Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 April	25 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Anal cancer. There is near-unanimous agreement here that this (disambiguation) page should not exist, and as such this has closed as delete. That being said, however, I will be creating this once again as a redirect to Anal cancer. Numerous folks below suggest it, and especially given the history of this page, it's a reasonable WP:ATD. Redirects need not be 100% clear, they need not even be correct, they need to be useful. Only a couple of folks suggest it wouldn't be useful, but I don't find that argument persuasive, especially given the support for redirecting, the RfD, and the redirect's existence for over seven years. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ass cancer

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

WP is not censored, but I don't see any reason to give credence to use of the term "ass cancer." I can't find any reliable sources using the term, certainly. Used as an internet joke/meme, but not a serious term which should be given a DAB. Anyone wondering about ass cancer can certainly think of synonym for ass. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 22:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nom. It seems to be and internet joke/meme but I don't see any mentions of it or at least not to an extent that it warrants an article of its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butch.labajo (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as agreed with nom. It is not claiming to be an article about the joke etc, it is trying to be humourous via acting as a normal disambig. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. PamD 12:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, it is not a serious article. Birdsgeek (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to anal cancer. None of the rest apply and thus not a good disambig. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James, Ozzie10aaaa, and SSSB: - You all suggested a redirect without stating a plausible reason why. Redirecting does not solve the issue that no reliable sources (or even unreliable ones) use "ass cancer" to refer to anal cancer in any serious way. Why is a redirect suitable? Ass being a synonym for anus is not a grounds for having a redirect. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"being a synonym" is a reason for a redirect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ass is a synonym for buttocks as well. And for donkey. I don't think that argument holds water. TompaDompa (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I burst out laughing when I saw the name of the article; But Wikipedia ain't for jokes (no matter how hilarious)💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 17:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to anal cancer (SSSB (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)) as anal cancer is the only link on Ass cancer which could potentially apply. SSSB (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it? Why couldn't colorectal cancer apply (especially rectal cancer)? Why couldn't cancer of the buttocks (be it skin cancer on the buttocks or soft-tissue sarcoma in the buttocks) apply? TompaDompa (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to anal cancer--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT. As no WP:RELIABLE sources use the term, a case could be made that it violates WP:DEL6 as a WP:Neologism. It could similarly be argued that it violates WP:DEL6 as it is WP:Original research that the phrase refers to any of the listed types of malignancy – indeed, a better case (based on usage in sources) could be made that it's a humorous term for flatulence.
I would strongly oppose redirecting to any of the articles on the disambiguation page (as has been suggested above, specifically to anal cancer) on the grounds that "ass cancer" is a broad anatomical description of the location of the tumour, whereas the different articles on the disambiguation page vary both in tumour location within the larger anatomical region and histopathological characteristics of the malignant disease itself. It would be like redirecting "neck cancer" to "esophageal cancer" (whereas it could be glottic cancer, or hypopharyngeal cancer, or malignant melanoma, or something else). Or to use a non-medical analogy: it would be like redirecting "native American culture" to "Inca culture" (could be Aztec culture, or Maya culture, or Navajo culture, or Inuit culture, or Sioux culture, or something else). TompaDompa (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not used that is, it lacks meaningful usage; with no redirect. I agree entirely with TompaDompa about the problems with imprecision, which undoubtedly contributes to its lack of meaningful usage. --Bejnar (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have several friends who had ass cancer in real life, and this page was instrumental in saving their lives, except one of my friends who died anyway, due to cancer of the ass.Captain Breakfast (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While we don't deal in anecdotal evidence, see WP:Verifiability, I am curious how this page was instrumental in saving their lives. It seeems highly unlikely. I assume that they did not have colon cancer, as that would be inapposite. --Bejnar (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This poor attempt at trolling should just be more evidence that "ass cancer" is part of some sick internet joke. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per common sense. This is a joke. Gargleafg (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to lack of evidence of its usage in reliable sources. Wikipedia cannot establish new term for anything not found in sources. This looks like censorship of vulgar words but it is not, because the people calling for redirecting fail to show us the reliable sources that use the term. So this is cleanup of unverifiable internet culture stuff –Ammarpad (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:HOAX. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I created the current disambiguation version of this page after Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_8#Ass_cancer closed with no consensus, feeling that, per TompaDompa, that a disambiguation page was preferable to a misleading redirect. I would not be opposed to deleting, but calling it a WP:HOAX is a bit strong when a targeted google search returns 80,000 results and there are media sources ([1][2][3][4]) that use the term to refer to anal or colorectal cancers. Do I think that means that it is a notable enough term for Wikipedia? Of course not. But it's not a hoax. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm going to ping the other participants on the RfD (those that voted on both sides): @CFCF, Steel1943, Kablammo, Thryduulf, and BDD:. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the RfD I wrote "Disambiguate. Although this is often used in a juvenile way, it isn't only used in that manner. It's not an easy term to search for (I've been using "ass cancer" -wikipedia -"kick ass" -"dumb ass" -"fat ass" -"bad ass" (which will be removing some results I do want as well as those I don't). My findings are that it is used almost equally to mean colorectal cancer and anal cancer and also occasionally cancer in the buttocks (which can be one of at least two different types of cancer). Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)" I've just done the same search again and found exactly the same findings. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie Todd

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

Subject does not seem notable for inclusion. The only claim to notability here is being a former President of RSUA, which I doubt that in itself is an automatic pass of our notability guidelines. The article has zero sources that are independent of the subject and I could not find better ones. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~speedy~~ Delete - being president of a trade organization does not promote notability. Two sources provided do nothing to establish notability. I am seeing absolutely no coverage on Google. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 22:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there is nothing remarkable here. His daughter's death from cancer at an early age get more coverage than he does. ww2censor (talk) 09:18, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Puck

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

Subject does not seem to meet WP:NACTOR since she only has minor roles listed on IMDb. The article has zero reliable sources and reads like a trivago ad. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing indicates notability. There is a total lack of reliable sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only assertion to notability is being the girl featured in German Trivago adverstising. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:45, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Masurica

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

Article about this "inventor" has utterly zero citations and a lot of the material is very thoroughly dubious. For example, building an "airplane" out of poplar, and doing so in the 1890s-- which was when the first structures were built in other places. Smells like a hoax. --Calthinus (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article also flatly contradicts itself-- at one point it says his "first invention" was in 1902, after that alleged airplane he "invented". --Calthinus (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at this article the dumber it gets. We have random quotes from his "life" as well as his grades in grade school (in an institution I strongly suspect didn't actually exist as most schools in Kosovo at that time would likely have Turkish or Arabic, not Albanian, names...). --Calthinus (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as proposer. --Calthinus (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no reliable sources for anything in the article. There were some religious websites who only cited his family as their sources. Not at all serious considering their claims. Vargmali (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps a hoax, the article is of no value. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:16, 24 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless anything can be found, this violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a good example of a violation to the WP:CCPOL Butch.labajo (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a potential hoax. It is impossible to believe what the article's subject claims to have invented airplanes out of poplar in the 1890s when there are no reliable sources to back up those claims and the article at times reads more like an incomplete fictional storybook than a article. 98.209.191.37 (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:HOAX, the article violates WP:V. — Βατο (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If deleted, this would score over 6 years on WP:LISTHOAXES. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sweet?--Calthinus (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax articles like this show we need to tighten the process for creating articles. 6 years of existence for such a hoax is horrible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but probably not a straightforward hoax: After some Googling, I rather doubt that this is at least intentionally a hoax article. Some online mentions seem to date back at least ten years, well before the article was created. And some of these make reference to a Kosovan journalist, sq:Kadrush Sylejmani, who is stated by Albanian Wikipedia (using Google Translate) to have published two monographs, one in the 1970s and another in the early 1990s, on the subject. So far, I have relatively little doubt about the evidence. However, I have doubts about Sylejmani's reliability - there is at least one available review of the later monograph and, while enthusiastic, it reveals some awkward aspects. Sylejmani largely based his work on oral evidence from the subject's surviving family and friends; a couple of remarks make it obvious that he is willing to speculate beyond the available evidence; and (perhaps most embarrassingly) the reviewer clearly independently knew of an alternative account of the airplane episode in which the "airplane" was, rather more plausibly, actually a balloon. It may also be noted that, at the time he wrote the second monograph, Sylejmani was apparently strongly supporting the cause of Kosovan independence against then continuing rule by Serbia, and keen to highlight past Kosovan heroes who were clearly Muslim ethnic Albanian rather than Christian Serbian. The impression I get is that the subject almost certainly existed, and was quite likely a fairly capable amateur scientist in a rather unlikely setting. However, it seems very possible that local legends had been growing around him even before Sylejmani came on the scene, but that Sylejmani then managed to hype them to the point where I suspect that he convinced himself that a decent if derivative scientist who was also a no doubt pious Muslim local religious figure was a perfect Muslim pioneering scientific genius. Perhaps a hoax, but quite a while back now and not necessarily intentional. PWilkinson (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PWilkinson -- thanks a ton for doing this research on the issue! This explains a lot. --Calthinus (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- by the time of the later monograph, he was fairly clearly operating as a Kosovan propagandist against Serbian rule

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 09:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Absolution

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

Already deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absolution (professional wrestling). Not notable Galatz ^Talk 20:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 20:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill stable. Not notable.★Trekker (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you are going to nominate this article, you should also nominate the Riott Squad. They have vastly less references. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 07:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, at the time I nominated this, that one was redirected to Ruby Riott. Since that has been undone, I have now nominated that one again - Galatz ^Talk 10:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the stable does not have significant coverage in reliable independent sources and does not WP:INHERIT notability from its members. Nikki♥311 02:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adell Center

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

Based on WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. This is about a future entertainment complex (not yet built) with only local press coverage at best. CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the place doesn't exist yet (and isn't even under construction), the name is speculative, and none of the references suggest it's unusually prominent. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom. No indication of notability yet. MB 17:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Sorry. Sandstein 18:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ursula Biemann

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

An artist. No idea whether she's notable, but the content is pure promotionalism only slightly veiled by nonsensical blather ("Instead of observing people, she is interpreting the earth as the person or the body"). Borderline WP:G11. If the topic is notable, the article would need a rewrite from scratch. Sandstein 18:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. On second look, her SIKART entry indicates a treatment depth of 4 out of 5, which makes her definitely notable in our terms, but the article is so worthless that it needs TNT-ing and recreation from scratch. I'll try that first. Sandstein 18:34, 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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Juanpa Zurita

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

After reading this erasure query in the Wikipedia in Spanish, I think it does not seem relevant to have the article of someone who has only won awards for having more followers in social networks, and their participation as an actor have been not very notable, not I'm a fan of him, nor do I follow him. Until now the only notable thing that I have seen that is will participate in the Luis Miguel series. Philip J Fry / talk 23:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The spanish Wikipedia is another project that is governed by their own criteria. In Wikipedia in English it is valid according to the referents. I think the article needs more references and be improved, not destroyed. --Viajaste (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My dude appears to be a person whose most notable aspect is making not very notable youtube videos. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability and there actually are citations in most places. The citation needed tags in the lead are mostly false, as all but two of the topics in the lead are repeated and cited. This would make for a simple clean up. Zoom (talk page) 13:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no reason to delete it. We should just find ways to improve. --DatGuyonYouTube (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources are not always a sustenance, because if that's why we can start creating articles from Instagram users with enough followers and YouTube users. We can not say that Juanpa Zurita is recognized for anything other than being Youtuber, he has not even made a significant record. All their awards are prizes based on their social networks. Is there anything more remarkable than that?.--Philip J Fry^talk 19:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What? If you say that it is only YouTuber, it is because you have not read the article. I gonna give some reasons in bullet points:

30 under 30 from Forbes.
Model with different international brands, parades and events.
Movies, shorts and series (ok, as a secondary actor, but this is not a problem in Wikipedia)
International aid campaign
Conferences at Oxford, Harvard and guest at world conferences such as the World Economic Forum 2018. Ref WEF 2018
Creator of clothing company.
One of the most famous personalities in Mexico on the internet.
Icon of a television channel (MTV Latin America)
He is the co-author of a book --DatGuyonYouTube (talk)rita Ref

If you had read the article, you would see that YouTuber, in fact, is not his most important network/work. --Viajaste (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all these reasons. --Viajaste (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - I see no reason to delete it. --DatGuyonYouTube (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuyonYouTube: You can't vote twice. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterTheFourth: Oh, I forgot I already voted. --DatGuyonYouTube (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons listed above. The fact that he has attended "conferences at Oxford, Harvard and been a guest at world conferences such as the World Economic Forum 2018" means that he is definitely more noteworthy than an average YouTuber. Then with appearances in movies and TV shows, his clothing line, and his published works added on to that, it seems pretty conclusive that his article should be kept. Embryo Yall (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is well established as noted above. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loyola College, Mettala

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

It exists, but fails the notability guidelines. No sources conform WP:RS given and I could not find others and no prove of notability. The Banner talk 21:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question: Our article says that this college is affiliated to Periyar University, citing the website of that institution as a source. But the only "Loyola College" listed there is "Loyola College of Arts & Science (Co.Ed); Oilpatty Village, Rasipuram (TK)". Is this the same college? I notice that the Oilpatty college is not listed here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, but Periyar has like 100 affiliates. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ unless any independent reliable source can be found, in any language, to confirm the affiliation to Periyar University (in which case a redirect would be appropriate). I can find no indication of independent notability – 0 hits on GNews, 2 passing mentions on GBooks. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Periyar University, strike 'delete' !vote, as the evidence of the affiliation I asked for has now been found (I could perhaps even have found it myself). There's still nothing to say about the school, so no reason to have an article on it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Verified Colleges are generally kept. A page that needs improvement is not grounds for deletion. Instead try posting it to regional boards to see if anyone there can help find more sources.Egaoblai (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It fails notability... The Banner talk 15:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified degree-awarding institution. We keep these. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what policy? The Banner talk 15:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's good news, Necrothesp! What reliable independent source have you found that verifies that status? Would you like to either mention it here or add it to the article? Because at the moment there's no verification of that at all; I don't even see any unverified claim that it awards degrees. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Periyar University lists it as an affiliated college. The fact this Loyola College is the same one, despite not listed here as being in Mettala, is confirmed by the address on its own website. Given it is an affiliated college of an accredited university, I think we can accept the information on its own website (such as the fact it awards degrees) as reliable. Affiliated colleges in India are independent institutions; they are not actually part of the universities to which they are affiliated, so separate articles are more appropriate than redirects. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see it on that list, Necrothesp? I see only one Loyola College, number 95 on the list, and nothing to suggest that it is the same institution – please see my question about this higher up the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my post in full. The address listed for that Loyola College and the address on the Loyola College, Mettala, website are the same! Logic would suggest therefore that it is the same institution. Or maybe two different institutions with similar names occupying the same place in time and space! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Necrothesp, found it (that's some very small print!). Sorry to have been so obtuse, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a policy. We have precedent. I know you dispute that any precedents exist to keep anything ever, but it's a fact nonetheless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the classic circular reasoning based to keep stuff because similar stuff was kept in the past because similar stuff was kept in the past because similar stuff was kept in the past because similar stuff was kept in the past because similar stuff was kept in the past. But no policy to back that up. The Banner talk 13:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, not rising to it. Just not worth it. Opinion expressed. Evidence cited. Precedent clear. End of. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, no evidence, no policy, just circular reasoning. The Banner talk 13:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Hindu Times article cited notes the college and one of its leaders is quoted. Verifiable colleges such as this one are deemed notable. Should be renamed Loyola College of Arts & Science (Mettala, India). FloridaArmy (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That article in the Hindu Times is just a passing mention. The article is about the doctoral thesis of a man who just works at Loyola College, it is not about the College itself. And please, read WP:RS, as all other sources are related or social media. The Banner talk 12:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this one is tricky. It didn't help that the URL was wrong, but I fixed it. I'm not familiar enough about Wikipedia's college notability policy, but if this were a standalone business, it would fail WP:GNG and be a delete. If consensus is that it's notable just for existing, than it's a keep. I do see several teachers and graduates promoting their attendance at the school, so its existence shouldn't be in question. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:18, 3 May 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) 08:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World Ecuador 2017

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

Not independently notable of Miss World Ecuador & wp:promo. Created by an editor currently indef blocked for promotionalism: Special:Contributions/PageantsECU. Redirect has been removed by an IP. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Neutral - All the references pertain to the winner - who is covered in the primary article. As per nomination, there isn't any notability for the 95% rest of the article and notability is not inherited. [A redirect seems rather pointless - I can't imagine many would specifically type in the full article. If people disagree I'm happy to go with redirect] Nosebagbear (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there are similar articles for the previous years and this article has a similar level of sourcing. Most if not all of the content appears to be sourced - I added a ref, found by following a link in one of those already there, which sources the contestants names, heights, ages. PamD 09:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at a couple of examples of the article's predecessors I would say they are actually significantly less notable (in terms of suitable sources, not "worthy topic") than this one, and WP:OTHER is in place. However with the added ref, most of the content is at least referenced in some fashion (though reading the (albeit translated) sources, some hardly come up as a calm, neutral consideration). In any case, I'm now neutral on this particular article - you have to (should be!) confident to vote delete, and I no longer think that is the case. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:04, 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 07:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep a quick investigation suggests there's enough coverage, though I wouldn't object to a redirect to Miss World Ecuador. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment - I'm still not seeing WP:SIGCOV for this stand-alone event. I don't see a reason to keep this page. Fails WP:CATALOG / WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a part of a series of articles on the annual events and there seems little reason to single this one out to the exclusion of the others. And this notion of having a series of "annual" articles is well accepted by the Wikipedia community -- it is used with plenty of other systems of organized competition. As just a very few examples, we have Ecuador at the 1968 Summer Olympics, Miss America 1967, and Ghana at the 1962 British Empire and Commonwealth Games. These three articles have two things in common -- they have levels of sourcing that are lower than that found in the instant article, and they will never be deleted. Why not? Because the Wikipedia community accepts the notion of a series of "annual" articles on notable competitions. And aside from the general acceptance of these types of articles, their existence can be justified under WP:SPINOUT, which doesn't require a separate determination of notability. So long as the material in the article is verified, the article itself is acceptable. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see there are already articles for the previous years of Miss World Ecuador, and I don't see the advantage of deleting or redirecting this one. However, I improved the sourcing of the article by adding additional info and citations with significant coverage of the event. This article now passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Additionally, it makes sense to separate each event by year, as there is too much information about each year to keep them in one giant ever-expanding article for Miss World Ecuador. Lonehexagon (talk) 00:19, 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. There are questions from one user about the notability of the subject but no delete vote. There is a genuine subject request for deletion which has been discussed sufficiently and turned down. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maastricht School of Management

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

No activity since adding Advert template. The Dutch page has been deleted for the same reason. Wikiwerner (talk) 16:10, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Removed most hysterically fawning verbiage from the article. Remains still based on self-referential sources. Perhaps someone is riding on the tails of Maastricht's fame; or is it infamy? -The Gnome (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did some search. The subject can't seem to meet WP:ORG or WP:NSCHOOL. -The Gnome (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a highly reputable, i.e. with top tier researchers in business academia, business school, in effect a university/college. We have many articles about business schools/MBA programs that are departments within larger universities. My impression (could be wrong) is that this is independent from a larger university. We automatically keep all secondary school articles; this is higher, and it is seriously top-notch. --Doncram (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It grants Doctorate degrees. This is ridiculously high. Speedy Keep close would be reasonable. --Doncram (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the argument, "other bad stuff exists, so why delete this?" The subject is a commercial organization and, thus, according to WP:NSCHOOL is subject to WP:ORG, which it seems to fail. -The Gnome (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I received an email from a user who identified herself as Communications Officer at Maastricht School of Management and said she has been told to get this page deleted. This is just for information, since 1) there is no confirmation of who the user is and 2) we decide such things based on our own criteria rather than the desire of the subject to have or not to have a page. --MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Do you happen to know or did they explain why was the email addressed to you? -The Gnome (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They addressed it to me because they had tried to get it speedy-deleted per WP:U1, and I had declined it because they were not the author of the article (which has actually been here since 2006 and had multiple editors). --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. (By "author," I understand you mean "original creator.") Thank you for the response and the information. -The Gnome (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your reply. How can I confirm who I am and this this is a request on behalf of MSM itself? We have been spending too much time on checking the information and correcting. This is why we would like to have the page deleted. Several editing wars have been taking place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maastricht52 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand I and other Wikipedia editors here do probably all believe User:Maastricht52 that they are an official authorized to represent MSM, and what they/MSM want does matter to some degree. As noted by others below MSM does not get to strictly control what is covered about themselves, but they should point out factual errors if any and they should make requests for other changes at the article's Talk page, including use of the {{edit-request}} template. Also they should be encouraged to provide photo(s) and use of a logo to improve visual coverage, for which their proving they are official does matter (only an official can make release of a logo); for this they should correspond with Wikipedia's confidential Volunteer Response Team (aka OTRS), see wp:OTRS. It is awkward to communicate back and forth here to educate them/us about what is proper here; the trained/qualified volunteers can better handle this confidentially by email. To MelanieN, could you possibly please point this out to them by email? --Doncram (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doncram, I don’t see a need to email her. I think we are inclined to believe that she is who she says she is. She said the same thing at the article about her boss, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wim Naudé, and it was deleted. She has not given us any valid reason for deleting this article. I don’t see any evidence of the edit wars she describes or the misinformation they have had to correct. I think consensus here, whatever it turns out to be, should prevail. If the article is kept, ~~someone ping me and~~ I will explain on her talk page how to handle what they perceive as problems with the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC) Actually no need to ping me, I have watchlisted the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I understand that the school has asked for the page to be deleted, the institution itself is notable and the article should be maintained. However, it is a conflict of interest for the school itself to be editing the page. Ross-c (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Editors with a conflict of interest are "strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly" but not prohibited from doing so. -The Gnome (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and advise the school's officials that Wikipedia is a crowdsourced encyclopedia and not a promotional website for the school. Of they want to raise concerns about the article the article talk page is the appropriate venue. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deletion solves none of the problems with this page. Unfortunately I don't know what reliable sources there are for European universities. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article has been updated and refs added. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gulam Abbas Moontasir

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a recipient of Arjuna award , a prestigious and top sport award of India conferred by the Government of India.Shyamsunder (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting WP:GNG is a matter of showing that significant coverage from multiple independent sources exists for the subject. Winning an award is sometimes an indication that coverage exists, but it is not a given. The article has been tagged for lack of sources since 2015. Are you able to identify sources to demonstrate GNG? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the source [5] - a well known newspaper of India.Looks like the nominator did not to look for it before nominating for deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyamsunder (talk • contribs)
That's a start. However, GNG requires multiple sources of such coverage. Do you know of more? I also see that you were the article's creator. As a future reference, you can also save you and the community from spending time on these types of deletion discussions by citing the significant coverage when you first create the article.—Bagumba (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the community feels that way please feel free to delete this page. I change my vote from oppose to support. Go ahead.Shyamsunder (talk) 11:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shyamsunder: Per WP:AFDFORMAT, you can formally change your vote by using strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between <s> and </s> after the *, as in "• ~~Delete~~ Keep". Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple, independent sources. Does not meet Wikipedia:NBASKETBALL either.—Bagumba (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Not sourced BLP article that fails WP:GNG. Enough said. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 01:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)*[reply]
Keep. The current article is poor, but in addition to playing for the Indian National basketball team, Gulam Abbas Moontasir has also played a major role in the 1981 movie Khoon Ki Takkar. English language sources are difficult to find, especially from long ago but here's one. [6]Jacona (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple more sources to the article, including one for the Arjuna Award, which is a big deal and which should be by itself enough to pass gng. It's not super-easy to find sources for Indian subject material, but from a fairly limited viewing, it appears that Abbas is not just notable, but eminently so. WP:BEFORE for a non-American subject should be more than just dismissing the first page of google results because you haven't heard mention of them on ESPN.Jacona (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About his possible acting roles, is there a source? IMDb is not considered reliable. Also, is there a source that confirms the actor is the same person as the basketball player? Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein warns about the dangers of writing bios and assuming people with the same name are the same person. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one such source is this one: [7]. Unfortunately, this source states that he's been in several films, not which ones. I've found some sources that do state specific films, Some specific films, including Khoon Ki Takkar, but I'm still searching for a better source.Jacona (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment It says a lot that he comes up in more or less trivial coverage in almost any story about the history of Indian basketball, including talking about a referee throwing him out of a game 35 years earlier. [8]. Not everything was on the internet in the 70s, but he's one of two players who come up in any material on Indian basketball in that time period.Jacona (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability established in above discussion and the sources noted. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Changed from "delete" above. Probably meets GNG with significant sources identified by others at Scroll and Deccan Chronicle, as well as gut feeling from the many trivial mentions that treat him as a historical figure. I'll WP:IAR on any remaining doubt and assume offline sources are likely to exist.—Bagumba (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample evidence that subject passes GNG, if not as an athlete then as an actor. Smartyllama (talk) 20:19, 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 redirect to Chris Hopewell. Per the redirection, the article's Revision history remains accessible, in the event anyone wants to perform some selective merging of content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Collision Films

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

Article is about an animation studio with no sources that satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Even the source used in the article doesn't name the actual company. Could possibly be redirected into Chris Hopewell, but does not meet WP:GNG for a standalone page. CNMall41 (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chris Hopewell makes a lot of sense. Notable projects but coverage isn't there apart from bits and pieces. Best covered in leader's article, which is stubby at the moment. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chris Hopewell; not independently notable. I don't see any usable sources worth merging, so a redirect is preferred. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 2 May 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 09:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baaghi 3 (film)

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

The shooting is scheduled to begin in December 2018, making it a 2019 release. WP:TOOEARLY. MT Train^Talk 16:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to WP:NFF: Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven M. Shindler

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

Paid vanity article on a not-notable CEO by a blocked COI editor DocumentError (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom SeraphWiki (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Szzuk (talk) 19:08, 29 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 09:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff A. Stevens

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

Vanity article on a not notable CEO DocumentError (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom SeraphWiki (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 2 May 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 09:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James T. Morris

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

Vanity article on a not notable CEO DocumentError (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a nn CEO; borders on A7 / G11. Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service. Likely, COI-based editing here & no value to the project. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:43, 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. Sandstein 07:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clovis library shooting

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

Second nomination: the first nomination as WP:NOTNEWS failed (with a non-admin closure) becayse people seem not to understand that Wikipedia is not a news feed. A thoroughly unremarkable crime, and I can't see anything that indicates any degree of lasting interest in it. TheLongTone (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the first AfD for this article was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Clovis library shooting. ansh 666 20:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - at the time of the first AfD being submitted, it was legitimate, but the coverage this received is certainly sufficient - multiple high quality sources at a national level. The key consideration is WP:EVENTCRIT, point 1: the article is not likely to have "enduring historical significance" and quite possibly lacks "significant lasting effect" (though I would say it does meet WP:GNG). However, point 2 is met - significant USA-wide coverage.

With this clashing set-up, the actual relevant bit is in WP:GEOSCOPE "Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article.". So now we end up in the judgement call - does a mass-shooting, though small in that category, have a lasting impact (on a sufficient geographical scope) to satisfy both grounds sufficiently?

WP:PERSISTENCE is satisfied, with articles on the progression of his trial, diagnosis and treatment, e.g. [Evaluation], [Treatment Refused]. It is also referred to as the reference point in other local gun-related/threat-related articles, which indicates some degree of lasting psyche impact if linking current events to that actually has any relevance.

Therefore, I feel that coverage diversity and breadth is satisfied, and duration is sufficiently satisfied (albeit primarily with sources not yet added to the article) to encourage a keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I suspect by SNOW. International news item when it broke. A cursory looks at coverage shows it still is a fairly high profile news item (during the trial) which coverage by the news wires (e.g. AP). Definitely meets NCRIME / SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of trials is routine. It is no indicator of real ongoing interest.TheLongTone (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you nominated this in 2019 or 2020 - you might have a point if there were no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE (for a sufficient period of time). As it is - there is continuous coverage from August 2017 to April 2018 - every month you have an item, and some of it is national or international - placing us in a WP:RAPIDish situation of assessing WP:BALL of future coverage. There no reason to think this won't be notable going forward - it was quite a notorious incident - mass shootings by teenagers against un-invovled random victims often are notable - regardless of the bodycount.Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that article was KEPT at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Clovis library shooting in August 2017.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NCRIME, WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

commentIt was kept because of a lot of 'votes' from people who do not understand WP:NOTNEWS.TheLongTone (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in response, I looked at the comments in the 2017 AfD; and found a familiar mix of policy-based arguments with arguments by editors who appear to lack familiarity with AfD. Noting that Longtone was Nom on both AfDs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to Public Radio station KUNM, although the Associated Press usually refrains from using the names of juvenile defendants, it has chosen to publish Nathaniel Jouett's name "because of the seriousness of the crime and because authorities are seeking adult sanctions."E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - coverage continues even as of 11 days ago. A self-evident case of WP:GNG. Note the nominator is the same for both the previously failed AfD and this AfD. XavierItzm (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As stated,. there is routine current coverage of this non-event because of the trial. this is NOT significant ongoing coverage; I suggest that all thos who want to keep this read the relevant guidelines. I fully intend to nominate this a third time if this nom fails.TheLongTone (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "routine" coverage claim is discussed in WP:NOTNEWS. This claim for deletion is based on a misreading of policy. The policy is aimed against entertainment news. Specifically, WP:NOTNEWS reads "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This case on the contrary is a notable crime. Besides, this is clearly not "routine news reporting" on "announcements, sports, or celebrities". This is routine news reporting a major crime and therefore WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. I can only recommend re-reading the WP:NOTNEWS policy. Finally, the unsound arguments in favor of NOTNEWS are trumped by WP:NCRIME, which reads «Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act», so keeping this article ought to be adjudicated by default, as clearly the coverage has been extensive and continues to date.XavierItzm (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Though mass shootings are becoming common in the USA of today, it is yet notable. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENTCRIT, all heinous crimes have local coverage of the proceedings of criminal trials about them and that type of coverage (such as on a New Mexico TV station) is WP:MILL and doesn't automatically mean that GNG is met. Beyond that, we have national coverage in the immediate aftermath of the shooting ([9] [10]), and nothing else. All murders are tragic, but not all are notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that, at the moment, a wave of activism that is bringing school shootings into the headlines in a manner that is anything but run-of-the-mill. U.S. News & World Report, 20 April 2018: "At New Mexico State Capitol, Students Plead for Gun Safety", "New Mexico was shaken by a December shooting at Aztec High School that killed two students. An August 2017 shooting at a public library in Clovis left two dead and four wounded."] Passes WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning more towards keep as it appears to exceed WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. However, how does the above USN&WR article assist? There is just a brief mention of the crime in that article, no depth of coverage regarding the abhorrent event at all. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of a series of incidents that have driven a nationwide political clamor for reform this spring, and a nationwide concern about the potential for copycat shootings by teens. (note that "According to the report, Nathaniel Jouett admitted to police that he was the shooter inside the library, and said he took the guns from his dad’s safe. He went on to say that he “had planned the attack for a while and wanted to shoot the school up and then kill himself,” .... he “ended up at the library because he was angry and was either going to kill himself, or a bunch of people.” It has returned to the news cycle in improbable ways: New Mexico student arrested in high school shooting threat; photo caption led to calls to Burlington police], that's Burlington, North Carolina where, "police said it received multiple calls from citizens Sunday regarding the post the teen made, according to a police news release. The concern that these callers had was that one of the captions mentioned a "CHS" which they believed was referring to Cummings High School in Burlington." But a closer look Snapchat Threat Shuts Down High School in Missouri reveals a broader concern about the potential copycat impact, an impact that is cumulative as schools and communities nationwide (my 4-year-old's pre-K now has live-shooter drills) react to the "Numerous copycat threats (that) have also popped up around the nation". E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has been demonstrated that this has received both national and ongoing coverage. Therefore WP:NOTNEWS is inapplicable, and WP:EVENTCRITERIA is met. This is a notable event for which a reader is likely to seek encyclopedic information. The encyclopedia is thereby not improved by the removal of this entry. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 15:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calix Inc.

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

article is sourced entirely to company's own website; a check on Google News finds a huge number of press releases and routine coverage (stock quotes, contract executions, etc.) DocumentError (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Google News is not a good way of finding reliable sources for public companies - searching for the company name with a likely source usually works better. There was an in-depth article about the company in the Wall Street Journal in 2003 ([11]). There have also been several in-depth articles in the local Santa Rosa Press Democrat (e.g. [12] and [13]). as well as various business journals (e.g. [14]). There seems to have been a significant legal case involving the takeover of Occam by Calix, which is covered in-depth in the legal textbook "Takeovers: A Strategic Guide to Mergers and Acquisitions". -Mparrault (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient sources to indicate notability. For example, the WSJ article (above) meets the criteria for establishing notability and the company has been covered by analysts. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:37, 30 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Savannah Coastal Outlaws

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with one local news source stating the announcement of the team (WP:NOTNEWS) and even lacks WP:ROUTINE game coverage. Despite being listed as members of two or three separate leagues at any given time (SIF, APF, and AAL), I can find no evidence a home game was ever played. (This article shows that a team apparently using their played at least one away game, but that article is about the Richmond Roughriders and the Outlaws only get a single mention; insufficient for GNG's significant coverage qualifier.) Their most recently announced game has also been replaced. Their self created amateur league was also lacking any media coverage other than when it folded up early. Yosemiter (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at this time, I'm not able to find sufficient articles in news to pass WP:GNG. Should that change, bring it back.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- According to their original opponent for April 28, 2018, they no longer exist. Yosemiter (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Yosemiter's findings. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 02:04, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Moutchi

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

Lack of notability. I looked at the refs from The Guardian & couldn't see any reference to this geezer. TheLongTone (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. a redirect to his new show Famalam would be reasonable based on the references, but that page doesn't exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "geezer"? He was born in 1992! power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established, he has a few mentions but no in depth coverage. Szzuk (talk) 19:14, 29 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. Already deleted by Nyttend as A7. No credible claim of significance. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bahujan Azad Party

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

All the sources except for the controversy related source state nearly the same matter. Does not even the basic primary criteria for an organisation currently WP:ORGCRITE. Maybe in the future this party may deserve it's own Wikipedia page but just now this is more like news related to just one event WP:NOTNEWS. Not notable enough WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NN. DiplomatTesterMan 14:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete party is less than a month old, no notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability is not a valid reason for speey deletion, although of course it is for an AfD deletion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete...again. Why are we being redirected to this AfD discussion from the article? The article was already deleted and it was re-created today. Discussion here should be minimally entertained since the brand new user, SiddhantSarang, without a review or understanding of the rules defied the deletion, did not register an objection here previously, and re-created the article anyway. The article should be deleted at once. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GnarlyLikeWhoa: Because it was not previously deleted per an AfD. Previous deletion per A7 does not count. Please, once again, familiarize yourself with WP:CSD#G4. Furthermore, as it sits, it does assert significance. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GnarlyLikeWhoa is canvassing for delete votes in violation of WP:CANVASS.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to unmuddy the waters/muddier the waters-- delete although asserts significance, is not yet notable. too soon.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:53, 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 speedy delete per G4/G11. MT Train^Talk 16:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Blu

AfDs for this article:

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

New version of previously-deleted article, doesn't qualify for WP:G4 speedy deletion because it's substantially different than the deleted one. Unfortunately, the notability concerns raised in the previous AFD discussion haven't been addressed. There are brief reviews of tracks, primary sources (interviews), one source even describes the subject as a "future house phenom"[15]. To merit an article here, an artist can't be up-and-coming, he must have already arrived. I don't see anything in WP:MUSICBIO that suggests notability. This is probably WP:TOOSOON. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Netsch

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

Obvious promotional intent. Basically nothing for sources out there other than social media an run-of-the mill index pages. GMG ^talk 14:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vanity bio. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All entries are facts backed by articles. Not intended for promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickybetsch (talk • contribs)

If there are further edits that need to be made please suggest them. I will make them so it does not appear as promotional content. It is my first contribution though I referenced other Wiki pages for how to write it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickybetsch (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom SeraphWiki (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've dug around and I've not found anything to support having an article here. Sure, he exists, and he's on various social media outlets, and he's trying to promote his startups, etc. But, so far, he's not drawn the attention of any secondary sources. All but two of the citations do not even mention Eric Netsch. Of the two that do, one is self generated and the other just mentions him in passing. There's nothing here to support passage of WP:GNG. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its not notable and refs are not solidKamran Ali El-Batli (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional, no claim of meeting any SNG, and the references are as bad as Hammersoft says. The obvious redirect target, Tapcart, is a redlink. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:14, 29 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. ansh 666 21:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Case Reports and Images

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

Periodical with no evidence of notability. Refs are simply directory listing and confirmations that it exists. Earlier endorsed PROD removed by creator. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article for non-notable journal. None of the indexing services listed (including fake ranking site Index Copernicus) are selective in the sense of WP:NJournals. The article currently lists 12 "references" (bare URLs), none of which contributing anything to notability. There's also a list of external links, but there's not there there either. Does not meet NJournals of WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 21:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mind shaping

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

This is an overly vague term used by two scholarly authors of no significant notability. Tacked onto that is an entirely separate, equally vague, and similarly non-notable use of the term in marketing. Daask (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh. Delete with extreme prejudice. Very few hits in Google Scholar for this term (many of those caused by the coincidental concatenation of the words "mind" and "shaping" ignoring punctuation inbetween the two). Used exclusively in an academic context by a single author (Tadeusz Zawidzki). The definition of the term by Mameli is nonsensical, conflating learning, emotional response, and planning - subjects for which we have already many wonderful taxonomies. This term, and the article "explaining" it adds nothing - just noise. Delete the **** out of this. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 11:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet notability guidelines and appears to be some sort of WP:ADVOCACY for this concept. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Kahn

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

Not seeing enough in the article or through Internet searches to pass WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. The Time magazine awards included 43 people in 2007, and the award itself only ran from 2007 to 2009, before disappearing without trace (and has also been nominated at AfD). Edwardx (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Edwardx (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - primary notable for heading Zalul Environmental Association. Son of Morris Kahn (yes, NOTINHERITED). There a few bits and pieces of coverage out there - both in relation to the family business and in relation to Zalul.Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY, I did a modest expand source. Kahn fils started his own biotech company; funding covered in press; and in 2017 he was given a contract to filter invasive mussels from the equipment at the Hoover Dam.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article appears to meet GNG even in its current state. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable with many solid sources. Needs a photo.--Geewhiz (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 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. ansh 666 21:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Reynolds (mixer)

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

The two main editors of this article are clearly identifiable as the subject. It is a PR biography. There is only one reliable independent source cited, and that article is no longer available so I can't check it. This is essentially an example of asserted notability by inheritance (literally by inheritance, he's a hereditary baronet, one of many hundreds). None of the sources cited, is independent and reliable. I think this fails WP:GNG but is a very well written advert. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think this passes WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO either. The issue is that although Mr. (Sir?) Reynolds has had a chart hit as a member of a musical duo, and has written and produced chart hits for other people, there doesn't seem to be anything demonstrating individual notability. I have a copy of the British Hit Singles book that was referenced in an earlier version of this article, and it refers to the chart position for the Braund Reynolds single, which I can confirm is correct, but then again anyone can confirm this on the Official Charts Company's website [16], and Mr. Reynolds doesn't inherit notability from the chart placing of the song. The claim that three separate Radio 1 DJs made it their record of the week may be true but is completely unverifiable at this point in time. He is certainly credited as co-writer, producer and/or mixer on all the records stated in the earlier version of the article, but again, that doesn't make him notable if there is no more information other than "mixed by James Reynolds". Richard3120 (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one of the article's available referEnces is WP:RS, Gigwise, and it's not a dedicated piece on Reynolds. The search tools produce zilch. Participation in one hit single doesn't confer WP:NM. Ergo, delete. Tapered (talk) 03:05, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE closure. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Nguh

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

Mid-career university professor who obtained his PhD from Walden University, where he's now a professor (of unclear rank, Walden's School of Nursing doesn't appear to have individual faculty pages). Article states that he is founding editor of the International Journal of Healthcare Polic, but the journal's website does not mention Nguh (and even if it did, this journal still has to get published, so this is not a "well-established academic journal in their subject area" as intended in WP:ACADEMIC#8). Being associate editor of the Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice also does not meet ACADEMIC#8. Two awards are mentioned. According to its website, the "Certified Nurses Award presented by the American Nurses Credentialing Center" is given yearly to dozens of individuals, so this clearly is not a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" (WP:ACADEMIC#2). Judging from the scant description on its website, the "British Council USA, Social Impact Award" is not a major award meeting ACADEMIC#2 either. Searching GScholar renders just a handful of citations to Nguh's work, so ACADEMIC#1 is also not met. There is no evidence that he meets any of the other criteria of ACADEMIC. No other independent sources were found during a Google search, meaning that WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG are not met, either. In the absence of any evidence for notability: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 08:53, 29 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mounika Devi

(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 the subject has appeared in only 1 film (which is not notable by WP standards) and also appeared in a TV drama but I don't think enough to meet WP:ACTORBIO.. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so meet GNG. Saqib (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently does not get over the notability line. Can find very little coverage of her via searches. Eagleash (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:21, 29 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P Kesavan nair

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

Author of non-notable books is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person so Can't see any significance. Saqib (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found only one article on him, apart from passing mentions in a few other sources. Not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. MT Train^Talk 12:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without sufficient sources, this fails GNG and other notability criteria. -- Veggies (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Also, be aware that this article was speedy-deleted already once in one form or another before it was re-created. -- Veggies (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No any decent sources that can show his notability. Self written promotional autobiography. Fails WP:BIOcompletely. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Webb

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

As best as I read NBASKETBALL, Webb fails it. The NAIA is not listed as a high enough association, and he also fails WP:GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like his pro career was over quickly and he didn’t play for a top tier league. Not seeing the ongoing coverage to constitute WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable player. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find multiple sources of independent, significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. No indication that WP:NBASKETBALL is met. Incidentally, he's a high school basketball coach now.[17]—Bagumba (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The NAIA does not meet NBASKETBALL. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:29, 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 redirect to Babymetal#Tours. ansh 666 21:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Babymetal World Tour 2018

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

This upcoming tour seems to only reference passing mentions or write-up from quite obscure, non-reliable, sources. A preliminary Google search didn't unearth much else. I understand their previous tours were notable, but this seems too soon. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Im going to use TWICE even if they are South-Korean as an example. They have a list of concerts and tours in their page, so probably we could create one of those in their own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnisooYamaguchiii (talk • contribs) 04:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Babymetal. There's basically nothing in the way of coverage that isn't routine. -- BobTheIP editing as 92.11.149.25 (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Babymetal § Tours as per WP:ATD-R. If the tour (which hasn't commenced yet as of this post; it begins on May 8, 2018) later meets notability guidelines as per WP:NTOUR, no prejudice against recreation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

U Mahesh Prabhu

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

Could in principle be notable but there is nothing in the article demonstrating notability. Ymblanter (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. Have a few mentions from 1 source and nothing more. Mredidiongekong (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. may be notable but there's not enough to demonstrate it as things stand. Eagleash (talk) 05:02, 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. Page salted as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D. Atishay

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and even lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful.. The article claim his organization Urjaa World Foundation received Guinness World Record but it has nothing to do with the subject and I don't think getting the said award confer automatic WP:N. Saqib (talk) 09:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I remember correctly, this is about the same individual that has been created and deleted numerous times recently as Arihantrishiji, Arihant Rishiji and Arihant Rishi. MT Train^Talk 09:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure but if its true, this one should be speedy deleted and salted. --Saqib (talk) 09:54, 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 delete. ansh 666 21:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Greco

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

Non-notable individual. Two top 20 UK hit singles would be a pass of WP:NBAND, but neither named track appears in the UK top 20 chart. Otherwise, claim to notability appears to be based on being a backing dancer in a children's TV show. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I can find nothing to suggest the music claims are true, even there own website does not mention music. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Internet searches don't reveal independent in-depth coverage of the subject in published sources. I find only the subject's own website, social media and listings like IMDB. As such, I feel that the article fails WP:GNG, WP:NPEOPLE and WP:NACTOR. I actually turn up more material about the 1984 video from Emu's All Live Pink Windmill Show that went viral in 2016. Scottyoak2 (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Items that might help establish notability

Seventeen Magazine/seventeen.com brief article about 1984 video going viral (mention only) https://www.seventeen.com/celebrity/movies-tv/news/a44007/this-intense-video-of-british-kids-introducing-themselves-is-insanely-funny/

Picked up by Yahoo News: https://www.yahoo.com/news/intense-80s-video-british-kids-173048030.html

The Telegraph: similar coverage of the viral 1984 video https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2017/02/28/stars-bizarre-pink-windmill-meme-reunite-adults-comic-relief/

Items not usable to establish notability

IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1511852/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Blog/interview https://twistedsisblog.wordpress.com/2017/08/29/and-im-joe-to-you-in-conversation-with-joe-greco/

Blog/interview https://leaveadooropen.com/tag/joe-greco/

1984 video (not mentioned by name) https://www.bustle.com/articles/198852-the-best-kids-introducing-themselves-tweets-from-your-new-fave-80s-show-video

Vice: Recent reunion video (not mentioned by name) https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/gv3xem/the-dancing-pink-windmill-kids-have-recreated-that-viral-video-as-adults

Audio interview https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0513zdy

Buzzfeed coverage of viral 1984 video https://www.buzzfeed.com/bradesposito/hi-my-names-catrina?utm_term=.wndJODJo03#.jjMgz1gX4o

Metro News: viral 1984 video http://metro.co.uk/2016/12/10/this-clip-of-deliriously-happy-kids-on-an-80s-tv-show-has-torn-a-new-hole-in-the-internet-6314677/

Delete per nom; no refs that suggest notability, and being one of 10 children dancing in a viral video is not a claim of notability. Emu's TV Series could be a redirect target, but I don't see any reason to believe this person is more notable than other people of the same name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:25, 29 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. ansh 666 21:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mobtown Studios

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

Article that fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:RS. The page brags about recording some notable artists with no sources to backup apart from company website. Mredidiongekong (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:N. Several source searches are only providing passing mentions in rs. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 1 May 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. There isn't really any consensus in the below on the suitability of a redirect, unless a list of school shootings in Florida is created. Hut 8.5 20:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Florida school shooting

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

This isn't really a valid disambiguation page, since neither of the articles claim to be called "Florida school shooting", nor do news sources refer to them as such. Could be converted to a redirect to List of school shootings in the United States (there isn't a List of school shootings in Florida), though I'm not sure how useful that would be. ansh 666 06:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Unnecessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like Ansh666's proposal of a redirect, the present nation-based list linked is organized by decade, it would be interesting to see an alternative organization into smaller lists on a state-by-state basis. I'm counting 28 examples right now on the present list. What number would be a good minimum to set for when we should give a state a page? ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These days it's actually organised by 5-year periods, which is depressing, but in any case I agree. There probably are enough to also disambiguate by State - and this could be a starting one, but if it's going to do it, then it needs to do it properly.

If we do take that approach, then there's no fundamental reason to delete the page, even though it clearly isn't serving its purpose atm - the name etc is fine. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not only unnecessary, but vague in purpose and aim. Kierzek (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even a redirect to either list mentioned by Ansh666 would seem too much of a redirect. I could see if a list by state was already made but this isn't the case. – TheGridExe (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would think a redirect to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting would make sense, at least in the short term, but List of school shootings in the United States would also get most people typing this to where they want to go, i.e., they'll scroll to the bottom to see the latest massacres that they are probably looking for.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, it really wouldn't. When I started the nomination, almost all search results for "Florida school shooting" were for a different event, the Forest High School shooting. ansh 666 19:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, another shooting that happened in the last 10 days?!?! Wow, its amazing anyone is still alive in the States.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:29, 1 May 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. ansh 666 21:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Science

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

Insufficient coverage in secondary sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is poorly written, but this is a substantial company. Hundreds of hits in Newspapers.com. Coverage includes: this feature story from 2009 and this feature story from 1983. Cbl62 (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based upon the refs identified by Cbl62. Szzuk (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 20:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retired Ottawa, Ontario transit fleet

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

per WP:NOT - a list of train data, sourced to another wiki and an Angelfire page, with no claim of encyclopedic importance power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a directory without an text. I think it has its place in an encyclopedia, but this doesn't appear to be that place. SportingFlyer talk 06:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, not an important/notable subject. As nom says, fails on grounds of having WP:OR Nightfury 14:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. WP:NOTDIR WP:FANCRUFT. Article creation appears to be a response to this edit on OC Transpo: [18]. Ajf773 (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. We don't even care about obsessively maintaining make and model catalogues of the active bus fleets of municipal transit systems, let alone documenting the make and model of every bus they used to have but don't anymore. This is unverifiable trivia, which isn't even interesting let alone encyclopedic — and it's "referenced" entirely to a user-generated trainspotter wiki and a list on an unreliable self-published Angelfire site (who knew Angelfire was even still a thing?), which are not reliable sources for the purposes of making something notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 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. ansh 666 21:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperlinked library

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

per WP:NOT - this is an essay full of WP:SYNTH claims by/about people that have likely never used the term "Hyperlinked library" power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hard to understand essay about digital libraries (Am I getting it right?) Not needed.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 16:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:53, 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 as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 21:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turvasu, Druhyu and Anu Dynasties

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

Sourced only to the Mahabharata, and I can't find much of this information in the linked reference or anywhere else. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Insufficient notability demonstrated per the relevant guideline. ~ mazca ^talk 21:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chitrmala

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

Fails WP:NTV: No reliable sources are provided or exist beyond IMDb, so there is no evidence of notability for this program that airs in one media market. Even though the article text implies national airing to someone unfamiliar with the subject, the show's own website confirms it only aired on station WNVC in the Washington, D.C. area. Xenon54 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 16:37, 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. ansh 666 21:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lokesh Yadav

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Also dubious references, such as citing another Wikipedia article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOOPS and coverage is routine sports reporting. Lacks the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:10, 2 May 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 merged to Simon Jacobson. bd2412 T 11:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yosef Yitzchak Jacobson

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

Yosef Yitzchak Jacobson appears fairly non-notable. The only possibly notable thing is his Chaplaincy Address to the Pentagon. The problem with that however is that the only source is a local church-based news site tooting its own horn about their own rabbi. I believe this article cannot stand on its own. The only salvageable item (the chaplaincy address) if it is worth saving, should be in a family section of his brother Simon Jacobson. Jcmcc (Talk) 18:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Give this article the benefit of the doubt. I think that his being the redactor of a Yiddish journal is also notable. In any case, I would have recommended to tag this with various "Citation needed" and "More footnotes" templates, and revisit the notability question after those were resolved. My gut-feeling is that adding a few sources will resolve the notability question quickly enough. Debresser (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. [19] isn't independent. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. I see no reason to doubt that the source is independent. Assertion will not do for proof. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see how the official website for Chabad Lubavitch isn't independent coverage of a Chabad rabbi? The fact the reference starts In a speech hailed by one priest as the most inspiring talk since Martin Luther King Jr. suggests it's not neutral coverage either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what "independent" is about. The source is in no way influenced by the rabbi, ergo it is independent. According to your logic anything any publication affiliated with Chabad writes about any Chabad rabbi would be "not independent", and the same for anything any Jewish publication wrote about any rabbi etc. This is absurd. Please also notice that there are 4 more sources in the article, and almost every statement in this short article is sourced. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What don't you like about an attributed statement in the source? It doesn't say "This was the most inspiring speech etc.", because that would be bad journalism. It states a fact "There was somebody there who was so inspired that he said that etc." That is attribution and good journalism. Sorry, Power~enwiki, but I feel you are on a witch-hunt, and are making up problems where there are none. Debresser (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you are on a witch-hunt please strike that comment. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mind's Eye Productions

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

Delete It is not notable and not referenced. It was active from 1997 but it became defunct in 2003. Then, Disney Interactive acquired the company in 2005. There is no source to prove it. There needs to be sources coming from magazines, newspapers, and other articles. Evil Idiot (talk) 18:19, 16 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no RS in the article or on google, all I could find were a few articles repeating the info in the article, there's no copyvio but nothing else on the internet either. Szzuk (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Identity Commons

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

No independent references, and I've been unable to find anything more than a trivial mention. Severe content issues in all versions, and a very generic name such that there may be multiple groups of the same name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 18:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no refs in the article, nothing I can see on google, their website hasn't been updated since 2013, never notable and now defunct in my opinion. Szzuk (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With no sources and this much detail (including an old Wikipedia entry?) it's hard to see this as anything but unduly promotional. No objection to userfying if someone wants to strip it down and provide reliable sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Jeno Schmid

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

Advertorially-toned WP:BLP of a television personality, not well-referenced as the subject of enough reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG. This has been tagged for notability and sourcing problems since 2010, but until just a few weeks ago it remained "referenced" entirely to a linkfarm of links to non-notability-assisting unreliable sources, like his own LinkedIn and videoclips of him doing his own job on a user-generated video sharing site. Then in late March two real footnotes were finally added on the occasion of him coming out as HIV+ -- but one of those two footnotes is to a blog that cannot support notability at all, and the other is to a digital news organization that would probably be acceptable as one source in a mix of solid sources, but isn't well-established enough to confer a GNG pass all by itself as an article's only non-blog source. And if his HIV status is really the only thing about him that can be sourced anywhere independent of his own self-published web presence, then that just makes him a WP:BLP1E. So maybe this is just WP:TOOSOON for a person who might collect stronger coverage in the future -- but there's not enough sourcing here now to get him over GNG, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My looking brings me to the same analysis and conclusion as NOM. Aoziwe (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree 100% with nom. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:12, 1 May 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deeper Fishfinder

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

Not notable product, fails WP:NCORP. Renata (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, refs in the article are good, a cool looking gadget. Szzuk (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Already meets GNG per RS in article. There are plenty of others. E.g. Wired. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 20:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Central Station (Phoenix, Arizona)

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

A nn local nightclub. Insufficient coverage for GNG. Searching turns up a local newspaper article reporting that is closed in 2012. Not much else that could be considered independent RS. MB 04:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very famous nightclub and music venue that played an very important role in the music scene of Phoenix, Arizona, with many upon many notable artists performing at the club Evangp (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 04:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are references online, but the best one is the Phoenix New Times article talking about the fact it closed. Non-notable closed local business. SportingFlyer talk 06:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (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, Sandstein 19:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient media coverage to pass WP:GNG. I see some minor coverage of similarly named venues in Albuquerque and Austin, but that's it. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:09, 1 May 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 Closed as Moot because the article had also been nominated for speedy deletion #A2 and an admin has already acted on that request.. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tati Klingel

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

Non-notable, doesn't meet WP:GNG despite the claim of her being one of the few successful .... A Google search excluding on a particular phrase common to many hits from a search purely on her name, "Tati Klingel" -"com vocal de Tati Klingel, bateria de Leonardo", demonstrates this. Doesn't meet WP:BIO, WP:NMUSIC. Largoplazo (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

L293D, she's Brazilian, not Portuguese, so the delsort listing above needs to be changed. Richard3120 (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: for those who can't read Portuguese, the article basically says that Ms Klinger is one of the few female vocalists active in the death metal genre, employing the guttural vocal technique typical of the genre. She's been the vocalist for the group Mercy Killing since 2012, and since December 2017 she's also been the vocalist for Divine Pain, both Brazilian death metal bands. However, she doesn't appear to have any individual notability, and neither of her bands appears notable from initial impressions (the article for Mercy Killing is up for speedy deletion), so there's no obvious redirect target. I would think that Brazilian music sources in the Portuguese language are needed here, there's nothing in the English language. Richard3120 (talk) 02:57, 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 Redirected to Christian rock. This target has the most substantial consensus, and there is clear consensus that the article can not continue existing as it is. If a better redirect target becomes apparent in the future, that can be settled with an RFD. bd2412 T 11:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel rock

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

Hazily defined subgenre of gospel music, almost entirely WP:OR, apparently containing any rock music that the anonymous article creator thinks sounds a bit like gospel, even though not a single band mentioned can be described as playing in a gospel music genre. All Saved Freak Band sing about the Gospel, but their article correctly describes them as contemporary Christian music. The only references in the article are for Spirit in the Sky, and one song does not a subgenre make, and per that article, Greenbaum was not a gospel musician. First created by an anonymous editor in February. I tried redirecting it then, but it's now back. No significant current use of the term in WP:RS online in the sense it's used here. There are a few mentions of the term in GBooks in some rock history books referring to artists like Little Richard combining gospel styles with rock & roll, but apart from that it mainly appears to be a now-unused term for Christian rock. "Rock gospel" used to have its own Grammy category, but that's since been changed to Contemporary Christian music. The Mighty Glen (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bold redirect to Christian rock since it seems a valid target, otherwise delete since the article content is purely OR. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much -- but that replacement of page content seemed to be a bit early considering that the discussion has started today. Please wait until the discussion is closed by an administrator, who will then likely also create the redirect.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a proper target, maybe Christian rock, as mentioned above. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christian rock or Contemporary Christian music with protection. The content in the article looks to be WP:OR. There don't appear to be enough sources in a search even to rewrite it properly, but as it is a plausible search term, it might be worth keeping as a redirect. However, it may need protection to stop repeated wrong-headed attempts to turn it into a full article Hzh (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally prefer redirecting to Contemporary Christian music instead of Christian rock because of the noticeably different quality. Replacing original research by a redirect to another original-research-tagged article is probably not as useful for now. That doesn't mean that the redirect can't change in the future, of course. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Christian rock. Current text is a pile of original research. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that WP:G5 speedy deletion applies, since the Arkansas-based IPs warring the stuff back in are all from indefinitely blocked User:Jakob9999. My !vote is still to redirect, but the issue is much clearer knowing that block evasion is involved. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christian rock. Worth redirecting term because it is in use (book hits [20]) and is therefore a useful search term. And pray that some knowledgeable Christian rock fan invests the time to improve Christian rock up to good.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Rock Gospel - The fact the Grammy for two decades awarded a prize to "Rock Gospel" is prima facie the subject exists. Guys, WP:Deletion is not cleanup, any improperly sourced content you should edit out, even if you leave the article merely a stump, but clearly deleting the page of a legitimate subject is not good. XavierItzm (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the edit history, this article has never been about the genre that was nominated for and awarded the Grammy. Wouldn't it make more sense to start that article, if it's actually a separate subgenre, distinct from Christian rock or CCM? And has Rock Gospel ever been called Gospel rock? I'm not criticising your suggestion, I simply want to learn in case I've made a mistake. Thanks, The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that sourcing for the "Gospel Rock" term looks to be threadbare, so it probably cannot hold. Because of the significant weight of the decades-long Grammy "Rock Gospel" Award, the article should be moved to "Rock Gospel" and pared down to what its currently existing sources allow, which is probably not longer than a stump. XavierItzm (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Having an article listing the winners of the Grammy Award for Best Rock Gospel Album is fine. But this article should NOT be merged there. "Christian rock" "Rock Gospel" and "Gospel rock" describe the same musical genre. REDIRECTing this article to the older, better article, - with selective merge - continues to make sense.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If "Christian rock", "Rock Gospel", and "Gospel rock" are synonymous terms, there ought to be a section on the one surviving article with full WP:RS supporting evidence that these are synonyms. If you are unable to provide such WP:RS, then obviously you need a separate article for "Rock Gospel," which is such an important category that the Grammy awarded prizes to it for decades. XavierItzm (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Ravulavaru

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

Fails WP:NPEOPLE, not notable for any of the areas covered. Article is also something of a resume, but it's not quite A7 or G11. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Promotional autobio that fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. I can't find a single mention of him in secondary WP:RS online, and his tech books for Packt appear to have made little impact in an extremely crowded market. The Mighty Glen (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No reliable source which shows any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:19, 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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Suyat Marshall

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

Notability is not inherited. There is nothing in the article that passes WP:GNG. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article almost as much as says that the sum and substance of any encyclopedia-level significance she might have resides in whose widow and mother she is. To that, WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Largoplazo (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no coverage of the subject besides mere biographical details. Also, not much more to add than WP:NOTINHERITED. Per below 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I improved the article and added many more citations. She played a supporting role in the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision, and her story is featured in the National Museum of African American History and Culture at the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, D.C. Her experiences have been documented by the U.S. Library of Congress. This all indicates that she is a notable person (only a very small number of people are featured in the Smithsonian or documented by the Library of Congress). She passes WP:GNG for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject: [21][22][23][24]. She is talked about at length in any biography about Thurgood, as she was extremely important to his life and decisions.[25] The fact that so much detail has been reported on her as an individual indicates she should have her own page, as opposed to just a footnote on his page. WP:NOTINHERITED says, "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." That applies here. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - following User:Lonehexagon's edits, I say keep. Significant conerage from the Washington Post and Amsterdam News, as well as inclusion in the Smithsonian Exhibit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenirwin (talk • contribs) 20:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good work done by Lonehexagon! Passes GNG. I added a source to the article, too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:notability now clear. PamD 21:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:agree and amplify @lonehexagon . Notability clear, although article is a work in progress like so many others.Kaylea Champion (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now contains good secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, piling up the snow here, meets WP:ANYBIO as contributing to civil rights. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Burey Marshall

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

Notability is not inherited. There is nothing in the article that passes WP:GNG. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've improved the article with more information and citations. Burey receives significant discussion in biographies of Thurgood Marshall, as they were married for 25 years, including the time when he presided over the historic Brown v. Board of Education case.[26][27] Burey's life portrayed in the 2017 movie Marshall (film) where Burey is played by Keesha Sharp. I believe the combination of significant discussion in books, along with being portrayed as a main character in a movie, satisfies WP:GNG. Lonehexagon (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thurgood Marshall. The subject does not appear to be known for anything other than marrying a notable person. While it's nice she has an academic program named in her honor, it was established 60 years after her death, so she had no role in its establishment. If reliable sources only or primarily mention her in biographies of Marshall, than so should Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a black American woman of the 1950s, her role was not always publicized or published. However considering the context of the time period and how often she is referenced today, many years later, that is notable. She was an important factor not only in her husband, Thurgood Marshall's successes but also in the Brown v. Board of Education decision. Now I understand this is not a typical framing of notability, but with some more writing and citations this article will be improved. We should keep this article because of WP:NOTINHERITED - she has lots of sources, and she is notable in her own right. Jooojay (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jooojay: she gets coverage only in relation to her notable husband, not in her own right. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs of past lack of coverage. From this article, Mrs Marshall did nothing more than be born, go to school, marry a man, support him, have some miscarriages, and die. There are probably more verifiable but ultimately un-encyclopedic details to be gleaned from Thurgood biographies (her favorite color? What she wore on her first date with Thurgood?) but Wikipedia would be the worse for including such sentimental fluff. She played an important part of Thurgood's life, and so she should be mentioned in Marshall's biography as appropriate. We need not, and should not, have articles of the non-notable spouses of every notable person, merely because we feel they should get more attention than history has given. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Animalparty: please realize that she has her own citations too. I agree that this article can be improved, but to assume her un-notable based on a stub that needs improvement seems unnecessary. Jooojay (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. She was a major part of Thurgood Marshall's lifr from his college days to the historic Brown v. board of Ed. Supreme Court decision. As an nfluential figure in the life of one of the most important lawyers and jurists in U.S. history, as well as for her own work and accomplishments she is notable. Dismissive and ultimately sexist comments notwithstanding, she is an important figure in American history and was a pivotal figure in the American Civil Rights movement. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:31, 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.