Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 April	21 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 no consensus. Trending keep, but clearly no consensus to delete. Sandstein 07:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Identity Extremism

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

I will copy and paste here what I've written on the article's talk page with some editions. No credibility whatsoever, and certainly not significant or notable to warrant a standalone article. Just because the FBI concocted the term which is a hoax by itself does not necessarily mean it warrants inclusion. There is no such thing as "Black Identity Extremism." The US calling its Black citizens "Black Identity Extremists" who are actually "Black activists" fighting against injustice, their brutal killings by the the police, violence against them, racism and the like does not make them "Black Identity Extremists." If they are Black Identity Extremists where are the White Identity Extremists who are doing the killings, the brutalisation and racism with the institutions in place to enforce the subjugation and disenfranchisement of its Black citizens? If the Blacks fighting for their right to life, and to live dignified lives are deemed "Black Identity Extremists", what do you call organisations like the KKK who have been killing/lynching Black Americans in the most brutal fashion for decades and still continue their fascist ideology against Black Americans? This foolishness must stop. Is Wikipedia a tool for propaganda or a true encyclopedia? Wikipedia is not here for propaganda as far as I'm aware. Maybe in the future when there are real "Black Identity Extremists/Extremism" and covered in detail by reliable third party sources, perhaps then we can create an article called "Black Identity Extremism." For now, it is mainly a political agenda driven by those who are trying to turn the issue around rather than addressing the injustice, racism and brutal killings of a particular ethic group within the United States who historically have been the most disenfranchised in the US and still continue to be disenfranchised and discriminated against. Black Americans are an ethnic minority, and this targeting is foolish and not befitting an encyclopedia. Also, there are Black people all around the world. Are they also "Black Identity Extremist" too? This foolishness and systematic bias must stop! This article is utter nonsense and should be deleted. Further, without biting, and in good faith if I may add, I think it is quite unusual that the initiator of this article only registered quite recently yet the first and only article they've initiated/created is this controversial article which only started towards the end of last year thanks to the FBI. Generally, new editors start by editing articles and even if they go on to create new articles, they mainly create non controversial articles e.g. sports, bios, culture, religion, political figures etc. Their first article generally are not controversial topics especially new controversial subjects. Phew! One has to be pretty brave. I can't also help but notice that they have not contributed to Wiki anymore once this article went up. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The phrase is not sufficiently notable for its own article, and the fact that the Trump-Sessions Justice Department summoned this spectre into existence doesn't mean it exists. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The case for deletion needs to be based on Wikipedia policies which the article contravenes, and I am not seeing that here. Reliable sources exist. The article is on a notable subject, based on the amount of media coverage that exists. Is it a hoax? Well, a copy of the FBI report is available online - I am not qualified to say whether it was generated by the FBI or not. To me, it sounds like a case of "I don't like it" or WP:HARMFUL, neither of which are valid arguments. Wikipedia isn't into censorship. Whether or not the person who created the draft (which I reviewed and accepted into mainspace) is an SPA is neither here nor there; we should assume good faith and treat the article on its merits. If the real issue is one of neutrality then we should edit the article to make it more neutral, not delete it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Curb Safe Charmer, are you arguing that the neologism "black identity extremists" is notable or that the philosophy of "black identity extremism" is notable? I don't think either is. Can you explain why it is? Can you explain which one this article is about? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: neither of those things, per se. What is notable is that the FBI's counterterrorism division wrote a report about it, the cultural significance of their assertion that it is a thing, and that there has been a significant backlash as a result. However I do believe the article also passes the WP:NEO test: there are plenty articles about the term, rather than just using the term. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Curb Safe Charmer: If neither, then what is the point of this article? Just because the FBI says so under a blatantly racist president who regarded white supremacists as "fine people" as per his Charlottesville rhetoric does not make it notable or warrant a wiki article. Even the sources cited debunked the tern and can see it for the foolishness it is, "[...] and some expressed concern that the term is part of a politically motivated effort to find an equivalent threat to white supremacists."[1] The sources cited are merely regurgitating the term the FBI cooked up in the kitchen (in quotation marks) before demolishing it. The sources cited regard this nonsense as a civil rights (Black American civil rights) issue as I have stated above, not Black Identity Extremists. No one, including the FBI has been able to tell us what, who, how and where we can find these Black Identity Extremists, because it is cooked up during a time of racial tension in United States thanks to the US president fanning the flames. No one, not even the sources cited have been able to provide us who these Black Identity Extremists are. It does not exist. It is a hoax fabricated by the FBI - hoping the term gain widespread usage as this source (Foreign Policy, who leaked the report back in October 2017) clearly states: "The concept of “black identity extremists” appears to be entirely new. FP found only five references to the term in a Google search; all were to law enforcement documents about domestic terrorism from the last two months. One of those online references is to law enforcement training on identifying “domestic terror groups and criminally subversive subcultures which are encountered by law enforcement professionals on a daily basis.”". Wikipedia is not a dictionary neither is it a tool to advance propaganda. I don't know of any Black Identity Extremists or organisations, perhaps someone can point me in the right direction and I'm not talking about Black civil right activists or organisation who are fighting against racial discrimination, disenfranchisement and the brutal killings of Black Americans by US law enforcement, I mean the real “black identity extremists” or movements. It does not exist. It is hoax fabricated by the FBI hoping the term will gain popular usage. Now, if you ask me who the White Identity Extremists are I can give you several examples starting with the KKK. They have set up organisations and advanced the ideology that Whites are superior to Black Americans (or any Black person for that matter). They have killed/lynched, maimed, kidnapped and wrecked Black American families for decades, yet I do not see the FBI or US president labeling them as White Identity Extremists or domestic terrorists (Which they are). To the contrary, the US president regard them as fine people. In the future when there are real “black identity extremists”, then we can create such an article. Wikipedia is going nowhere.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Senegambianamestudy: *Keep As stated above, you appear to only be making this argument because "I don't like it". The value of this article does not have to require that the terms within are universally agreed upon, so long as it can be agreed that the mentioning of these terms in the way that they have been mentioned is sufficiently notable in and of itself, of which it appears to be. This article deserves to exist because the concept of this sort of extremes that gained enough traction that the FBI thought it was worthwhile to create the content they have decided to create. As with any ideological argument, there is a degree of ambiguity as to where boundaries are, and as such, this article does not qualify in any way as propaganda. It is important to discuss this calmly and rationally, and from my perspective it appears to be that this article does not need to be deleted. SuperChris (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This article is a stub and fails WP:SUSTAINED. I suggest merging the news of the way a nonexistent category was briefly brought to life through an FBI report by including a few lines in the article on the FBI. Shameran81 (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shameran81: I don't think it fails WP:SUSTAINED. It was being talked about at the Congressional Black Caucus briefing on 20 March 2018 [2] with coverage from mainstream media [3]. See also WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE which asks has there been "further analysis or discussion" some time after the event. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject has received very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Renaming to FBI report on Black Identity Extremism rather than the neologism itself is worth considering. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Earlier today, I moved the article to Black Identity Extremists, because none of the sources, including the FBI report, used the phrase "extremism". Perhaps a better name would be Trump Justice Department assertion, despite the complete lack of evidence, of the existence of Black Identity Extremists. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite multiple problems surrounding the article, I believe that the discussion above has made it very clear that the article does meet the guidelines for notability, and that there has been sustained coverage behind the use of the term. Acebulf (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there is certainly NPOV concerns and certainly issues with the actual concept, neither of those are cause for deletion. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to FBI report on Black Identity Extremists. It is true that there has been significant coverage on this topic. However, the subject isn't really Black Identity Extremism itsself but the FBI report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitigresito (talk • contribs) 17:32, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Ellis

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a not yet elected candidate in a future election. As always, this is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself -- he has to win the seat and thereby hold the office, not just run as a candiate, to be considered notable as a politician, and absent that he has to already have preexisting notability for other reasons. But this makes no such claim -- the only other thing this article says about him is that he's a retired batallion chief for a local fire department, which is not a role that would have gotten him an encyclopedia article, and the only sources present are his own campaign Facebook page and Ballotpedia, which are not notability-assisting sources. As always, no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but nothing here qualifies him to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with ErieSwiftByrd. Swissarmysalad (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest the article be returned to draft status pending the result of the November ballot. (talk) 0230, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't retain articles about as yet unelected candidates in draft form either — if we did, then every candidate in every election would always have to have one, and draftspace would become exactly the repository of campaign brochures for aspiring future notables that our notability requirements for politicians are intentionally designed to prevent Wikipedia from becoming. If he wins the seat in November, Wikipedia administrators have the ability to undelete the article with one click on a button, so the work won't be lost entirely. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOLITICIAN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:10, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Braeden Ferrington

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

Fails NSPORTS. IBL is not a professional league. None of the sources establish notability. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 23:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for sportman notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:55, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Worth

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

This is article is promotional in tone and written by two single-purpose accounts. It was packed full of web links to his books, videos and projects, instead of Wikilinks (because they have no articles). Big chunks look to have been copy-pasted from his own sites, but that could be reverse copyvio since he very l;ikely wrote this himself. The sources do usually namecheck him, but very often that is the full extent of their link to him. There is a fair bit of WP:SYN, virtually no secondary sources about him. Google has remarkably few hits given the laudatory tone of the text. He seems to have founded half a dozen or more organisations, none of which appear to be of any size at all. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Invalid criteria" states: "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (for example, Google hits..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Which "Invalid criteria" would that be? Which is an irrelevant question, really, since the actual rationale isn't "few Google hits" but "smaller-than-expected digital footprint given the claims made". --Calton | Talk 14:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's own guidelines for "Notability" say that when assessing a person's notability, to "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (for example, Google hits". With due respect, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with all of the various criteria.
Wikipedia's own guidelines for "Biographies of living persons" say that materials in an entry "must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." The entry for Worth has dozens of such citations.
There are myraid secondary sources about Worth in the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Worth is a very public and active whistleblower protection activist. Little if any of the entry was copy-pasted from his own materials. This entry is not laudatory. It simply describes his work as an activist and journalist. This critique seems strangely personal -- with loaded, pejorative terms such as "remarkably few" and "packed full". How can this editor know how large the organizations that Worth founded are? Transparency International, where he started the whistleblower program, is one largest and best-known NGOs in the world -- and by far the largest organization that focuses on anti-corruption. According its website, the SE Europe Coalition on Whistleblower Protection has more than 30 members in 13 countries. This critique raises random points and is not a credible. This critique includes personal-type comments and its criticisms are not in line with Wikipedia requirements. There is no requirement that organizations are of a certain size. And there is no requirement that X number of Wikipedia pages be linked to another page. Wikipedia has no requirement for X percent of links to be Wikilinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep -- Nom gives no valid reason for deletion. The tone is irrelevant, the number of wikilinks is irrelevant, whether there's synthesis is irrelevant, and the number of GHits is irrelevant. Thus the nomination itself fails. However, the guy clearly meets WP:AUTHOR #1 as his work is very highly cited. For instance, see this GScholar search on the guy's name in quotes + the word "whistle" to filter false positives. For whatever reason his work mostly isn't listed there, so it's hard to calculate h-index, but the number of citations is evident. This is strong evidence for his being respected by his peers, which is what AUTHOR asks for. Also, there are interviews with the guy, e.g. [4], which, per WP:INTERVIEW, establish notability. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What "interviews" -- plural -- would those be? And no, interviews where the subject is being asked about something other than themselves don't fall under this (W talked to Mark Worth of the Platform for the Protection of Whistleblowers in Africa about the dangers whistleblowers face). --Calton | Talk 14:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I do not find this article to be promotional or laudatory. Journalist and activists are public people, almost by definition. So, entries about them naturally would discuss how their work impacts politics and society. Also, if the Wikipedia community is all about public information, how can we delete an entry of a person who helps whistleblowers and who does investigative journalism? I agree with the comment that the tone of an entry is irrelevant, that the number of Wikilinks is irrelevant, and that the number of Google hits is irrelevant. The are countless entries on Wikipedia about people and places that do not have zillions of Google hits, but that which people should know about. Nowhere is this listed as a prerequisite for entry -- how "famous" a person already is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michellestone2425 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC) — Michellestone2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Primefac (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One hell of a lot of puffery with little solid backing. --Calton | Talk 14:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comments like "puffery" do not represent a credible comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Actually, it is, but I notice that you ignored the "little solid backing" part. Nice misdirection. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Worth qualifies under "Creative professionals" (#2) because his book on food irradiation is the first of its kind about this technology for the general audience.

Says who? I don't see that claim, proof of that claim, or even an argument why such a narrowly drawn "first" is important. --Calton | Talk 14:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Worth qualifies under "Any biography" because he won an Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) award, which is one of the most prestigious journalist award in the US. Someone continues to tamper with this citation. !-- Template:Unsigned -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)— Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I don't see that claim, details of the award, proof of that claim, or proof of this particular award's importance or that of the award in general. --Calton | Talk 14:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ -- There are no flattering words or editorialization in the entry. Only the work of Worth is presented, just as the work of any other politically active person and journalist/author would be presented. Deleting an entry about a whistleblower protection activist is bizarre and is equal to censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~ -- There have only been two comments in favor of deletion. The first comment was substantively rejected by the editor "192.160.216.52" -- including the fact that Worth "clearly" meets the author criterion and his work is "very highly cited." The second comment raises no substantive critique. This deletion discussion should be ended. Under Wikipedia's Deletion policy, "Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete as G12 and G11. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amending my comment as I still believe this should be deleted, it's nothing more than a PR piece full of press releases, self-published sources and general fluff. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth the page is not a blatant copyvio. No comment on the G11. Primefac (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To go by the edit history, great chunks of it were copyvios. How much? --Calton | Talk 14:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really that much, actually, only three paragraphs copied from his website about the awards he's won and the great people he's worked for. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic

Administrator intervention -- I have requested an intervention by an administrator to revolve this. These pro-deletion critiques are random and mean-spirited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) — Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am an administrator. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to get personal. But respectfully, if you are an administrator, then you should know the criteria, e.g. the irrelevance of Google hits, the definition of author, the definition of notability. There is not even close to being a consensus for deletion. This criticism is random and mean-spirited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

An uninvolved administrator will evaluate the consensus here once 7 days have elapsed from this discussion's opening, I would advise waiting for that to happen instead of asking for a speedy conclusion, given that there is a dispute over whether this article should be kept or deleted. Iffy★Chat -- 12:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This entry has been up for nearly 3 years. There has never been a problem. Suddenly, when Worth apparently begins to work on high-profile and controversial whistleblower cases, someone is aggressively editing the entry and wants it to be deleted. In fact, most of recent edits to the entry were to remove details of his work as a whistleblower protection activist and researcher. Almost none of the other sections were edited. Very suspicious. Quinn2425 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes, because nobody noticed it. More people have viewed it since this deletion nomination than in the previous month. It averages fewer than ten pageviews per day, probably fewer than five, and at least one of those is probably your Google alert. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this is another completely irrelevant criterion not recognized by Wikipedia as grounds for deletion -- and, which seems oddly personal. Even if you want to consider Google hits, searching "Mark Worth" and "whistleblower" gets you 3,120 hits. Searching "Tom Devine" and "whistleblower" gets you 8,920 hits. These figures are both in the four-digits. Are you saying that the entry for Tom Devine, who is probably the world's longest-serving NGO whistleblower activist, also should be deleted? Quinn2425 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

See motivated reasoning. And consider whether you, with your 200 edits in 4 years, mostly referencing worth, including one other deleted article, are in a good position to lecture vastly more experienced Wikipedians on our content inclusion policies. Guy (Help!) 08:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia, I am at a loss for words over the hostile, ad hominem and mean-spirited comments in this discussion. Plainly, these "critiques" have little or nothing to do with the actual content of the entry, but rather some sort of personal feelings regarding the subject of the entry. I hope that a professional-minded administrator or other person with authority can put an end to these hostile remarks. Having said that, the entry has been edited and improved to accommodate some of the other comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The only person here who displays any personal feelings towards the subject, is you. I doubt any of the others here have ever heard of him before. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the AfD discussion / Keeping the entry -- Dear Wikipedia, Seven days have passed since this discussion was opened. According to the deletion policy, after seven days, a discussion may be closed and the entry shall not be deleted if there is no consensus in favor of deletion. If anything, there is a close to a consensus for keeping the entry, as most of main points raised by the AfD nominator have been shown to be irrelevant under Wikipedia guidelines. The AfD nominator's comments were not substantially supported by any other editor. The discussion disintegrated into ad ad hominem attacks, which are unhealthy for the Wikipedia community. I request that this discussion be closed today and the AfD tag to be removed. Quinn2425 (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)— Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You don't get to close it. You voted on it. That's not how this works. You also tried to vote NUMEROUS times. Lastly, the NUMBER of votes doesn't matter, the QUALITY of the arguments does. I suggest you back away. --Tarage (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 22:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & WP:SOFIXIT. I think that this page needs an editor with the time to remove the puffery and POV, possibly with some sort of protection of the page. But, I agree with comments and links that the subject satisfies WP:GNG. Ross-c (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree if I could find any reliable independent sources. The subject looks notable but is a gifted self-publicist and when you start peeling the layers, pretty much all you find is namechecks and press releases. Guy (Help!) 07:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I very much would like to "back away," as productively suggested by an editor. But there is a great deal of misinformation in the comments that necessitate responses. The latest example is the comment that press releases are used as citations. First, are press releases not permitted by Wikipedia? Second, there are no press release produced by the subject. Third, any press releases used as citations, if there are any, are from credible, independent sources. I am baffled by the comment that there are no "reliable independent sources" in the entry. Among the sources are the UN, European Union, APEC, OECD, Le Monde, New York Times, Deutsche Welle, Der Spiegel and so on. It is my view that this commenter has a personal and/or professional bias against the subject. Quinn2425 (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)— Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You have made your views abundantly clear. Obviously you are a friend or associate and take this enormously personally. Nobody else here does. You have no actualt experience of Wikipedia and our sourcing policies, so now would be a great time to leave it to people who do. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much appreciate knowing an example of a "reliable independent source". Quinn2425 (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Szzuk (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The entry for Worth is nominated for AfD, but the likes of Bruce Hildenbrand qualify for having a page? Quinn2425— Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, lacking in sources, and one specific editor who can't seem to let it go... --Tarage (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is being considered for deletion, yet these journalists who barely have any record or history are not being deleted? -- Geoff Wolinetz, Buck Wolf, Elijah Wolfson, Paul Wohl. And these are just journalists whose names start with "Wo".Quinn2425 (talk) 08:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC) — Quinn2425 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you feel that strongly about them, go here --> WP:AFD. Follow the instructions. Of course, what you do or I do or Wikipedia does with those articles has nothing -- zero, zip, nada, fuck-all -- to do with THIS article. --Calton | Talk 09:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The clearly apparent conflict of interest and effort to promote Worth are blatant and rather... distasteful. Yes this page should be deleted as it violates the PROMO policy. We could ~perhaps~ have a WP article about him, but it is not this; nothing like this. it needs to be rebuilt from scratch. Undisclosed and unmanaged conflicts of interest produces just this kind of content, which damages the integrity of Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability is marginal at best, while the article fails WP:PROMO to the point of being close to G11. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. The amount of advocacy surrounding the page and this AfD discussion makes it a clear "delete" for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to delete this whistleblower-related entry, I suggest also deleting these whistleblower-related entries: Jacob Appelbaum, GlobaLeaks, Thomas A. Drake, William Edward Binney, SecureDrop, Public Concern at Work, Tor2web, Sarah Harrison (journalist), Institute for Public Accuracy, Suelette Dreyfus, Stephen M. Kohn and National Whistleblowers Center. Applying the same standard referenced by some of the commenters in this discussion, all of these entries are also promotional. While we are at it, let's delete Whistleblower, Edward Snowden and Daniel Ellsberg. Quinn2425 (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again -- for the third time -- read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS: this is about Mark Worth, and bringing up any other article means fuck-all. If you actually believe your "suggestions" -- and it's pretty clear you don't -- click on WP:AFD and follow the instructions. Or you could, you know, address the arguments about THIS ARTICLE. --Calton | Talk 08:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, 2-3 other commenters and myself in fact have responded to -- and refuted based on Wikipedia's own guidelines -- many of the critiques in this discussion. But whenever I have cited a specific Wikipedia guideline as a rationale for disqualifying a pro-delete comment, it is ignored. Unfortunately, many of the pro-delete people have resorted to personal attacks, snide language, profanity and other anti-social behavior. Not professional in my view. For some reason, the deck is stacked against this entry. The venom in the comments by the pro-delete people is so bizarre, I have to wonder about ulterior motives. By the way, I have made many edits to the entry to try to remove anything that could be perceived as promotional, while also adding more sources. If sources such as the New York Times, Le Monde, United Nations and European Union are not adequate, then I don't see how anyone can have a Wikipedia page. Do what you will.

This is my last comment, unless there are more untrue or foul comments posted.

In sum, these pro-delete comments are not supported by Wikipedia guidelines:

* packed full of web links to his books, videos and projects, instead of Wikilinks

* Google has remarkably few hits

* puffery

* general fluff

In sum, these pro-delete comments are not true:

* Big chunks look to have been copy-pasted from his own sites

* he very likely wrote this himself

* virtually no secondary sources about him

* none of the organizations he founded appear to be of any size at all

* little solid backing

* full of press releases, self-published sources

* great chunks of it were copyvios

Quinn2425 (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While reading WP:OTHERSTUFF, which I note you do not yet appear to have understood, I urge you also to study the difference between the words "refute" and "repudiate". Guy (Help!) 09:46, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wim Naudé

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

Fails notability criteria for academics. None of the positions/titles he has held seem high-ranking enough to meet criteria #3, 5, or 6. His fellowship at IZA-Institute looks like it could meet criterion #3, but they have over 1,300 fellows, so that fails the "highly selective" part of #3. UNU-MERIT similarly has a ton of fellows. He's also the dean of Maastricht School of Management, but WP:NACADEMIC#C6 specifically says that dean positions don't qualify for #6. Nothing else he's done seems to meet any other criteria. IagoQnsi (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To me, it looks like the subject meets WP:PROF#1 due to citation metrics. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thsmi002: I'm not too experienced with academics' articles—where are you getting citation metrics from? I see he has a lot of published works, but that by itself isn't enough to satisfy WP:PROF#C1. I'm not sure how to best go about determining which, if any, of his works are highly cited. –IagoQnsi (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to Google Scholar. He has several papers with over 100 citations, including one in 2013 with 328 citations. Hopefully other users will chime in with their thoughts. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Maastricht52 (the creator and biggest contributor to this page) has added a {{db-u1}} tag to the page. This is the wrong tag (should be WP:G7), and the page probably has too many contributions from editors to be eligible for speedy deletion. I've notified them of this issue on their talk page and asked them to come comment on this AfD, but if they don't, it's worth noting that they appear to support deleting the page. –IagoQnsi (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @IagoQnsi:, Thank you for your message. As the creator of the page I have requested by my boss to delete his Wikipedia page. That is why I requested for deletion of the page. Please guide me in this matter. That would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maastricht52 (talk • contribs)

Delete, the article creator appears to be a spa/coi editor and the article has suffered BLP vandalism so i'm reasonably confident this is a genuine Wikipedia:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The article average 6 views a day and half of them will be bots. Szzuk (talk) 19:59, 19 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)} 21:37, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Palgwatang

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

Source searches are providing almost nothing to verify the existence of this, other than the single source in the article. Furthermore, the toic has not received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Does not meet WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for having a very souped up claim on notability. -The Gnome (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The author posted a comment on the article's talk page: [5]. They suggested that Chinese sources on 八卦湯 may exist. Which is possible, but I don't read Chinese to verify that. (Also this might be more a Chinese dish than Korean dish in that case...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose: I think it is a Korean food from the 23rd episode of Dae Jang Geum. And I found some Korean sources for this food #1 (by Health Chosun) and #2 (by KISTI) etc. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow editors evaluation of Garam's proposed sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:32, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Albert

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

This person does not seem notable enough to warrant an article on the English Wikipedia. Better suited for the German Wikipedia maybe? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia aims to be an international encyclopedia. Just because this version is written in English does not mean that we focus our coverage on those who operate in English-speaking countries or require sources to exist in English. I have no opinion at this time as to weather Albert actually is notable, I just have to point out the deletion nomination is built on flawed understandings of language and Wikipedia. In theory the content of the German-language and English-language Wikipedias should be identical. In practice, because of how Wikipedia is operated, the notability guidelines in various language versions do not always end up being the same. Beyond this translation usually lags behind creation, and other factors come into play. However in theory an article that belongs in the German-language version of Wikipedia belongs in the English-language version of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A number of valid sources testify to notability.--Ipigott (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The enWP covers the world, but applies the enWP standard to all articles. This does not meet the standard the references are straight PR, and the BBC list given is not enough to indicate notability, as they have no clear standards for it. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does a German version of the article already exist and how long has it been there, if so? If so, it would help with the enWP standards discussion. Simone2049 (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, does not meet WP:GNG and fails WP:NOTPROMOTION. GretLomborg (talk) 19:02, 17 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)} 21:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG due to coverage. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-34805141/antonia-albert-25-germany https://www.forbes.com/pictures/5a6233d8a7ea431690113e32/careship-antonia-albert--/#2d12fce41691 https://www.wiwo.de/unternehmen/it/careship-deutsches-start-up-will-pflegekraefte-vermitteln/21143628.html https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/05/careship/ If someone proposed merging her with an article on Careship, then that might make sense. But, not deletion. Ross-c (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I improved the article with much more information and several more citations. I think there's just enough discussion about Albert as an individual to pass WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." However, I would not object to merging this with an article on Careship, which appears to have received a great deal of media attention (even more than the founders). Lonehexagon (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging into a new Careship article would make sense and would be my preference. Although easy to say from my perspective as that would require someone to first create the article I assume! Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:54, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insurrextion (2003)

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

Run-of-the-mill WWE special. Redirection to main article rejected by User:Galatz. Of the 7 references, only two do more than mention it in passing, and both of those are blow-by-blow plot expositions. There is not enough specific content to make a merge to WWE_Insurrextion unreasonable. I'd also like to get consensus on Insurrextion (2001) and Insurrextion (2002) while we're at it. Slashme (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

"What are the features and benefits of having a WWE Network Subscription". help.wwe.com. Retrieved 18 April 2018.

Advertisement for WWE Network subscription; doesn't mention Insurrextion by name. --Slashme (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scarpa, Douglas. "16 PPVs not on the WWE Network". What Culture?. Retrieved May 31, 2015.

Doesn't mention the specific episode; mentions series in passing. --Slashme (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grabianowski, Ed. "How Pro Wrestling Works". HowStuffWorks, Inc. Discovery Communications. Archived from the original on 2013-11-18. Retrieved 2014-01-05.

How Stuff Works article about pro wrestling in general. Doesn't mention Insurrextion. --Slashme (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"WWE Insurrextion 2003 « Events Database". www.cagematch.net. Retrieved 18 April 2018.

Episode entry on Cagematch.net. Just lists the contents. --Slashme (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kline, Jack. "6/7 WWE Insurrextion PPV results: Second detailed report". PWTorch.com. Retrieved 5 January 2016.

Review on a Pro Wrestling review site. Doesn't make any claim that the show itself was notable in any way. --Slashme (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Random Network Reviews: Insurrextion 2003 - 411MANIA". 411mania.com. Retrieved 18 April 2018.

Recital of the plot of the episode on a Pro Wrestling site. Doesn't make any claim of notability. --Slashme (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Insurrextion 03 (Raw) - Newcastle, England - Telewest Arena - June 7, 2003 (announced as a sell out)". The History of WWE. Retrieved April 18, 2018.

Catalogue site that seems to list all WWE shows. Supports WP:ROTM status. --Slashme (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly, it sounds like the nominator should have taken this to articles to merge rather than delete, but that is beside the point. Consensus has always been that all WWE pay-per-view events due to their nature and coverage are independently notable. Every single WWE pay-per-view outside of this series, had their own pages prior to their creation. His rationale given here [6] sounds to me like his biggest issue is that they are stubs, which is not reason for deletion, it just means I haven't finished expanding yet. Also there are several WP:RS that still mention these in more recent years [7] [8] [9]. - Galatz ^Talk 20:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other WWE pay-per-view events have their own articles has no bearing on the notability of these articles. The other sources you list also don't reach the standard required by the GNG:

"VOTE: Worst WWE pay-per-view names". Sky Sports.

Mentions the series (not the specific episode) in passing in a list of the worst PPV names. --Slashme (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Ocho PPVs de WWE cuyos nombres pésimos contribuyeron a su fracaso". Superluchas (in European Spanish). 7 July 2017.

Mentions the series (not the specific episode) in passing in a list of the worst PPV names. This time in Spanish. --Slashme (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Houghton, James (8 December 2017). "WWE reportedly discussing Australian PPV". VAVEL.com.

Mentions the series in passing. --Slashme (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 20:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 20:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 20:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has coverage in independent reliable sources. This is yet another disgusting case of people thinking that having coverage in reliable pro wrestling websites is somehow inferior to when a music website reviews an album or a film website reviews a film, (like the dismissal of PWTorch), it needs to die already on this website. A source being in Spanish also does not have any bearing on deletion, so it's nonsensical of the op to even mention it.★Trekker (talk) 06:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point was not that the source was in Spanish, rather that it was the same discussion as the previous source, but this time in Spanish. --Slashme (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Logic is flawed, "the article does not cliam notability" is not how that works, "notability" is a wikipedia guideline, not something stated in sources. MPJ-DK 15:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has to make a credible claim of significance. It has to explain to the reader why it's not just another pay per view show sold on DVD. Why is it unusual or special? What impact has it had on broader culture? Which reliable sources discuss the topic, and how? The sources don't have to say "This topic is notable", but they have to say why it's not just a run-of-the mill item.

Also note the text from WP:NRV: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity". Sure, the series as a whole meets the notability criteria, but each season? I'm just not seeing that here. --Slashme (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You also might want to read WP:BLUDGEON - Galatz ^Talk 01:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So i meant the SOURCE articles, Kent claiming each article "Doesn't make a claim of notability" when reviewing each source. You Seem to not understand how it works. MPJ-DK 13:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source articles don't need to make a direct claim of notability, but they need to support a claim of notability in the Wikipedia article. So the Wiki article needs to say why the topic is significant, and the sources need to back that up. --Slashme (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There's a lot of terrible disambiguations here. Just having a year next to the name makes it overly ambiguous. (2003 event) would work better, same goes for all the similar articles. That said - simply nominating a single one of these articles for deletion won't accomplish anything besides confusing things, and I don't think it's so non notable that it should be totally wiped from Wikipedia, although having its own article is dubious. They should be nominated as a group. I think WP:ATD in this case would be to make a List of 2003 WWE pay-per-view events and merge them all into it, same with the other years._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the other articles before suggesting that merge? That has to be the worst idea I have possibly ever heard. You want to merge approximately 491k bytes into one article, based on Category:2003 WWE pay-per-view events? And that is 2003, the later years are much more. WrestleMania 33 alone is 112k, and WrestleMania 34 is 103k, both already over the WP:SPLIT criteria by themselves.

In addition (2003 event) disambiguation is also a terrible suggestion. WP:ATDAB is clear that the disambiguation should be as concise as possible. Since every single page is about an event, the word event is not needed. In addition to this being the standard setup for EVERY wrestling event, hundreds upon hundreds of pages. - Galatz ^Talk 01:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A perfect example of the problem is when you compare Judgment Day (2000) with Judgment Day (The Outer Limits). Both of them came out in 2000, but you wouldn't tell the difference from the disambiguations. Per WP:PRECISION, the disambiguations must at least say the type of article it is. A mass move is in order, preferably without leaving redirects due to the potential for confusion.

I didn't suggest merging ALL the articles and content. Only a small blurb for each, with the notable ones linking to their own article. It seems to me that there is an issue here where non notable wrestling events get an article simply because there is no place to put them otherwise, or due to an attempt at consistency._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BLUDGEON. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 09:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does that make any sense? You're saying that the article should be kept because I've been too active in explaining the motivation for the deletion? That's got nothing to do with the merits of the article itself. You need to motivate your position that the article should be kept, and not merged to a summary article, by explaining how it passes the GNG. --Slashme (talk) 20:06, 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 keep. Sandstein 07:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aina Muceniece

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

There are almost no actually RS about this person. The internet is full of garbage about her spewed by a company marketing a putative cancer drug See this SBM piece for this context. This page was created by a SPA account promoting RIGVIR and is full of unsourced promotional garbage about that putative drug and this person. I merged this to the RIGVIR article and had a bit of sourced content about her there; that was reverted and promotional unsourced garbage was restored here. We should delete and salt this so this dead woman's bio cannot be used to shill quackery any more. It is really disgusting, what is going on here. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 19:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough RS to write a decent biography. I have rewritten the article to get rid of the advertisement style. Thanks to the links provided above, I managed to find Zinātne un mana dzīve: 69 emeritēto zinātnieku atmin̦as un dzīvesgājums, volume 1 - a book in Latvian on 69 emeritus scientists and their biographies, amongst them the biography of Aina Muceniece. I agree that it is disgusting to mooch profit of Aina Muceniece's good intentions. RIGVIR as it is called, was developed during the Soviet occupation of Latvia, and in communist states there was no such thing as royalty payments. "Dr. Muceniece’s will states that melanoma patients should receive Rigvir at no cost, which means the state grants (buys from Rigvir representatives) this medication". ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 23:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, a Latvian Wikipedian here: Muceniece's will legally has nothing to do with the state compensating this drug, the peddlers simply use the will for PR (cancer patients being treated for free sounds good). Latvian version of NHS decides which drugs to compensate, normally - based on efficacy and risk/benefit evaluation, but in this case it is not clear how this evaluation came to be positive, as there is very little research behind this drug. Source in Latvian about professional organisations who requested to remove Rigvir from the list of compensated drugs/drug register: http://www.delfi.lv/bizness/uznemumi/vairakas-arstu-organizacijas-prasa-izvertet-rigvir-kompensesanu.d?id=48494303 A shorter article in EN: https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/society/latvia-to-review-state-compensation-for-rigvir-anti-cancer-drug.a223586/KC LV (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be a biography on Aina Muceniece, and my point was her good intentions. The reference is not written by drug peddlers. Whatever concerns the drug should be added to the article on RIGVIR. In my humble opinion. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 10:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree regarding intentions and biography, just thought I'd clarify the issue with the will, in case this subject is ever mentioned in the article by any wikipedians.KC LV (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have no idea whatsoever what her intentions were. This is exactly the kind of unsourced promotional garbage that led me to nominate this.Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She appears to qualify under WP:NACADEMIC #2 for receiving a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level and under WP:GNG for significant independent coverage. Her biography is a separate issue from how the drug is used by other people (although any controversy can be mentioned). Note also that Wikipedia does not censor content just because something is not accepted by experts, instead significant opinions are given on the subject per WP:FRINGE, and any concern raised about the subject can be dealt with in the RIGVIR article. Hzh (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we don't censor. Nothing is being censored. The question is whether this person is actually notable and if we are able to keep this article neutral. With the lack of high quality independent sources her notability is marginal at best. With the blatant promotional editing about RIGVIR it will be ongoing drain of community resources to keep this article decent and not disgusting promotionalism. So we should delete it. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The biography is a separate issue from the drug, and I'd suggest that the arguments be kept to the notability guidelines for a biography. At the moment there is no indications why you think the arguments present about her notability are wrong, or indeed how the sources would not qualify under GNG. Your arguments at the moment are essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Whether someone is trying to promote RIGVIR or not is irrelevant as far as her notability is concerned, otherwise you might argue that any person with any controversy attached should have their biography deleted, apparently it's impossible to keep such article neutral. If you want to present argument against RIGVIR, do it in that article, not here. Hzh (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are not IDONTLIKE it - that is a misrepresentation. Her notability is marginal (this article depends almost completely on the hagiography at the Latvian Academy of Sciences which is all focused on her invention of RIGVIR) and this page has been hammered by promotional editing by people here to promote RIGVIR. RIGVIR is an unproven cancer treatment that is being promoted around the world and here in WP. Those are policy issues. Do not misrepresent me again. Jytdog (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You argument is that what a prominent national organization says about her is wrong, but that argument is not relevant when establishing notability. That they think she is notable however is relevant. A quick search would also reveals plenty of sources on her - e.g. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], unless you are inclined to dismiss all Latvian sources as unreliable. Your argument is therefore still essential about the drug, and not based on notability guidelines which do indicate that she is notable according to a few criteria. Given that there are still recent science journal articles on the drug - [15], I'd suggest that you argue about the science on the RIGVIR article, and keep the argument out on the notability of a biography article. Hzh (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first one from Diena is a standard obituary mostly about RIGVIR

We already cite the 2nd link you put there.

the dzeltenais ref is hilarious - pop music gossip about some group named Colt writing a song about her (because of RIGVIR)

the ekonomika ref is not about her at all, but about a new guy taking over the foundation at the request of her family

the rekurzeme ref is, like the first one, a standard obituary mostly focused on RIGVIR. It is actually word for word, exactly the first one, published on another website

You have supported my argument with these refs and your behavior here, even down to citing the same reference republished elsewhere to make the subject seem more notable. It is going to be a tremendous time suck to keep this article neutral and the subject is marginally notable at best.

and btw the relevant pubmed search for MEDRS sources about RIGVIR is this - and yields one ref from a marginal journal. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has obituary been considered unreliable sources? I thought the song one is amusing too, but then when someone unrelated writes a song about you, you have probably achieved some kind of significance. You haven't really address the notability issue, unless you want to rewrite WP:NACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO, or suggest that Latvian national awards should be disregarded. It's odd that you suggest there is only one review, since I have found others, e.g. [16] which says Rigvir has been approved for treatment of melanoma in Latvia since 2009 (other reviews however merely cite the references). Given that two of latest journal articles were published in February 2018, it would be surprising if you can find review article on those. These articles do suggest research is still ongoing, therefore it's not something on which opinion is settled as you seem to think it is. Nevertheless, whatever the scientific opinion may be, it has nothing to do with the biography. Hzh (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have misrepresented me again. I never -- never -- said that an obituary is an unreliable source. I am not responding to you further as you are just cluttering this discussion with nonsense.

Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only that you appear to argue that there are not enough reliable sources - There are almost no actually RS about this person. There are enough valid sources already given in the article to satisfy WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She appears to qualify under wp:anybio, with her cross of recognition of services to the republic of Latvia. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 01:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - it appears the objectionable material on RIGVIR have been since expunged - since this article is not about RIGVIR, I propose we keep rigvir mentions out of it, and remove the article for deletion tag. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 14:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Muceniece received the Cross of Recognition, so to Latvians she is not marginal. Whatever happened to RIGVIR after Muceniece died is irrelevant to her biography (articles on the Foundation and it's President). The article has four RS, two of them in English and two in Latvian (actually three, when counting LAoS). The one from Zemgales Ziņas is an obituary, so we got that covered. The other one from Dienas Bizness is an interview with Muceniece. The latter confirms many of the statements from the Latvian Academy of Sciences' website, and has some more material to expand the article on her career. I think one should be very careful identifying RS from Latvia, since some of the "tabloid" websites have no scruples. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is clear she is lionized in Latvia and that appears to be entirely because of RIGVIR - and nobody knows if that is a real cancer treatment or not. The company shilling RIGVIR has absolutely pinned the drug to her and mythologized her. Her actual notability by Wikipedia standards is very unclear. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may appear so in hindsight. Muceniece did fieldwork through her entire career, and she was a wellknown and respected scientist/medical worker in the former USSR. She worked as a consultant at the most well established hospitals in Riga, hospitals that had high reputations in the former Soviet Union. This was most likely also taken into consideration when she was awarded the Cross of Recognition. Even though it will take me some time to find a RS on that. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have no perspective other than hindsight. She is a historical figure now and reliable, independent, high quality sources about her are sorely lacking. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She was awarded the Cross of Recognition in 2005. The perspective was different then. We have four sources on her life, sources that are accepted on any other biography of Latvians. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have some sources that are mostly hagiographic, weak, focused on a drug that may or may not work, and very very local. N is not slam dunk. In my nomination I said that N is marginal. If it were not for the promotional pressure i would not have nominated this; it probably would have been OK. But a subject this marginal where we have a continuous history of efforts to skew it, is not worth maintaining. That is the deletion argument. I get it that Latvians who see her as a hero would not see it that way. Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not marginal as far as WP:NACADEMIC is concerned. You are still arguing based on something unrelated to the biography, and appear to be pushing a point of view, given that the drug is still being studied with the recent published journal articles. Any other issue raised is essentially surmountable per WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. Hzh (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to you one last time. 1) Please be aware that people get emotional at AfDs, and you are obsessing over my responses here and behaving in ways that may have consequences for you. Do not misrepresent me again. If you misrepresent me again, I will seek an IBAN. You have provided all the diffs that I need to get it. 2) With regard to health and medicine in Wikipedia, you have now written twice that it " is still being studied". If a drug has not been shown to be safe and effective, that is the status in Wikipedia. Period. We don't hype drugs in development - -we don't say anything like "it might work but more research is needed and is being done" or edit along those lines - MEDMOS specifically says that we do not say "more research is needed" as this is true of everything in medicine. My editing about health and medicine is dead-on mainstream in Wikipedia; i am not pushing any POV but rather following the norms about medicine in Wikipedia. Many people come here to try to hype drugs, (many!) and when they do we revert them and if they persist they end up indefinitely blocked for PROMO. Bottom line: we differ on whether this article should be kept or deleted. That's OK. But back off from me already. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a biography article, judged on criteria for a biography. Hzh (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the Cross of Recognition on it's own should be enough. Her prodigious scholarly output and her recognition by the Latvian Association of Oncologists bolster the case. -Kenirwin/(talk) 15:33, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Griot (rapper)

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

Delete: tag added regarding dubious notability in 2012 and he has not become any more notable since. Google Search provided little info of use or value. Quis separabit? 20:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 20:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the German article shows his music charted and also signed by a major label, Universal so passes 2 criteria of WP:NMUSIC Atlantic306 (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Criteria of WP:NMUSIC only indicate that the musician "may" be notable, this artist has received no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Wikitigresito (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: he does indeed have three albums that charted in his native Switzerland [17]... the article could do with some coverage from Swiss sources though. Richard3120 (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:51, 6 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) 19:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he has charted in Switzerland. Szzuk (talk) 18:19, 17 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) 18:46, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karma is a witch

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

I believe audio podcasts are not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless they meet GNG. This podcast recived some press coverage like this but I am afraid its not enough. Google searches doesn't produce any substantial information about the podcast as well therefore I can't see its significance.. Maybe WP:TOOSOON? Saqib (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 18:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is one good ref but not much else, google showing social media, youtube etc. Notability not established. Szzuk (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak*Keep~~Neutral, potentially neutral. "audio podcasts [...] unless they meet GNG" - that doesn't really make any sense, they are just as eligible (or just as not) as other things. In any case, I would argue that both the Indian Express and News9, which while I can't find it in its own right, shows up in multiple places, including in non-youtube duplicate sites. I will do a bit more consideration of News9 later tonight, which will settle me to either Keep/Weak Delete. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: Can you please share with me the link to coverage in News9? --Saqib (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I'm not comfortable saying any of the videos I've seen aren't coming from the youtube ones. Assuming no amazing forgeries, they are coming from News9 (Karnataka), set up by TV9 (Kannada) - an English channel in Bangalore, detail on their establishment here. They clearly exist, I can't make guesses on things like bias, they are very far from a smooth established set-up, but that's hardly a sin. It will be a weak source at best, whether it's sufficient to go with the current source to tip it off delete I'm not sure. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: I would say the standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. My comments are concerned with sources used to establish notability. And I don't think the provided sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. --Saqib (talk) 05:23, 20 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) 18:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even with the most optimistic view of the sources, this is not really notability DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vote amended to Neutral, pending someone providing a clear answer and evidence regarding News9 Nosebagbear (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--DGG said it all.Sorry but TOOSOON.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:54, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saurabh Vaibhav

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

Completely unreferenced article about a "music directing duo", whose only discernible claim of notability is that they and their work exist. As always, every musician or group of musicians is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to provide cursory verification that they exist -- they have to pass an WP:NMUSIC criterion, and they have to have reliable source coverage about them to base the article on, before a Wikipedia article becomes earned. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 17:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 17:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find much else online beyond a few youtube videos and self-published profiles. London Hall (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete Fails SIGCOV. Interesting case because the movie they composed the song for is one of the highest grossing Indian movies of 2018 but there is no coverage on them and hence not worthy of a Wiki page Globe2trotter (talk) 18:37, 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) 18:44, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elisha Ben Yitzhak

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

NO WP:RS to establish notability. I have also AfD'd International Biennale Artists the group he founded for the same reasons. NY Arts Magazine is a known pay-to-play vanity publisher that closed in a scandal: [18] Theredproject (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 18:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 18:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guess it's time to take a good look at all articles that cite nyartsmagazine.com. I feel for the artists who got scammed, but if you pay to get published you should expect to be found out. Vexations (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while it sounds impressive and may superficially resemble the Venice Biennale, the Florence Biennale is a pay-to-exhibit show that does not establish notability for the participating artists. Nor does coverage in nyartsmagazine, a vanity publisher. I'm not familiar with http://www.russianartguide.ru/. The article in the Shepherd Express doesn't convince me that this artist meets our notability criteria WP:NARTIST (that are in dire need of a revision, BTW). No major collections, exhibitions, in-depth reviews or mongraphs. Vexations (talk) 16:12, 15 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) 18:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This really did not need relisting--the analysesabove are convincing. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find reliable sources about this, and he isn't notable for the Wikipedia in Hebrew, because his main language is Hebrew.Kamran Ali El-Batli (talk) 16:48, 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 08:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MapTiler

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

Interesting as this software is to me, I am not seeing evidence of any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent on the subject. There's a mention or short paragraph here and there, documentation pages mentioning it, but nothing that would be considered significant. The mentions suggest a wide recognition but that doesn't meet our inclusion criteria, unfortunately. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability, with (among other reasons) no results from a Google News search and just passing references on Google Scholar. The sources I have checked just mention MapTiler in passing. Swissarmysalad (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:15, 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. Sandstein 08:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BoxLunch

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

Doesn't seem to meet the new requirements of WP:NCORP. The coverage I can find is just routine churnalism about store openings. SmartSE (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Hot Topic where this branded outlet is covered adequately. No evidence provided or found to indicate notability in its own right. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott McCulloch (ice hockey)

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

Player fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 23:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with the nom. I don't see the coverage required to meet WP:GNG or the accomplishments to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:28, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Dodge (Illinois)

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

DELETE. Politician of local significance do not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements on their own. Upon review, Jim Dodge does not meet any other notablity criteria. Thus, I am nominating the article for deletion (Revised--Mpen320 (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

delete Unsuccessful candidate; all sources appear to be coverage of these campaigns. Mangoe (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable unsuccessful candidate, does not otherwise pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 18:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being municipal councillors in small towns, and neither do they get Wikipedia articles for being unsuccessful candidates for NPOL-passing offices: candidates are deemed notable enough for Wikipedia articles only if they were already notable enough for Wikipedia articles for other reasons independent of their candidacy itself, and smalltown municipal councillors are deemed notable enough for Wikipedia articles only if they can make a credible claim to being a special case who's significantly more notable than most other smalltown municipal councillors. But this article demonstrates neither of those conditions. I also have some concerns about source-fakery here: one of the citations here is to The Globe and Mail, a newspaper in Canada which is profoundly unlikely to be covering candidacies in US state comptroller general primaries at all — but the link 404s, so I ran a ProQuest search and found neither hide nor hair of it existing there either. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are routine coverage of his two political campaigns. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:36, 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. Sandstein 08:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Cooper

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

No indication of notability and there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. It doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:MBIO. KingAndGod 17:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Despite there being proper search of past charts in the UK, I can't find anything that has charted. Either for him or The Haiku. I've searched for significant newspaper coverage, but can't find enough. There are local reviews and articles, but I'm not sure that they are enough. E.g. http://liverpoolacoustic.co.uk/2018/04/album-review-phil-cooper-thoughts-and-observations/ Nothing in a selection of major newspapers, that I can find. I'm happy to change my vote if someone can produce evidence of more or higher level coverage in the press. Please ping me if such is posted. Ross-c (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:29, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence King (businessman)

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are short, fluff PR articles. reddogsix (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't comply with WP:BIO. It really lacks reliable sources in my opinion. Maybe if the content would be reorganised and if there would be more reliable sources to be added, it would be alright to have its own article. But for now, my vote is for it to be deleted. Romrom9 (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established. Szzuk (talk) 14:56, 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 speedy delete. Despite creator's claim, this is promotional (G11) and as Deb remarks, there is no credible claim for otability either (A7). Randykitty (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slimeyard slimes

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

No verifiable notability, with the only reference being an external link to the online shop; seemingly created as promotion by a possibly closely affiliated user ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete WP:G11 Septrillion (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The main editor claims that the article is "not unambiguously promotional". G11 might be problematic because "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no credible claim of notability either. Deb (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional and not notable. Deb (talk) 18:40, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Audre Vysniauskas

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

Not notable. Single potential reliable source, Computer Graphics World and an archive of subject's old website. Fair bit of completely unsourced information. Vexations (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total failure of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ARTIST. Theredproject (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:42, 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 merge to West Lafayette. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of West Lafayette, Indiana

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

Completing this nom for @John from Idegon:, who meant to nominate this article originally. Basic list of non-notable mayors for this small city, not really easily merged to the West Lafayette, Indiana article either as it consists of public servants with low notability. Nate • (chatter) 15:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think WP:NOTEVERYTHING covers this best. This is an unnecessary content fork of content with good sources could maybe be in the settlement article. It wasn't before. But...there aren't good sources. The list is very incomplete. We don't really need a list of mayors article for a city of 45,000. We certainly don't need a partial list. John from Idegon (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We have many "list of mayors" articles. Peruse Category:Lists of mayors, you could spend hours upon hours just to get a feel for the extent of our coverage. I was easily able to add some cites to this one, and I am sure this could be expanded (e.g., a column on notable accomplishments of particular mayors). The idea that "we don't need a list of mayors article for a city of 45,000" has no persuasive weight, in my opinion. However, I can understand that the mere list without citation looks spare and to some editors that invites an AfD; however, I think it only needs a little help like a Charlie Brown Christmas tree. Surely a list of mayors could fit in the city article itself (or some other branch article from the city article) if not this article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As stated above, Wikipedia has a wide array of cities in which the list of mayors has been added. West Lafayette is a rather influential city in the state of Indiana, and as such this meets notability guidelines, it just needs work. SuperChris (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While none of the mayors may be notable themselves, there's enough coverage of the position for the list to pass notability guidelines. SportingFlyer talk 18:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I think this article should be merged into West Lafayette, Indiana. Of the articles regarding cities with similar populations, a large majority of them do not have a lists of mayors separate from the city article. In fact, if my research is correct, most of the city articles with a population similar to West Lafayette did not have a mention of past mayors at all, whether in the city page or on a separate article. With this in mind, I don't believe that West Lafayette's former mayors are important enough to warrant a separate article. However, I think that this page's information is notable enough to be merged into the article for West Lafayette, and that it could be merged in without detracting from the page. Bedfordres (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There would be sufficient coverage to keep and maintain a list of mayors of most (if not all) incorporated places. --Enos733 (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to West Lafayette. As long as they're properly referenced so that we can verify that the information is accurate, lists of cities' mayors are not an invalid or unreasonable thing for us to maintain — their notability or non-notability as individuals has a bearing on whether they should have standalone biographical articles about them or not, but is not relevant to the includability of a list of their names. So the only real question here is whether this needs to be its own standalone article, or whether they should be listed in the city's article instead — and with just nine mayors listed, which is not enough to overwhelm the city's not overly long article, I'm of the view that listing them in the city's article should be enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Short enough list that it will fit comfortably in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main town article - the list is valuable and encyclopedic, but does not merit a separate article. Richard ⁰⁶¹² 10:45, 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. Sandstein 08:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Imran Hasan

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

So the article claims the subject has written biographies in Urdu language on different personalities from India so I suppose there should be at least an entry in local language Wikipedia - there is none yet. Infact his entry was deleted from Urdu WP a few days ago [19] Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person so Can't see any significance, which means he basically fails to meet GNG. He was given an award by Bihar Urdu Academy but its not a notable or significant award.

The page was created by User:Sweety Hasan so I assume the subject is the creator but I'm not sure. Saqib (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost certainly autobiographical advert without any sourcing or indication of Notability. I'd have gone G11. KJP1 (talk) 06:13, 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 08:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Puneett Chouksey

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

Actors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:ACTORBIO. Apparently some minor roles in TV drama series and nothing major.

Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person so Can't see any significance which means basically fails to meet GNG as well.

For what its worth, the page was apparently created by the subject himself (look at the username of the creator) Saqib (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many articles of actor in many different countries which have similar to this, but why only my article was nominated for deletion? I think that is unfair. Puneett Chouksey (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable actor. Maybe someday, yes, but at the moment WP:NACTOR criteria are not met. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:58, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr . Ikram Ullah Khan

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

The professor does not appear to easily pass professor test and basic GNG.. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful.. The cited sources does not discuss the subject directly and in detail. This page contains too much original research and is essentially promotion for the subject. GNG says we need "Significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Unfortunately based on the cited and available RS, a standalone BLP cannot be created.

For what it's worth, apparently the subject himself created this page (look at the username of the creator). Saqib (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional. Deb (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I warned the author with {{uw-autobiography}}, which he apparently ignored. I concur with Saqib. There's nothing here to suggest passage of WP:GNG, and certainly not for WP:NPROF. I would be swayed if there were a significant award, but in the list on the article there is nothing significant. 1/4 of it is attendance/participation certificates. This does nothing to support notability. The "Shield" interested me, but I came up with nothing on that as well. Searching Google Scholar came up with two other professors, but not him. Ok, he's a dermatologist. Ok, he's real. But, notable? No. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an obvious promotional vanity article. I see nothing to suggest that WP:NACADEMIC criteria are met. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Blatant promotion of non notable pseudo-scholar. Repeatedly created by various sock puppet accounts under different titles –Ammarpad (talk) 04:09, 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! 21:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Ferrer

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

Not seeing any independent notability. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, sir I will add some information about Georgia. 😊 User:QuesthasbTes 14:55, April 20, 2018 (UTC)

It is independent sources we need, not more information.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fictional character. Perhaps this would work better as a section in Ika-6 na Utos. _{Vermont | reply here} 21:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn character, no other characters in the show have a fictional character page, refs in the article are primary or youtube, google and news showing nothing of note. Szzuk (talk) 16:53, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Husan Sharif

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

Only source is a dead link, no other sources found for either Husan Sharif or his ancestor Zotti Geddi Sharif. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing much in the article, could possibly have gone via speedy. Szzuk (talk) 16:55, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Periya Mariamman Temple Vennandur

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

Very few hits in Google search, with most of them being unrelated. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to pass notability. MT Train^Talk 11:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn, 5 refs none of them reliable, google maps shows it is small. Szzuk (talk) 19:20, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Glover (ice hockey)

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject passes the GNG. One of thousands of NN articles created by editor who subsequently was community banned from new article creation. Ravenswing 11:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NHOCKEY, and fails WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He may become WP notable, but right now he doesn't meet either WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:22, 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! 21:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny A. Pineyro

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

Run-of-the-mill lawyer with a self-published book. No claim to encyclopedic notability. Madg2011 (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG; trivial, non-notable lawyer. Kierzek (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep edited the article to include the point about him being part of the MDAF which according to the source is 1% of the lawyer community. Would pass GNG. I feel its an important point the author missed out on Globe2trotter (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after further edits to streamline the article. His notability meets the threshold for a community figure. Ace Class Shadow; My talk.

Keep - would pass WP:GNG. Has articles that focus on him. Can try finding more if needed. I didn't include more in the original draft since I thought it was sufficient. A famous lawyer in Florida and other states. Msclguru (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was previously linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabriela Costa and there are other very strong indicators of undisclosed paid editing in the article. The above keepers all look suspicious to me, so I am relisting until they are CUd.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SmartSE (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – At this time. Major claim to notability is that he is a member of the MILLION DOLLAR ADVOCATES FORUM. However, the only requirement to be part of the organization is a one-time fee of $1200 for application, certification and life membership. And the Applicants must have acted as Principal Counsel in at least one case which resulted in a trial verdict (and final judgment), award or settlement in the present value amount of One Million Dollars or more. I agree this is an achievement but not a encyclopedic notable achievement. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability claim might have had some weight if there was some sign (from media attention, etc.) that forum membership itself was notable. --Calton | Talk 02:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Run-of-the-mill lawyer with a self-published book sums it up quite well. No notability here & no sufficient sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:03, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Koziol

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

Related to Herbert Schendl. See discussion here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Herbert_Schendl,_Herbert_Koziol_et_al.. no indication of notability and author has obvious conflict of interest. Polyamorph (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 06:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 06:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF #1, "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" as demonstrated by sources, and PROF #5 "held a named chair appointment". The Festschrift currently cited shows some significant impact. Moreover, Otto Jespersen includes a section on Koziol and his Handbuch der englischen Wortbildunglehre in Jespersen's A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. I would guess more sources may be available in German. Also, I'm not certain whether the Austrian Academy of Sciences is selective in the way that The Royal Society is, but if so he also satisfies PROF #3. I assume, based on the current content of the article, that COI issues are surmountable. Cnilep (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – as stated in the notability guidelines Academics/professors WP:NACADEMIC meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. And as Cnilep pointed out above Prof. Koziol definitively meets #1 - 3 and 5. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:01, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raashi Bawa

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

So apparently this actress acted in only one Sitcom show which is not enough to pass WP:ACTORBIO. Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the the actress either so I Can't see any significance.. clearly WP:TOOSOON apply. Saqib (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jijaji Chhat Par Hai#cast where suvject is covered. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a good idea. While redirects are cheap, but creating redirects on non-notable personalities involve the risk of page being recreated at some point later - which may go unnoticed. --Saqib (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now – I believe she may become more notable in the future, but she is not very notable at this time. CLCStudent (talk) 13:15, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Young

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

WP:BLP of a person whose claims of notability are referenced entirely to blogs and primary sources, rather than to any evidence of reliable source coverage about him in real media. Neither being a non-winning contestant on a reality show nor appearing as a guest judge on a different one is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this to qualify for a Wikipedia article — he would have to pass WP:GNG on the strength of media coverage, but none of the sourcing here counts a whit toward getting him there. Bearcat (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, samee converse 08:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a rudimentary WP:BEFORE comes up with lots of coverage in reliable independent sources of this pastry chef, inventor of the renowned PieCakein, celebrity chef, and culinary businessman. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – is Mr. Young Julia Child no. But has garnered enough reliable – secondary news coverage to meet WP:GNG guidelines as shown here [20]. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs some sprucing up, but seems to meet GNG. GlassCobra 16:32, 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 merge to Suspended Looping Coaster. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Eraser

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

Article has multiple issues that have not been improved in the last seven years. The subject is not notable, there are no inline citations, the accuracy the of content is disputed, some text appears to be opinion. There are 27 coasters of this exact same model. The fact that four of them are or were named Mind Eraser is not worthy of a wiki page. —JlACEer (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Suspended Looping Coaster – I was actually considering this as well recently. Because there are 27 coasters of this exact same configuration, we don't need individual articles covering each of the different names. We should only have articles that cover the model, not the installation. This is a similar move that was agreed upon years ago for Invertigo (roller coaster), which also had multiple articles covering each individual installation. We ended up merging them. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to Suspended Looping Coaster. Vorbee (talk) 16:39, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ustani Jee

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

This may be TOOSOON - there is one article from Dawn.com but one article is usually not enough for WP:GNG Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify for now. samee converse 20:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Draftify Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its not TOOSOON and started airing and airs weekly episode and thanks to editors, they also added some sources, one can check on its page because may be viewership is high of this drama — Preceding unsigned comment added by YasraNaqvi (talk • contribs) 06:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is one source of dawn.com and other from Gulf News both are leading newspapers and remaining sources are also not invalid, drama only shows 1 episode till now but its not mean it should be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.44.3.139 (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC) — 39.44.3.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak Keep & Comment - there has been some amendment regarding citations and tweaking of content. samee , Seraphim System, Quality is still lacking, though it would certainly serve fine as a stub. Sources are dedicated, fairly minimal (but beyond the bare characters, bit etc - i.e. there is significant coverage), can't speak to bias (though shouldn't matter in this sphere) and quality - but seems unlikely any media would just make it up.Nosebagbear (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although it contains very less information, it should be expanded i mean plot or nature of serial etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanamKhann (talk • contribs) 06:24, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Boat

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

Article has no sources besides rockboat.com. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, 3 refs have been added to the article. Szzuk (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep- sorry, I went to the page from here, so I should have tagged that I added a couple of refs. I've just now used the NY Times link (probably the most reliable I've found) to support certain parts of the history section that it also covers, but there are some other parts of it that could use better refs if they're found. ~~Personally I would say it is Keep now, but want to see if my sourcing stands up sufficiently.~~ Nosebagbear (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have opted for Keep, since I think there is a minimal level of acceptable refs Nosebagbear (talk) 21:57, 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 12:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article could do with a cleanup but there's a new york times ref and other bits and pieces. Szzuk (talk) 10:33, 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 redirect to North of Pittsburgh. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Schultz (actor)

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

Minor actor and writer, without proper sourcing. Appears to fail GNG and NACTOR. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not in any way enough references to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and flag for cleanup, or redirect to North of Pittsburgh without prejudice against restoring an article in the future if and when better sources can be brought to bear. The strongest basis for notability here isn't his roles as an actor, but his Genie Award nomination as a screenwriter — this does need improvement, absolutely, but actually having a shortlisted nomination for a country's top level film award is an automatic notability pass in and of itself. I'll grant that not everybody else whose name appears in Canadian Screen Award for Best Screenplay has an article yet, mainly because I'm the only person actually undertaking any serious attempt to work on the problems with our historical CFA→Genie→CSA coverage, but everybody whose name appears in that list must be either a blue link or a potential future blue link. There can be no exceptions where a person who has a Genie nomination is permanently off limits as an article topic, because the nomination itself is grounds for inclusion right on its face. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Real weak. I'm sympathetic to Bearcat's argument, but absent any sort of reliable, independent sources about Schultz, there's not much we can say about him in his own article. If coverage is largely due to his screenwriting for North of Pittsburgh, perhaps a redirect to that article until/unless sufficient sourcing is available? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 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. Withdrawn. Article state at the time of nomination was "one of the oldest". Now it's the "the oldest", which as contributors have pointed out is a significant claim, backed up by citation. Another example of a HEY. (non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kyodong Elementary School

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

Fails WP:NGEO and WP:NORG. Could be merged into a school district page in line with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This school is not an ordinary primary school. It was the first modern primary school in South Korea. And I would like to expand a bit if you allow some time. --Cheol (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the claims of being the first primary school and a pioneer in girl's (women's?) education can be sourced. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have found a ref supporting claim of oldest school (see article - couldn't export a more reliable link, appreciation for any link-improvement). That along I would feel is sufficient to demonstrate notability, given the fairly lax nature towards schools. Some reasonable alumni, and there are some other articles, mainly on how its number of pupils has dropped rapidly, even compared to other SK schools.Nosebagbear (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "oldest elementary school" is a sufficient claim of significance. An acceptable stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 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! 21:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Satya electoral trust

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is a donor to electoral parties in India, this wouldn't be a problem but there are loads of these see - [21] and why this one in particular is notable isn't established in my mind, although there are refs saying "Satya electoral trust" gave money x to party y on google. Szzuk (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we need significant media (not obligatory legal declarations, which would be OR) on it - being the biggest electoral trust in India would, I feel, be significant enough: if it can be proved. Also, it not having any internet presence seems either unlikely, odd or shifty (not that that's the article's fault). How do/would they function on such a scale while having no presence at all? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elections in India, not independently notable, but there could be a section on electoral trusts in general there if someone wants to write it. Szzuk (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Something like this would certainly qualify for an article if it could be reliably sourced over WP:GNG, but it's not automatically entitled to have an article just because it exists — and the only sources here are the political parties' own obligatory financial reports, which are directly affiliated primary sources, not notability-supporting ones. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise1st Australia

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

A non-notable company that does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Full disclosure: I am the admin that closed the deletion discussion for Cruise1st as delete. Upon performing unlinking for that article, I found this article and after unlinking performed WP:BEFORE searches, but this company also does not appear to meet notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the citations are either OR or contingent on Cruise1st launching it and even if notability couldn't be inherited, there isn't any to inherit. There are a couple of mentions in articles about individual cruises but they are passing - there isn't much at all about the company itself. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think we deleted the parent Cruise1st recently, not sure why we'd want a regional Cruise1st. Szzuk (talk) 08:18, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2017–18 Basketball Champions League. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Basketball Champions League Qualifying rounds

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

This article is not notable and is uncompleted and irrelevant. If we are not doing articles of the regular season groups with match details, it's absurd to do an specific article for the qualifying rounds. With the scores in the main article of the competition, as in the previous season, is just enough. Asturkian (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The articles about another stages of this tournament exist: 2017–18 Basketball Champions League Playoffs, 2018 Basketball Champions League Final Four. So why the first stages (qual. rounds / regular season) are not notable? I vote to keep and I think the article about 2017–18 Basketball Champions League Regular Season could be created also, similar to 2017–18 EuroLeague Regular Season. Also, the "uncompleted article" is not a reason to delete it. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 18:02, 4 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)} 21:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I think these articles need condensing into just one, I'm not certain though. Szzuk (talk) 08:04, 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 08:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2017–18 Basketball Champions League, preferrably in a collapsable section. That way the information is where the typical reader would look for it.Jacona (talk) 12:30, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hammy Havoc

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

Spam article. All substantive edits are by an editor with a name match for a music industry PR. Near-certain undisclosed paid editing. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't work in the music industry or in PR, I work in retail. There are several people with my name. Could you cite the source for where you found the matching name? I also haven't been paid to edit anything and have no connection to the subject. --Amy Mowatt (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:56, 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) 13:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:30, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 12:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vajja Venkata Giridhar

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

A long list of filmography as per IMDb entry, but on a closer look, one finds that most of roles are minor. I did some Google searches and could not locate even trivial coverage in independent RS which indicates the subject does not meets basic GNG and obviously nowhere near to pass WP:ACTORBIO. Any Telugu language editor may help us locate the coverage in Telugu language sources? Saqib (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 08:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 08:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I went through a large number of the films listed, and with only occasional exceptions, he wasn't listed in the cast list on Wiki. In the two films where he was listed, he was way down the order. I searched in various sources but couldn't find coverage. If someone better able than I is able to find suitable coverage, I'm happy to change my vote. In which case: ping me. Ross-c (talk) 19:24, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seyedmeysam Agha Seyedhosseini

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

Notability H.Fatemi ♪ 13:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to a political cartoonist living as a refugee but I can't find substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Is there anything in Persian? FloridaArmy (talk) 14:25, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never the Bride

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

Promotional and unsourced. I looked on the web and couldn't find any indepth independent sources on the band, only events they perform at. Please prove me wrong. GRuban (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I have actually heard of this band many times over the years and was surprised to find that they have very little significant coverage in reliable sources. Everything about them online says that they have been praised by the likes of Roger Daltrey and Carlos Santana but I cannot find original sources that can truly be verified, though the claims have been repeated by supposedly professional writers. On the other hand, there are a few things that can qualify for WP:NBAND #1. They have been covered by Billboard in relation to another notable fan, Shirley Bassey: [22]. Here are some reasonably noteworthy reviews that help with basic notability: [23], [24], [25]. I submit that these sources are beyond just evidence of gigs, as the nominator said, but I will admit that it's still a stretch. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, those last seem to be articles from the venues the band was playing at at the time, so, even if reliable, not really independent. And their tone confirms that: "...an intense singer with radiant charisma is magnificently accompanied..." --GRuban (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is starting to take shape of what is currently happening with the AfD discussion for Joshua Fried (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joshua_Fried) in that it's a subject/person accomplished enough that would probably merit an article but, surprisingly, lacks the requisite evidence to pass the wikipedia article threshold. Based on that it will probably get deleted but this may be one of those case studies of why WP guidelines could benefit from a serious re-evaluation of why some quite accomplished bands/people don't qualify for articles, but other of less accomplishment do. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is - how do we know? Without high quality independent sources, we're basically stuck with "this is what they say about themselves", which, I hope you can see, is less than ideal. --GRuban (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff on the charting of "The Living Tree" should easily be sourceable should anyone wish to do so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Living Tree (song) -- This might help a bit, but the original by Never the Bride did not chart. The cover version by Shirley Bassey charted. Adding this to the Never the Bride article, as notable songwriting, can reinforce my own "Weak Keep" vote above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:44, 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 03:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:09, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Wich

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

Not a notable DJ. Does not pass WP:GNG as he has not received significant coverage and there are no reliable sources that discuss him. The awards won are unverifiable. KingAndGod 13:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable and verifiable by reliable Czech sources, see [26], [27], [28] (iDNES), [29] (iReport), [30] (musicserver.cz) etc. His success in the Anděl competition, a really notable Czech music award, is verifiable by this article published by the Czech Radio. I would say also that his collaboration with Indy was notable but that's a matter of another discussion. I can present more sources and translation if needed. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:15, 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 02:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New sources need examining
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:09, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A.B. Shawky

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

Film producers, writers or directors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:AUTHOR. the subject has produced only one notable film ( among a couple of non-notabe short films) which is not even released yet.

Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person so Can't see any significance. Saqib (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would help if the article was created under his correct name (I've moved it). There's a ton of coverage on this individual, such as [31], [32], [33], [34]. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Look at that! I didn't knew his full name is "Abu Bakr Shawky". Thank you penning down his full name and for renaming the page. So as I said Google search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person under his abbreviated name "A.B. Shawky" but I can see some good coverage under this non-abbreviated name. However I'm still not convinced if he meets WP:AUTHOR. After-all he has directing only one non-notable film (which is not even released yet, as I said above). I would say say Wikipedia:NotJustYet because he has received the coverage due to Yomeddine so WP:BIO1E apply here (perhaps) and in light of the recently findings, my second choice would be make redirection to Yomeddine. --Saqib (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep his films "Yomeddine" was accepted in cannes film festival Diyarenoon (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is more a matter of registration than a critical evaluation. --Saqib (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lugnuts found refs that are good. Szzuk (talk) 16:44, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshiva University Medical Ethics Society

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

Student-run organization article that does not credibly state significance/notability as per WP:ORG. No secondary sources. Reads like a brochure for the organization. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Initial contributor to the article was Medicalethics and has not edited since 2006. Possible WP:COI created page. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking notability in independent sources and unlikely to do so as a relatively new (2005) student society Aloneinthewild (talk) 09:56, 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! 21:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris S. Sims (game designer)

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

Seems that there is very little information on the subject and the person just seems like someone that isn't notable. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 04:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise move to WP:DRAFT space. BOZ (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Moving the article to a draft does not help the fact that sources don't really exist about him. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are sources about him, for example [35] this listing of books that he is editor or co-editor. In addition, he is not a video-game designer, he is a pen and paper RPG and board-game designer. K-pachs (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable game designer. Link to D&D Rules Compendium, clearly edited by Chris Sims: Rules Compendium (Dungeons & Dragons Edition 3.5) I agree that there should be more references added, though.
Update: List on Amazon with all the books that he edited. Come on, this is impressive! Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... several of Sims' publications have unchallenged WP articles, but the author is not deemed worthy of his own WP article? --- Normosphere (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Normosphere: The "unchallenged WP articles" you mention contain zero references. wumbolo ^^^ 22:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Manual, e.g., is definitely unchallenged. --- Normosphere (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Normosphere: so you're saying that each of the 15 designers of a book deserve a Wikipedia article? wumbolo ^^^ 13:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wumbolo: Weird argumentation. In the, let's say, scientific realm it's no problem to have 5, 10, 15 co-authors or editors of a study or book. This is not about numbers. If the specific authors are relevant in the field, then why the heck not? But let's stick to the actual example (M.M.): There are multiple versions/issues of the book, and each has its own team of editors. All editors have careers and are more or less notable. Significance should be addressed for each individual. Concerning Sims: He is a known professional in game design and development, works/worked on notable projects for 2 of the biggest players (Wizards and Paizo) in the industry, is an award-winner, and is even known beyond his field (-> the arts; references are in the article). Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstellarpoliceman: then it's weird argumentation of Normosphere, who I was replying to. I am convinced that the subject is notable, but for the reasons you mentioned and are already mentioned in the other "Keep" votes. wumbolo ^^^ 15:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wumbolo: Oh, I see. Seems I misread the gist of your remark @ Normosphere... sorry! Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has co-authored two New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestseller list books and has also won a number of awards Atlantic306 (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article subject needs to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Goodreads is Non RS, listings of books is not RS, nor is an amazon search. There has been a bunch of non arguments so far, Good reads and Amazon are both non RS. He should be notable, and solid secondary sources are needed. So far there is no evidence for this. scope_creep (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are other references such as a 55 minute program about him on Twitch which is a reliable source and is significant coverage, there is also a number of references that contain verification of his multiple awards and there is a reference to an independent review of one of his books as well as an offline newspaper source to confirm the bestselling status of two of his books Atlantic306 (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added references. Please check if WP-worthy. Concerning Goodreads/Amazon: What book sources are reliable? OpenLibrary? [36] K-pachs (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject does lack significant coverage. Definitely fails WP:GNG. I didn't check with the other notability guidelines like WP:NPERSON. @Atlantic306: if by Twitch you mean Twitch.tv, that is unsuitable for proving notability as it is a WP:PRIMARY source. wumbolo ^^^ 16:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Biography on Q21 is fact-checked by Museumsquartier Vienna (credentials as part of the official invitation process for artist-in-residence). Added academic reference. Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary coverage, after a week of cogitation. All sources are primary except for one, which is not enough for BLP sourcing. Fails WP:BIO. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Four academic references. They are print references, but still academic publications. Zydake (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. Zydake is a SPA account with obvious WP:COI. scope_creep (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every source I have checked does not mention him by name. Sorry but he needs to be independently notable, not part of a team. Notability is not inherited, Just because you were part of something notable (such as working for a government department, or participating in the London Marathon) does not make you are notable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry that it's looking like I'm Sim's personal agent here... I really have no stakes in this, but it feels a bit strange. a) The Wizards RPG Team is quite clearly defined as Sims, Noonan and Schwalb. b) He has academic merits and is being referred to. c) Credible art institutions (like Museumsquartier and Vienna Art Week bring him to Europe to create games-based art, and it's documented. d) Most RPG game designers (like Rob Heinsoo and Robert J. Schwalb) have comparable WP pages and have the same references as Sims (e.g. ENnie Awards, which got removed from the article). If Sims' notability is really challenged, then we really have to look at all the other RPG game developers as well. They are all creative people, but they are of course working within the realm of a brand like D&D, and those brands are interested in actually keeping the developers' names off their official pages to keep a monolithic face to the public. This is also a structural problem, that's I guess what I'm trying to say. Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best Role-Playing Game Supplement

Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting

Ed Greenwood, Sean K. Reynolds, Skip Williams, Rob Heinsoo

Wizards of the Coast

Mentioned by name.

But you may well be right, many of these people may not pass muster.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the books referenced in the article state him as the author, have a look at all the story writing for D&D and Paizo. But I'm reiterating my statement that this might be a massive structural problem hitting many creative people that work for corporations. It's a debate about authorship and recognition in the corporate sphere. (I sound like I'm working for a union, but I have to say this topic is close to my heart, as a creative worker myself.) Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right, but this is not the place to right corporate wrongs. And it does not matter if he is an author of a work, what matters is that if that authorship is notable. Now every time I looked at an award it did not mention him, I do not care why.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

jumping in: are you saying that only winning an award makes a game designer notable? ---- Normosphere (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, no I am saying that not being mentioned as winning an award fails verifabilty, and thus cannot be used to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have now checked a couple of sources that "discus his work", and either I have the wrong ones or it is a case of "They discus stuff he has worked on" (which is not the same thing). Notability is not inherited.Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the one i added is about him. (games and simulation) ---- Normosphere (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was then one I was referring to, which does not contain a single instance of the word Sims. Please check the talk page of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sourced to primary sources and sources that do not mention Sims or verify the content they claim to. Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage. Melcous (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Browsed all ~40 articles on WP (part of WikiProject Dungeons&Dragons) that link to Chris S. Sims' article. He was involved in the creation of a lot of content within D&D and is cited as the writer and designer. Plus: the fact that he created the first story for a brand-new product line at Paizo (Starfinder) is definitely noteworthy. Plus: work as an artist for a notable institution. MisterBrubaker (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which organisation does he work (rather then has done one work) for?Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paizo (Starfinder). MisterBrubaker (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh you meant worked as an illustration for RPG products.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And his artist invitation to Vienna. MisterBrubaker (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And which institution was that (and is it a job)?Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was an artist in residence, invited by Museumsquartier in Vienna in autumn 2017. The link is already in the article. Don't understand why it's marked as not in citation given. Vienna Art Week featured one of his projects during the residency. [37] Here is another link on eSeL.at [38]. (I assume that's also the project that Trummel, Cosima is referring to. I can't help with verifying that link, though.) MisterBrubaker (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: with "work for" I mean "was invited by". MisterBrubaker (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the link does not use the word Awarded, which implies something that is not supported by the source. Also the Museum Quarter is not an institution, it is a geographical area that contains them (so it is hard to see how it can award anything). Indeed it may well be he was only invited for one week (and thus was not employed by them) as a visiting artist, or as a favour. The fact is the source does not explain what it was (or signifies). Many arts festivals invite people, that does not mean they have tenure (which is what is being implied here, a kind of tenure).Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can clear that up. Museumsquartier IS an institution (financed by the Austrian gov), it is the umbrella brand and organization of the area. It has a lot of budget and, among other projects, runs an artist in residence program. Artists get a stipend to come and work at Museusmquartier Q21 as part of the AiR program. ("Q21 hosts around 50 cultural initiatives, 9 Artists-in-Residence studios and an exhibition space. The creative space is spread across over 7,000 sqm.") Artist then collaborate with local events (like Vienna Art Week) to create work. In his case it was roleplaying performances. Here is some additional material I found that mentions or shows Chris Sims. [39] [40][41] MisterBrubaker (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is not how they describe themselves [42] they do not say they are an institution, but an area that encompasses them. It may well be like (say) convent garden market or a national heritage area, or maybe it is like the IWM, one institution spread over many venues. But we need a source saying what it is, and at this time they seem to say they are more like the first two, an areas that has many separate bodies within it (in the same way a city of culture is (for a year) an area that encompasses cultural activities, but is itself not a cultural institution). Nor do any of your new sources say that being a resident artist is a notable achievement.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First: Here is the description on TransArtist (art residency guide) with all the information I mentioned. This should count as a secondary reference, doesn't it? [43] Here is also a description on wien.info [44] I think it is important to say that this is an official program with a coordinator within MQ, and it is quite a privilege to be able to do this. Artists and researchers like Invader (artist), Evan Roth or Jake Appelbaum have done this before.
Second: The English WP article about Museumsquartier is not covering any of this, nor how MQ is structured. The German one is better, with reliable sources (important part is the one about Betriebsgesellschaft, the factility and marketing organisation that also handles Q21 and the residency program). [45] MisterBrubaker (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far we have had a bunch of primary sources offered by the filing editors that had them and the article, along with a bunch of others, up at WP:COI a couple of weeks ago. Regarding the academic references, they have been proven false on work done by Slatersteven on the homecomputer ref which is a phd thesis, and doesn't have reference within in (which is still in the article), the Trummel, Cosima references appears also appears be fake, along with the Williams, D ref, which I can't locate, even after, over a week looking for it. Now we have a bunch of non RS and primary sources offered by MisterBrubaker. In addition, Ref 1..10 is invalid, non RS sources. refs 12..20 is the same.

Regarding the The Sabin, Philip. Simulating War: Studying Conflict through Simulation Games By. Bloomsbury Academic. p. 289 references seems to fake as well: Here is a reference for it:

<ref name="Sabin2012">{{cite book|author=Philip Sabin|title=Simulating War: Studying Conflict Through Simulation Games|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tU9mkcL2XjEC|accessdate=28 April 2018|date=26 January 2012|publisher=A&C Black|isbn=978-1-4411-8558-7|page=289}}</ref>

Page 289 does not mention Sims, nor his full name, nor the game mentioned in the lede. Page 289 is notes for chapter 1 of the book. So the ref is fake. Another fake ref. All in all, in the beginning it looked like Sims was notable, but as the Afd has progressed, there seems to be have been a concerted effort to build a consensus for notability where it doesnt exist. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV and subsequently WP:GNG. Delete and Salt scope_creep (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And there seems to be an aspect of WP:CANVASSING going on. scope_creep (talk) 20:31, 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 speedy delete. G3 Courcelles (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

California gubernatorial election, 2022

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL (next election, in November 2018, has not occurred yet); while article is currently premature, can be recreated after then Mélencron (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete ~~Strong delete~~ - Looks like it was created by USER:Hsidun6404 the sole "candidate" on the page - Hayden Sidun, student - for an election in 4 years WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:CIO Bohbye (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - Looks like a speedy delete will be apropiate due to vandalism by the WP:CIO creator of the page. Bohbye (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Seems more fit for PROD than AfD, but whatever. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 04:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - as per nom, though if we want to retract it from here and PROD it instead, which seems a bit pointless at this stage, that also seems fine Nosebagbear (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally fails WP:CRYSTAL. ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 12:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as it was created solely to put "Hayden Sidun" as a candidate, which is a hoax. Creator needs to be indef banned for this and other inappropriate pages created. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 22:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:G3 Septrillion (talk) 23:08, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Brown (musician)

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

the article doesn't meet upto the Wikipedia standard Wiki841 (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 04:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Doesn't appear to be anything more than a "drummer for hire" for various Brooklyn-based musical outfits, and no individual notability is demonstrated outside of those acts. Richard3120 (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails on all counts re: proper style and sourcing.TH1980 (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FailsWP:BIO completely. Made up of unreliable vanity sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:45, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cable 8 Productions

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

Another student-run tv station with no notability. Only sourcing is the school's newspaper which clearly falls below the level of coverage required by WP:AUD. Rusf10 (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak conditional keep. The article is well written, and could be useful for students attempting to find information on the subject. However, you are correct in that there are extremely little sources, and more must be added to keep this article. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 04:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From what I can tell, not enough coverage to warrant an article in an encyclopedia. Try to change my mind. -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 09:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pending - Currently this would be a delete, but with such a high quality article it would be a big hit to lose it - there's a few mentions in different bits (one of their former directors went viral for a while, some other general ones about student-run tv). Hopefully I, or someone else, can find just 1 or 2 decent sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual editors' assessments of whether the article is well-written or not are not relevant to whether the topic qualifies for a Wikipedia article or not — and we'll never mind that my assessment is that this is trending in an advertorial direction rather than an encyclopedic one, because arguing about differing interpretations of article quality would be an irrelevant digression. The determining factor is whether it can be shown as the subject of enough media coverage, in unaffiliated sources, to clear WP:GNG — but this is not, as its only citations are to one of the same university's other student media outlets and a press release from the university administration. These are not independent sources for the purposes of establishing that a topic is notable. Bearcat (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Szzuk (talk) 16:45, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Biennale Artists

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

No WP:RS to establish WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. I looked, and all I could find were enwiki mirrors. Theredproject (talk) 16:51, 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 Organizations-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a bogus vanity club of artists, using "fluffery" terms like "international" and "biennale" to disguise that it's just a vanity project. Also, no RS found anywhere.104.163.158.37 (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 01:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A7 and WP:G11. A7 is very obvious, and for G11, the creator of the article uploaded the article's image. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 04:21, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Soriano College

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

Only mention seems to be on blogspot, no independant reliable sources nor any claim of notability. Fails the WP:GNG Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems to be a junior school, high school and college all combined. Appears it burnt down and they rebuilt it [46], no refs in the article itself. Szzuk (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment mentioned on GMA [47] Some students were honored [48] Has a directory listing in UNESCO [49] and Government website [50] That it's a college helps a little bit. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I tend to vote keep on any higher educational facility, but it is marginal so a weak keep. Szzuk (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - available sources are insufficient to demonstrate notability.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 05:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As it is verifiable, the we should follow our standard practice and keep it,; There's never been a consensus to change that practice. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There has, actually: WP:ORGCRIT proposed to change it and achieved consensus.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 05:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 00:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All high schools are notable. All nonprofit university-level institutions are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what policy? The Banner talk 15:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verified colleges are kept I believe is the consensus here.Egaoblai (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What consensus? You mean that shot down circular reasoning of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES? After that RfC schools have to prove their notability, not their existence. The Banner talk 15:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a verified high school / college. These are generally kept. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- based on what policy? The Banner talk 15:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time we stopped keeping any article based solely on the subjects website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SwoonXO

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

The website is unavailable - there's a domain parking page there now. ClickRick (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - SwoonXo web site stop operating. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The May-June 2011 references in the article, such as the HuffPost blog entry, are typical start-up coverage of the Beta. I am seeing nothing to indicate that this proposition attained notability by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 05:23, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruffwear

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

Seemingly non-notable company that possibly fails WP:GNG and most definitely fails the reformed WP:NCORP guidelines. The company exists, but in-depth coverage about said company is lacking. Some news stories do cover the topic, but these take the form of product announcements or reviews that throw in a trivial mention of Ruffwear. Nothing exists that indicates how or why Ruffwear is individually distinct or notable when compared to similar companies, nor why the former's inclusion in an encyclopedia is warranted. In addition, (note the following point is more of an observation than a policy argument) the article was created by an editor (User:Ruffwear) with a clear conflict of interest. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:COI article on a company, sourced to passing mention in local media and best-places type lists. There has been an analysis of the weak sources on the article Talk page since April 2010 without improvement. No claim to notability, and no better coverage found in searches. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:39, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Baratta

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

Fails notability. Sources are not reliable and are either affiliated pages, or general pages for companies she made art for. Appears to be an auto-biography or something close to it, due to the amount of detail included that is not found at sources (at least as far as I saw) ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. WP:NOTFACEBOOK WP:NOTLINKEDIN Acnetj (talk) 06:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Not terribly impressed by the artwork, either. -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 09:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 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.