passing mentions, references which are about people who happen to be affiliated with Iclif, and some sources where I suspect whether they are truly unbiased and independent - but still enough to go by.) Martinp (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
N.b./Query - Just wanted to note a decision from neutral to weak keep above - I'm never quite sure how to handle this situation with relists severing from earlier comment. If that counts as a comment, let me know - I'll revert and respost. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - just barely enough info in the sources, but heavy culling is required. Here are other sources [[39]] [[40]] and I see some coverage of their thought leadership events, with notable sponsors. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, while notability is not inherited, I did see that Jimmy Wales spoke at one of their events. It was in the info I just culled. Here's a video FYI. [[41]]TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:49, 27 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pietro Boselli

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

Looks like a fitness model with 15 minutes of fame. Fails to pass GNG Zigzig20s (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete for not meeting WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changing vote to Weak keep after avalanche of hits, when search is combined. Celebrity is celebrity. -The Gnome (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mildly passes WP:GNG per indepth Guardian piece [42] and other sources. if he has 15 mins of fame why does searching google news bring up articles from this month? Also this means nothing by itself, but he has 11 different language articles on wikidata, normally a sign of international interest. GuzzyG (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because he is sooo handsome. :-) The Gnome (talk) 07:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he might have only been "famous for 15 minutes" but he has managed to sustain coverage after. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:49, 22 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) Szzuk (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tama Hochbaum

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

Created by COI, all the content comes from them (a gallery connected to this artist). Cannot find significant independent coverage in reliable sources, ergo fails GNG. Rayman60 (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see a review at SFGATE and another in a college publication.104.163.140.141 (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ping Megalibrarygirl as she has access to better databases.104.163.140.141 (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help out soon. It's been a crazy day! :P Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came up pretty empty with library databases, other than two reproductions of her work. Is there a suitable way to include those? (HOCHBAUM, TAMA. "Nicholas Brothers II, 2015." Eleven Eleven, no. 19, Nov. 2015, p. 28; Hochbaum, Tama. "Friends School Tree [Detail] [Art Reproduction]." Modern Painters, vol. 22, no. 1, Apr. 2010, p. 6. -Kenirwin/(talk) 16:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I've just added links to several more meaningful articles; they'll require some work to bring the content into the article, but they reflect the kind of coverage that I'd want to see in the entry: -Kenirwin/(talk) 16:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Baker, Kenneth (2015-02-27). "Gallery reviews: Sculptures that nose their way into our regard". SFGate. Retrieved 2018-04-23.
- Lawson, George (2015-12-19). "Tama Hochbaum in Conversation with George Lawson". www.artsy.net. Retrieved 2018-04-23. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
- Smithson, Aline (2015-06-02). "Tama Hochbaum: Silver Screen". LENSCRATCH. Retrieved 2018-04-23.
- Vitiello, Chris. "Family photos inspired by Lewis Carroll's work". Indy Week. Retrieved 2018-04-23.
- I found this: http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A490361798/GPS?u=wikipedia&sid=GPS&xid=c72957a8 Vexations (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient independent, reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage to sustain an article. Vexations (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the work is in the collection of the Museum of fine arts Boston. Theredproject (talk) 00:37, 24 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Fritsch

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

Created by now blocked COI, a gallery connected to the artist. All the content has come from them. Very little independent or significant coverage of this artist. Rayman60 (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, assuming the public collections are accurate, this is an automatic keep, for meeting the collections requirement of WP:ARTIST.104.163.140.141 (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The collections look real, so notability is met. I have added a few more sources. If someone did a German/Austrian search that would help. A more extensive CV can be found here, which could be helpful for the long Austrian gallery/museum names (e.g. "Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlung, München"). Also, he is deceased as of 2014. 104.163.140.141 (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per the above, it seems I was wrong and it meets WP:Artist so AfD can be closed. And thanks for working on the article to improve. Nom was due to me knowing little about the intricacies of the art world so I was going on GNG and other markers however this has proven to be erroneous. Rayman60 (talk) 00:20, 20 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Theta Beta

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

Non-notable local sorority and has no independent sources (apart from a reference to a charity which does not discuss the sorority in question). Had redirected it to parent university but article creator reverted redirection. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect was reverted because the university has no mention of the sorority whatsoever. The Sorority is the foundation of greek life at the university and has a rich history. There are other local organizations listed in the fraternities and sororities list with even more vague pages than this one. I am a college student writing this article so it is challenging to find sources but they exist, and the page was deleted mere hours after creation even though I had plans of working on it further. (JillianLaManna (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and ORGDEPTH MarginalCost (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable article Thegooduser Let's Chat 02:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete breach of WP:GNG, WP:OTHER, also potential COI issues (though a notification has now been made on userpage, and the article isn't wildly promotional).

Comment - @JillianLaManna: - Hi, a couple of comments on your initial response - while you are no doubt correct that there are other, worse, frat/sorority pages, WP:OTHER means that their lack of quality doesn't mean your's get in - it's irritating, but otherwise we'd have to delete in a very straight order. Regarding deletion - if you want you can create things in your sandbox (button at top-right), if you haven't already made one. Then you can make it passable before submitting. There are a couple of sources that mention ATB, but I think they might not be the sorority, and in any case are on student newspapers, which won't be considered reliable. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @JillianLaManna:Searching for sources...
As a general reminder, sources don't *have* to be online, it would be entirely possible to keep the article based on one article in Newsday or the Long Island press from something like the 50th anniversary celebration.Naraht (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://longislandreport.org/special-projects/happy-birthday-hofstras-alpha-theta-beta-turns-75/12508 (But I think the LIR is related to Hofstra)

http://thetatau.org/Websites/thetatauhq/images/Gear_Issues/GearS12web_final.pdf definitely a secondary source.

Mentioned as a local in the list of Fraternities/Sororities at Hofstra in Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities (1977) [43]
Went looking through New York State Historical Newspapers, found 7 mentions, but most appear to simply note it as a Hofstra Sorority. http://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/search/pages/results/?SearchType=phrase&from_year=1725&to_year=2016&ortext=&andtext=&phrasetext=Alpha+Theta+Beta&proxtext=&proxdistance=&dateFilterType=range&date1=01%2F01%2F1725&date2=12%2F31%2F2016&rows=20&searchType=advanced Naraht (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21 hits at the Brooklyn Newsstand, but I'm not sure any are enough to hang an article on [44] Naraht (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find sufficient media coverage for this to pass WP:GNG. Because it's the only chapter, there's not going to be much media interest and corresponding coverage outside the Hofstra Community and maybe local Long Island area. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:21, 26 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.

[1] Criteria for Fellowship to the APA

[2] Chair 2008 Workshop - refer 'IW11.' on page^{[dead link‍]}

[3] APA Dr. Samoon Ahmad

[4] Sadock's textbook ranking: Board Vitals

[5] AUTHOR Dr. SAMOON AHMAD

[6] & Sadock's concise textbook of child and adolescent psychiatry

[7] Samoon Ahmad 2007 Frank Ochbery Award for Media & Trauma Study

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]