Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 June	11 June >

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 speedy keep. Withdrawing per StAnselm ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Rayan

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

I don't believe that Rayan qualifies under GNG. In searching, I've found a lot of things written by him, but very little written about him that wasn't produced by his own ministry. I can't search in any Indian language however so it's possible there's more about him that I can't access. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are some articles about Indian theologians of dubious notability, but Rayan has two books written about him (Christian faith, a liberative praxis: theology of Samuel Rayan and Christus im Kontext und Kontext in Christus: Chalcedon und indische Christologie bei Raimon Panikkar und Samuel Rayan), and a Festschrift, (Bread and breath: essays in honour of Samuel Rayan) which easily qualifies him under WP:PROF #1. St Anselm (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the second but for some reason never saw the first. You're correct; I'll withdraw. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hello Neighbor. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Neighbor

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

WP:TOOSOON Meatsgains^(talk) 22:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is about a videogame but has no independent sources provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 05:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hello Neighbor, which it's a sequel of. So far, most coverage I'm seeing is fairly routine and trivial with a handful of articles going slightly more in-depth (this article at TechRaptor News, this article at GameStar.de (in German) & this article at Twin Galaxies ), but nothing to write home about--or rather, write an article about. Which makes sense, other than a released trailer there is just about no information—yet. Classic WP:CRYSTALBALL type #5. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The article has no content at all. Replace it with a redirect for now, with a note saying it can be recreated once it has significant coverage in reliable sources. Dream Focus 11:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reditect As per above. Article is pretty much empty at the moment, too early for it. Koldcuts (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Breen

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

I am unable to find substantial coverage of the subject in reliable sources to indicate that WP:BIO or WP:NAUTHOR are met. SmartSE (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given he's written three books for Wiley, and these have been translated into multiple languages, there should be a bunch of RS reviews, but the only one I can find is MagPi#39 p87. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to British Columbia Highway 95A. – Joe (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McFee Bridge

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines. Found reliable references to it mention it only trivially, in passing. Air.light (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to British Columbia Highway 95A of which this bridge forms a part. SpinningSpark 21:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This (page 3) is the most detailed source I could find (a one paragraph photo caption). Chris857 (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to highway per Spinningpark. Bridges are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist — for a bridge to qualify for a Wikipedia article, there needs to be some reliably sourced political or social or historical context for what makes the bridge distinctive. But with the only source here being a routine directory entry in an indiscriminate database of structures, that isn't the kind of sourcing we require to make the bridge notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. No evidence this particular bridge meets notability guidelines, but it is a plausible search term so I think a merge is the best option here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tongogara Refugee Camp. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tongogara Primary School

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

Primary schools are not inherently notable in the same way secondary schools are; there are not enough RS here to establish general notability. A BEFORE search fails to find sufficient additional sources. Chetsford (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tongogara Refugee Camp and develop article as notable community with an Education section for the schools. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] The school itself isn't that notable as a primary school but the camp settlement may be. Alternatively redirect to Chipinge the nearest town from the camp. Note this is the Tongogara that is about 420km southeast of Harare (southeast corner of Zimbabwe), and not the Tongogara in Shurugwi (center of Zimbabwe) that has Tongogara High School. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC) updated 00:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:AFD anticipates a !vote involving renaming the article to an entirely different subject and then rewriting the entire article to be about that subject. Redirect generally involves redirecting an article to an existing subject and, while I could see the reasoning behind renaming it, I'm not sure renaming it to be about something the article is not in the hope that someone might come along and then rewrite it to match the title would work. In the absence of a volunteer who is willing to undertake that, we'd be left with an article which still won't meet the notability guidelines, but it just won't be meeting them under a new name. That said, I do agree that Tongogara Refugee Camp is notable, just that the content of this article is not about that nor will it become about that following a rename. Chetsford (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no notability for this particular school, whereas a Camp article could at least have an education section about the camp establishing some schools. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we don't have an article about the refugee camp. And, simply changing the name of this article won't create one. It will just turn a not-notable article with an accurate name into a not-notable article with an inaccurate name. Chetsford (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've created the refugee camp article as a stub, changing vote to merge/redirect there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's barnstar-worthy. Chetsford (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Tongogara Refugee Camp (change from delete in nom) as per AngusWOOF. Chetsford (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tongogara Refugee Camp, the existence of which is a great outcome of this AfD. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as primary schools aren't ever notable, Also the picture on the left was in the article and I can't for the life of me understand why...... –Davey2010^Talk 15:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to ask the article's creator, who seems to be connected to the school? Like why not just take a picture of the school? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly!, Just seems so bizarre ..... –Davey2010^Talk 19:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Or at worst no consensus, but all opinions after SarahSV's "keep" opinion have followed her arguments. Sandstein 18:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Murphy

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

WP:BLP of a writer and journalist whose claims of notability are not properly sourced. None of the footnotes here count for anything toward establishing a person as notable: #1 is her own publication's self-published content about itself, which is not support for notability as it's not independent of her; #2 is a piece of her own writing about herself, which is not support for notability as it's not independent of her; #3 is a podcast, #4 is her own publication again; #5 is a mere meeting agenda, not content about her; #6 is an inherently unreliable source which never belongs anywhere near the references section of any Wikipedia article; #7 and #8 are both glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things, not coverage about her; and #9 is the schedule page of her podcast on the website of a radio station that broadcasts it as a program, which again flunks the "independent of her" test. As always, a person does not get over a Wikipedia inclusion test on what the article says -- she gets over a Wikipedia inclusion test on how well the article references what it says to reliable source coverage about her in media that gets her over WP:GNG, but exactly zero of the references here are contributing anything toward getting her over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination. Also, a note, Not all of the citations when searching her name are actually about her, many are about other people who share the same name, so the number of articles when searching google news does not reflect her relevance specifically. On top of that, she isn't even first in the google news result, only in a normal google search which is just her blog.ShimonChai (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do see sources like the CBC get her brief opinions on a topic but since these are primary sources and I'm not seeing secondary reliable sources about her that deletion is right for now. Rab V (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete active journalist, but fails WP:JOURNALIST because there is just not enough written in WP:RS about her rather than by her.
Delete per WP:JOURNALIST Neutral given SV's evidence below.

EvergreenFir (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would like to mention that we have had and continue to have considerable conflicts with EvergreenFir and Rab V (among others who haven't appeared here [yet]) regarding what counts as notable, as NPOV, as a reliable source, as a correct reading of a reliable source, and so on, in the context of transgender-related Wikipedia articles or sections thereof, such as Feminist views on transgender topics, Radical feminism, Transphobia, and most recently Trans woman. This is clearly due to different ideological positions we hold, which probably influence our respective judgments to a higher or lesser degree. Without claiming bad faith: I've grown highly doubtful regarding their ability to remain sufficiently objective on such topics. (I invite everyone to apply the same type of scrutiny to me.) As Meghan Murphy is one of the more prominent figures in the feminist critique of the contemporary transgender movement (up to the point of appearing before the Canadian Senate to testify against Bill C-16), I worry that their decision here may be particularly prone to bias. I myself (as the editor who created the article) am so far undecided on whether this article is Wikipedia-worthy, even after SlimVirgin's dilligent edits, mainly because I'm fairly uninformed on the standard of quality that's normally expected for such articles. However I do think it would be a shame to delete it, as Feminist Current is currently one of the most important outlets about contemporary radical feminism, in terms of content quality, ties with figureheads of the movement, and popularity. It's also referenced in some of the transgender-related articles I've mentioned earlier. Taylan (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are entirely qualified to make a !vote and state why you think a subject for an article is wikipedia worthy. For me, the main qualifications for an article is that it satisfy the core content policies and that it not fall afoul of what Wikipedia is not (particularly WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE). The most common qualifier is the guideline, WP:N, which can be summarized by WP:42. So to make a good !vote, just state whether or not you think those policies and guidelines are met. For a better !vote, if you intend to !vote keep, give two or more examples from the references of in-depth coverage of the subject that is independent of the subject. You may be told that those references don't count for some reason, you can then agree or disagree as you like. I'm particularly interested in which references might apply. I think the Greer 2016 piece seems a very good source, are any of the others relatively independent and in depth? Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've participated in many AFD votes and my objections here are purely based on notability guidelines. I'd appreciate keeping our comments just about content and not contributors, please see WP:AVOIDYOU. Being a contributor to articles, as Murphy is, doesn't alone let her pass GNG and if I saw more reliable secondary sources discussing her I'd vote the other way. Rab V (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I second the above comment. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~It's borderline,~~ but she seems to pass WP:GNG. For example, The New York Times quoted her at length in 2014 on whether men can be feminists. [6] They quoted her again when Hugh Hefner died in 2017. [7] The Globe and Mail quoted her in 2014 as an expert on workplace harassment. [8] In 2015 the sociologist Kaitlynn Mendes quoted her in her book SlutWalk: Feminism, Activism and Media, p. 95. In 2017 The Globe and Mail quoted Murphy at length to top and tail an article on hashtag activism. [9] Al Jazeera interviewed Murphy and Jamia Wilson in 2017 about what makes someone a feminist. [10] In 2018 the Philadelphia Inquirer interviewed her about whether stripping can be an art form. [11] SarahSV ^(talk) 21:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Feminist Current can redirect here, and together there are enough sources to make an article feasible. Vexations (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SlimVirgin. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being quoted as an expert in the Globe and Mail and the Greer 2016 profile plus extensive use as a reliable source for quotes seems to me to imply a level of expertise that seems make the subject encyclopedic. CCPOL are ok, I think JOURNIALIST #1 is achieved. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A person does not gain notability by being quoted as an "expert" in coverage of other things besides herself — a person gains notability only by being the subject that other people talk about in sources about her. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my argument was based on WP:N. I agree that her WP:N case is a bit weak, but her suitability does seem strong to me and within the policies and guidelines I noted, in my opinion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SarahSV's citations. Taylan (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough references, do not merge with FeministCurrent, that is a different discussion. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Watkins

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

Per WP:PERP. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the case was the subject of a whole season -- 24 episodes in all -- of the Undisclosed podcast; that's the same podcast by Rabia Chaudry and others that uncovered witness coaching and mischaracterized cell phone evidence in the Adnan Syed case. It was a top-100 podcast in the US during most of the time it covered the Watkins case.[12] [13] The podcast also resulted a court case which lead to the Supreme Court of Georgia ruling that the tape of a trial is not an official Court record(!!) and hence does not need to be released to the public.[14][15] Note additionally that the murder was in 2001, but coverage, which was initially just local, has expanded of late; both of the above recent references are from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution; if you go to the article, you will also see 2016 coverage from Rolling Stone. And here is one from the Chicago Tribune [16] Pretty much all of the sourcing in the article is from 2016 or later; the conviction was in 2002.Adoring nanny (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sounds like a WP:MILL crime - jealousy about a girlfriend, with MILL news coverage of crime and a smattering of post-conviction.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Nothing about Watkins shows notability, and podcasts are a dime a dozen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:PERP applies here. The perpetrator is not notable for any other reason, the victim of the crime is not a well-known figure nor is the motive unusual. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Y'all are missing the difference between "perpetrator" and "person convicted". And that difference is precisely why this whole sorry thing is not run-of-the-mill at all. But whatever, you you want what you want, and I'm not going to make a big fuss.Adoring nanny (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Sype

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

Sype doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Article was previously redirected to Monster Math Squad by a bold edit, but she isn't mentioned in the article. Unable to locate sources besides passing mention and a IMDb listing. Operator873^CONNECT 17:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hmm. Passing mention in a review in The Guardian. That's it, other than ~~IMdB~~ that database that I will not name. So, yes, fails notability for actors (for now, at least). —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 17:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could not find any news item relating to her movie and series appearances. She has acted in few movies but the roles are not clear or significant enough to have a wiki page. Farahpoems (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 18:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 18:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a sporadic actress, with minor roles. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actors and actresses do not get an automatic free pass over NACTOR just because they've had roles that can be nominally verified in their IMDb profile — the notability test for an actor is not "has had roles" (which is true of every actor who exists at all), but "has received enough reliable source coverage about her in media to clear WP:GNG for the having of roles". And while there is one reference here that's technically a reliable source, it nominally verifies the existence of a show while completely failing to even mention Sype's name at all in conjunction with it, so it's doing all of exactly nothing to help establish her notability. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was procedural withdraw. Article was redirected while the AfD was being created. ansh 666 20:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nate McMurray

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

Non notable. Fails WP:BIO. He is not a politician. scope_creep (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I swear, I just saw this one re-directed to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2018. Per that edit summary, "If he wins, he gets an article[...]" And that's good enough for me. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 17:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was in-process creating the Afd. Withdrawn by nominator scope_creep (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. As nonsensical, as it can be.... (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pin Parbati Pass

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

Fails WP:GNG References are needed to to establish authenticityAccesscrawl (talk) 16:25, 10 June 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 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 17:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 17:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a WP:BEFORE search brings up hundreds of articles as this appears to be a popular hiking/trekking destination, and seems to easily pass WP:GEOFEAT. I have added a source. AfD is not cleanup. SportingFlyer talk 19:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per SportingFlyer, this article could be further developed. According to several results in various searches, the pass is a significant landmark and meets WP:GEOLAND. Operator873^CONNECT 21:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and reprimand the nominator for yet another spurious nomination in a long list of them. SpinningSpark 22:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Single-letter second-level domain

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

Most of the article is uncited WP:EL-violating WP:LISTCRUFT. The Project94 section is cited to a primary source, and has no coverage in reliable sources. The "Two-letter domain names" section doesn't belong to this article at all. The "Market value of single- or two-letter domains" section is an example farm, and should be repurposed to the topic of market value of single-letter domains in general. The "Controversy" section does not cite any secondary sources and contains one unnecessary example. Therefore, I propose that this article is nuked, since sources for this topic are available but the current article layout doesn't allow for useful prose. wumbolo ^^^ 16:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep. I agree it’s a bit of a mess but it is sourced, is on a clearly defined topic and covers that topic. It’s not just on single letter domain names but one and two letter TLDs, but they are clearly related and it is not so long that it needs splitting. Perhaps it needs renaming. External links can be removed, linked to articles if they exist but left unlinked otherwise. It might also be better done as a list article – it is half way there already – but that is not a reason to delete.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep. It's not going to win Article of the Day at present, but covers a well-defined topic with clarity. This TLD page just needs TLC :) -- Smb1001 (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep. It could be merged into Second-level domain, but has sources and does make sense, and not sure how you'd do that cleanly. Definitely could use some clean up, but seems excessive to nuke. Icco (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 18:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Boonstra

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

Promotional biography with no indiction of notability DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 16:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article's Talk page review comments show it to have been a product of a WikiEd event a few months ago, so it is a bit unfair to categorise it as a promotional article. AllyD (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tee Hock Seng

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

Article was Deprodded; is full of Cruft; no RS; reads as a CV; and no Notability GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per proposer. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: absent additional evidence, reads as promotional to me, and the lack of reliable sources is the clincher. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 15:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Society for Occupational Health Psychology. Sandstein 18:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Occupational Health Science

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." PROD opposed by article creator on talk page with the argument that notable people/publisher/society are involved with this journal. Obviously, notability is not inherited and even reputable publishers produce the occasional dud. In the absence of any sourcing (except the journal homepage) or indexing in any selective index, this fails NJournals and GNG big time. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my field. Finally something I can comment on with a hint of knowledge. (Oh, wait, that's "Occupational Health" and "science", not "Occupational" and "health science". Never mind.)
Slight joking aside, let's look at WP:JOURNALCRIT first. Criterion 3 is an automatic fail: journal created in 2017. Criterion 2 is a fail: a cursory examination of Google News (for instance) turns up four hits, one of which is the journal itself, filed under "Psychology". Huh. The others don't mention a journal and "occupational health science" together in the same article, let alone both in the same sentence. OK, so Criterion 1: influential in a subject area? Given the lack of sources and the recent creation of the journal, fail.
Let's look at GNG. Fail: no sources cover this that are independent of the subject.
Finally, notability is not inherent, under the policy of WP:NJOURNALS.
~~As such, without additional evidence showing influence or independent sources, this is a clear delete.~~ —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 15:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby withdraw my vote for deletion, and replace it with a vote for redirect to Society for Occupational Health Psychology, per the reasoning of Nick Moyes, below. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 00:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I write as an individual with a certain amount of expertise in the field known as occupational health psychology (OHP). Occupational Health Science (OHS) merits a WP entry, and should not be deleted. OHS was recently founded by the Society for Occupational Health Psychology, an organization dedicated to the advancement of the OHP. OHS is published by a well-regarded science publisher, Springer. Manuscript submission began in 2017. During the 2017-2018 period, OHS editors and reviewers have been reviewing submissions and selecting papers for publication. The editors will publish its first volume in the second half of 2018, probably in the fall.

The journal is not yet indexed by PsycINFO because the first volume is still in the wings. Even when OHS will be published, there will be a lag between when the journal before it will be indexed. There typically is such a lag for a new journal. For example, when Anxiety, Stress, and Coping was launched there was a several-year wait before it got indexed in PsycINFO. Although getting indexed in PsycINFO is a "low bar" for quality recognition, PsycINFO does not publish predatory journals and other journals of ill repute. I don't anticipate a long wait for OHS to enter PsycINFO because most of the membership of the parent organization, SOHP, are members of APA, which publishes PsycINFO. As publishable papers accumulate, coverage by PsycINFO will start.

The editor-in-chief and the associate editors of OHS journal are highly regarded researchers in the field of OHP.

OHS is a serious journal published by (a) a reputable science-oriented organization and (b) a reputable science-oriented publisher and (c) has a leading OHP researchers at the helm. The journal's notability is clear. The OHS entry should remain.

Of course all those qualities (reputable publisher, reputable editorial staff, reputable organization behind it) don't guarantee that the journal will be a clunker. The probability is exceedingly low.

The journal is shaping up to be of the caliber of Work & Stress and the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology.

I am therefore opposed to deleting the OHS entry from WP entry. Iss246 (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The facts regarding the Society and Springer, though, not only don't substantiate your claim of notability, Iss246, they undermine it. Per WP:NJOURNALS, the baseline for notability revolves around two major themes: no inherent notability, and no inherited notability. As such, the journal itself has no inherent reason to be notable, especially if it hasn't even been printed yet. And even if it is published by Springer, and founded by the Society, their notability doesn't transfer over to the journal.

Since Volume 1 of the journal hasn't been published yet, I would argue that the journal is not notable now. It may be notable at a later time, once the first volume of submissions has been published, but it is not notable at the present. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 23:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Society for Occupational Health Psychology. In arguing for its retention, Iss246 provides us with all the arguments for actually not keeping this page ("OHS was recently founded"; "The journal is not yet indexed by PsycINFO because the first volume is still in the wings."; "The editors will publish its first volume in the second half of 2018, probably in the fall."). Javert2113 gives a persuasive reason for the journal not meeting our notabilty threshold. Whilst it's clearly WP:TOOSOON right now, this journal might indeed merit a page once it becomes noted. So, for now, a REDIRECT rather than a deletion seems a sensible course of action here. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons I stated for notability were turned on their head. I gave reasons for the strength of the journal, and the editors turned those reasons into a heritability issue. It's not heritability. The composition of the staff and the supporting organization reflect on the journal's quality. Iss246 (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is that the journal must be notable, because notable publishers/staff are involved. That's INHERITED in a nutshell. As for PsycINFO indexing, that would still be a long way from showing notability for this journal. --Randykitty (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Society for Occupational Health Psychology. My own search for reliable sourcing or selective indexing came up short. I agree with Nick Moyes that the lack of sourcing is likely due to it being far too soon for sourcing to develop. It is a plausible search term and we have a redirect target that places the journal in context. Hence redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I will re-create an entry after the journal's first issues appear in print or online. Iss246 (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fátima Custódia

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

No sign of any notability Kleuske (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: IMDb is not a reliable source, and both references refer to that database... No grounds for notability. — Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 15:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sign of notability at all. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 16:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an article on a living person having no realible sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Grandson shows some notability, but, in this case, it must be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisempra (talk • contribs) 20:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Counelis

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

Self-published author. Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show that he passes WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find secondary sourcing to substantiate the claims made, nor any notability in his work. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 15:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 17:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 17:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ali Hilal

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

Run of the mill businessman. Nothing notable enough for a wikipedia entry. 2Joules (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage is routine ... does not pass GNG Wolfson5 (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar N. Venkateswaran (Businessman)

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

run of the mill businessman. 2Joules (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This article is purely promotional. Natureium (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OkayAfrica

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

Does not pass GNG. 2Joules (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The site itself doesn't offer an explanation of its origins, so this page is valuable in providing background on its scope and impact. Its annual list (since 2017) of 100 notable women is being added to the Zulu Wikipedia, with an item in Wikidata. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG: [17][18][19]. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Indy beetle. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Indy beetle Wolfson5 (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2Phat

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

This article had permanent dead links, and there is no proper citation for the information provided which means it's not notable. This is mere a promotional article Aa015 (talk) 12:35, 10 June 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 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Your logic is way off. A cursory Google shows that there are a multitude of sources available. The fact that they are not present in the article means that it needs to be improved, not deleted. Nzd (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 16:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 16:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - I see plenty of WP:RS for the programme in a quick Google search, per WP:BEFORE. TMG^talk 16:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per other commentators, WP:GNG is met. And the broad expectations of WP:TVSHOW are in place. As per Nzd, this falls into the (granted substantial) category of articles that need improvement - rather than deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per other commentators, and improve. Spleodrach (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siddhi Khankal

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

Blatant self promotion of a completely non notable book. Was speedy tagged previously, but shifted to draft and reworked. Most of the text are copyvios of the references. The references are all links to self published sources, self-published book pages and sales sites. No third party coverage at all. Claims to have won a major book award, but no evidence of such. In fact one of the references makes no mention of the book or author, just appears to be a random news article unconnected to anything. Seems to be nothing short of self promotional spamming. Canterbury Tail talk 11:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should not be deleted because, it's a notable article of a bestselling Indian author. She writes under the pen name Siddhi Idnani. There are third party article of Times of India and such which could prove the notability. She is also an actor and is about to do her debut film which is clearly mentioned in the Times of India article. I'm not connected to the subject, I just thought that this is a notable person and its needed to create a article about the same. Aa015 (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's no evidence that the person referenced in that Times of India article is the same person. You claim she writes under that pen name, but all the links to her single book strongly show otherwise. One is apparently a non-notable author and medical student, one is a model and actress. Don't seem like the same person to me. Canterbury Tail talk 13:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find nothing to support notability per WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. If the actor is the same person (I agree that seems uncertain), one trivial mention in a blurb in TOI does not make her notable. --bonadea contributions talk 13:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 16:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 16:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your decision, if you think it's non-notable, please delete the article. I created it thinking that the person is notable and a article about her needs to be created. But as per I know her she is an author. Read about her in some magazine or something, but the references are not up to the mark, I agree with you on that. Aa015 (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia notability requirements. A search reveals only 1 source (already present in article) that talks about the author. No sources can be found about the "national fame" she 'has received'. Regarding the book, there is no evidence it is "best selling" from another search. The article is also poorly written with a copy paste of the only relevant source. Araratic | talk 08:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the few sources that do exist do not point to notability, merely existence. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 09:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Ojha

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

Non-notable actor and theatre director with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NACTOR or WP:CREATIVE. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Does not appear to have a significant enough role to be stated in the article about the film M Cream. One of the sources appears to be a blog self published by the actor. I could only find one source with significant information about the actor, however he lacks the multiple sources required. Araratic | talk 08:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multimodel Deep Learning

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

"Random Multimodel Deep Learning" is an article based solely on the work of Kowsari, Kamran (first reference). All other references are not on "multimodel deep learning". The Kowsari work has 0 citations, and was just published. This clearly fails the WP:GNG, and thus I opt for delete. Do not let yourself be mislead by all the unrelated references in the wikipedia article. There is a link to Theano, but Theano does not include RMDL. Similarly, the "history" section explains what "ensemble learning" and "deep learning" are, not RMDL - wiki references 2-6 are not based on, or using RMDL, but older prior work that does not support this article. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of the concerns raised by the nom are valid. Some aren't. The Kowsari work has 56 references, inline citations are not necessarily required, but are present anyway. The other issues of not mentioning RMDL are somewhat a non-issue. The article doesn't claim them as supporting RMDL, they're in the history section. Other !voters don't need to dive into those references, it's fairly clear that this article only cites one source. The nom is right about failure of GNG, and the whole article reeks of OR. Kill it with ~~fire~~ adminium. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about the references (56 or not) in his publication? I noted that RMDL is not cited independently. The reason why I emphasized this is because people tend to defend articles by "but it is full of references"; but if they only reference prerequisites, not the notability of the article subject, one has to carefully check which wikirefs matter for judging GNG. This in particular applies for the link to Theano - this easily gives the false impression, RMDL would be in Theano. But it isn't. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I pruned all the generic "deep learning" references and further reading to make it a bit clearer, and to make the article more focused (no need to re-tell the story of deep learning). So if anyone get into this discussion at a later point, and is wondering what "other" references I talked about. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is primarily based on a new arxiv paper that is not yet published. I was unable to find any reliable sources about RMDL, much less independent RS. Without independent reliable sources, there can be no verification and should be no article. --Mark viking (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - probably WP:TOOSOON. Haven't found confirmation of Best Paper Award for the (small?) conference or even if they presented there, but maybe it wasn't by the primary author. Had reported best results for MNIST with their ensemble. Maybe if it was at one of big conferences it would have had more press. StrayBolt (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chirayinkeezhu

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

The page relies on only one source, and is generally unexpanded. The article does not suggest any amount of importance to the place, nor does it provide reliable sources, which is in violation of Wikipedia policies. EggRoll97 (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Notable taluk with a population of over 70,000 in 2011. Has received substantial news coverage 1, 2 3 and more. MT Train^Talk 17:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously notable and these page issues do not require deletion. —innotata 22:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GEOLAND and [20] says it is "an important taluk in Trivandrum district". SpinningSpark 23:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The taluk has a Wikipedia article at Chirayinkeezhu taluk. This article at AfD is about the seat village of the taluk. Census of India does not have a separate population figure for the village. Independent sources for the village are thin. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I missed the distinction between the taluk and the village, but I still think this is a keep per GEOLAND. It would be extremely perverse of us to have an article on every village in the taluk except the head village. SpinningSpark 05:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Spinningspark. Even I didn't notice the article on the taluk initially, but as the main village in the taluk, this article deserves a space in Wikipedia. MT Train^Talk 13:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:NGEO. Smartyllama (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baharlu dynasty

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

"www.royalark.net." is clearly not a reliable source, no better than Medlands.
"persian.packhum.org." has a link which give 404 source error.
Minorsky, V. (1955-01-01). *"The Qara-qoyunlu and the Qutb-shāhs (Turkmenica, 10)". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. 17 (1): 50–73. ----makes no mention of Bairam Khwaja, it makes 3 mentions of Baharlu, stating that Quli Qutb Mulk a Baharlu Turk, but no mention of Bairam Khwaja or Golconda(pre-1518) and the other two mention how Pirquli bek is a Baharlu Turk, which still does not connect them to Bairam Khwaja.
Yılmaz., Öztuna, (1990-01-01). Devletler ve hânedanlar. v. 3 : İlk çağ ve Asya-Afrika devletleri. Kültür Bakanlığı. ISBN 9789751704696. OCLC 25218865.----is a world cat file.
https://www.azadliq.info/32202.html---translated via google, makes no mention of Golconda in 1374 or Bairam Khwaja
Also, Bosworth (New Islamic Dynasties) makes no mention of a Baharlu dynasty, but under Qutb Shahis(p.328) calls the founding sultan Quli Khawass Khan Baharlu, Qutb al-Mulk'.

Hence, unfortunately, this article is nothing but a fairy tale. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this is not a fairy tale, but I do have my concerns. The Baharlu/Barani connection to Kara Koyunlu is easy to source.[21][22][23] The connection to Quli Qutb Mulk and Sultanate of Golconda is present in our article stating Qara Yusuf as an ancestor (but off the same bulletin), and is evidenced in some sources (which I'm less sure of their quality - but it does seem to repeat).[24][25][26] The Oudh State line seems connected to Golconda - but I'll admit I did not try to source that - and this particular connection seems tenuous (per our article - was Qutbshah's 4th cousin 2 times removed.....). So - at least parts of this article pass WP:V - so its not all a fairy tale. My concern, is WP:SYNTH - while there seems to be some sort of established connection to the Kara Koyunlu and Baharlu (at least for Golconda) - it is not clear anyone refers to the connection as a "dynasty". Absent a clear source that does, I'm leaning delete.Icewhiz (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Baharlu's and the Kara Koyunlu existed and those connections are verifiable as well, but there was simply no Baharlu dynasty. That's why this article, is a fairy tale (i.e. something that doesn't/didn't exist in reality). Unfortunately, there's just no WP:RS that makes mention of a so-called "Baharlu dynasty". - LouisAragon (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is a horrid article without appropriate links, but Oudh State contains some material linking its dynasty with Kara Koyunlu. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - My reading of sources found at google books, the Baharlu/Barani tribe tribe is an interesting and encyclopedic subject. But I don't see that it should be called a dynasty in wikipedia's voice. It is a dynasty in the sense that something like royalark means it to be. That is, the ruling family came from this tribe and held this name. But a wikipedia article about this group should be about the tribe. The article List of rulers of Kara Koyunlu could do better to trace the relationships between the rulers, but I don't see any research that gives a single dynastic name to them. A redirect to List of rulers of Kara Koyunlu could be considered, I think, but I'm not sure it would be necessary/useful. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole D. Peeler

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

PROD removed on the basis that sources were claimed to have been added. However, the three sources are all affiliated and none of them meets the Wikipedia trifecta of reliable, independent, secondary. I'm not seeing anything else via the usual searches, either. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's hard to find among all the books-for-sale web sites and bloggy reviews, but I think the reliable sources are out there for a pass of WP:AUTHOR. Four of her novels have been reviewed by Publishers Weekly [27] [28] [29] [30], three have been reviewed by Romantic Times [31] [32] [33], and she's a three-time nominee for the Romantic Times Reviewers’ Choice Awards [34] [35] [36]. There's also some newspaper coverage of her academic activities [37] as well as for her (apparently deliberately?) bad sex-scene writing [38], and trade-magazine coverage of her provocative cover art choices [39]. I think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to soruces fournd by User:David Eppstein, we have this profile in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 15 January 2016 with a very long title: "Prof is an expert on urban fantasy; Nicole Peeler started out to be a scholar and professor of modernist literature and, along the way, became a popular author in the urban-fantasy genre. At her day job, the Illinois native is a Seton Hill University associate professor of English and director of the master of fine arts in the writing popular fiction program.".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that she seems not to use the middle initial, new search bar brings up many more sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rise of the Robots#Plot. Sandstein 18:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ECO 35-2

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

Non notable VG character, of a video game series consisting of two fighting games, released in the 1990s. A total of three references, one is a review of the first game, other two in "top 10 worst character lists". No in-depth information, creation, development or actual reception. Trivial. Redirect to Rise of the Robots#Plot. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. – Hounder4 12:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 17:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 17:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Boneso's improvements have failed to convince others. Sandstein 18:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vijoo Krishnan

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

Ref 1, 3, 4 are interviews and 2 is a listing. There are many more sources like 1, 3, 4 but looks like they the same interview published by various outlets. Looks like WP:1E. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vijoo Krishnan is a notable politician in India. I think it shouldn't be deleted. Valid references are provided to this article. Shagil Kannur (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article, as is stood at the time of nomination, was poor and deserved the nomination. There are a number of references providing a history of Krishnan's activities in the Indian media. His activities prior to the long march did not gain as much media attention as the long march, but they are reported in reliable sources. Information about his student union activities are scarce on the web and may be stuck in a library well out of my reach. The fact that he motivated up to 50K farmers to march for 3 days in a protest speaks for his notability in India, he is the youngest member of the central committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the joint secretary of the All India Kisan Sabha the largest farmers' organisation in the country. He is about to embark on an ambitious political campaign to relieve the plight of farmers in India, and if his plan comes together it will receive international media coverage. I have improved the article with some material but there is so much more available. I am not from India and do not have enough of an understanding of Indian politics to make worthy additions. Hopefully the creator of the article @Shagil Kannur: might be able to help out. While notability is borderline, I have added 7 new references and another editor has added an infobox with a photo. WP:People notable for only one event no longer applies. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to improve this article as much as I can. Thanks to Mr. 8==8 Boneso for your contributions to this article. Shagil Kannur (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm....I'm afraid that nobody in our editorial community has the powers to fore-see the future.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Winged Blades of Godric, I don't think anyone in the world has that ability. I agree that its a poor point to partly support my argument & get it across the line. WP:CRYSTAL is the reason I left the comment here & did not add any predictions in the article. I still think WP:1E does not apply, he gets just enough coverage for his activities. I do concede that he is not notable enough to attract arguments to this discussion having been re-listed twice for 3 votes ;). I'm unsure why WP:POLITICIAN was introduced into the argument by Shagil_Kannur. Krishnan clearly isn't a politician. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to closs this discussion and remove the deletion notice on this article.Shagil Kannur (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shagil Kannur: perhaps you could take a look at WP:BLP, WP:NOTABILITY & WP:1E. Then point out why you think Krishnan is notable based on the policy and rules of Wikipedia. A good "keep" argument will help the article to remain on Wikipedia. The comments you have made so far in this discussion do not refer to any policy or rules and will not be considered by the closing admin. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom fails WP:POLITICIAN has never been in elected office and fails WP:N and WP:1E for a march.Normsynge (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Fails notability guideline for politicians and is precisely one-event-notable, as of now.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being a central committee member of Communist Party of India (Marxist) is indeed a notability for a politician in India. I was shocked by your movement on deleting this article. News, interwies and stories about Vijoo Krishnan were appeared in many national dailies and news channels in India. I request you kindly keep this article. Shagil Kannur (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Roughly 2:1 for deletion, with no clear advantage for either side in terms of strength of argument, is good enough for me as a rough consensus for deletion. Sandstein 18:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Yemini

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

This was deleted 3m ago as failing POLITICIAN and was recreated via AFC without a discussion. I'm therefore relisting to allow a proper discussion of whether this now passes muster. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

requesting speedy procedural close Either you think it needs deleting or you don't. If you are unsure then don't nominate it for deletion but use the talk page on the article. If you are the nominator at AFD the onus in on you to show why an article should be deleted, not submit pages for others to discuss Egaoblai (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the previous AFD and am acting in an administrative capacity to ensure that existing consensus is not ignored. The cway to do that is to review consensus. Doing this is not an uncommon administrative action.Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of you being an admin or not, by posting this page here you've started a de facto AFD discussion. Pages that are deleted are made better and re-created all the time, this one has clearly been improved since it was deleted (look at the page history) and approved by an AFC reviewer. If you can't find anything wrong with the page then this isn't an appropriate place to post about it. Egaoblai (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I listed it because I think it doesn’t pass muster per the arguments in the recent AFD Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In what way do you think it doesn't pass? you need to be specific here. Otherwise this nomination will be closed as procedural Egaoblai (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewVanitas: for comments on why this went through AFC, any difference from this and then.? --Quek157 (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Nothing substantially different has been changed in the intervening 3 months. If anything, there is even less of a case for notability compared to the previous attempt. At best, one could say this personality is a political agitator who has had some community issues. Blackmane (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick Google search shows that he has received sustained standard of notability for a reasonable period of time WP:SUSTAINED. Knobbly (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: while the article isn't ideal, a quick perusal of GoogleNews shows a good body of coverage in Australian news and Jewish publications. Clearly makes Notability. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass wp:notability just fine, esp. in Australian media outlets. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 18:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO is not met, and nor is WP:NOTNEWS. The whole article is a pretty breathless attempt to build up this person as being somehow noteworthy, and it's not convincing. As but one example, the claim that "In 2016, Yemini made headlines for creating an online petition that demanded the legalization of pepper spray" is referenced to an obscure local newspaper! Many of the other claims in the article are referenced to obscure sources or primary sources. This person has been in the media a few times, but I don't think this all rises to being worth an encyclopedia article. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most important article on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.70.0.50 (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough as an activist, media exhibitionist, whatever, as several people said last time. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But is simply being noticed by the media enough for a WP article? I somehow doubt it. -The Gnome (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject being notable mostly in marginal and fringe media, while in a few (too few) others only in passing and condemnation. A case of WP:TOOSOON more than anything else, because subject's a cinch for future notoriety. Just not yet. -The Gnome (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete he is not yet notable, but even more important, this is a highly promotional article, with not enough substance to rewrite. That makes it a candidateiis for speedy deletion as promotional G11, and I'm so marking it. DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined DDG's speedy nomination here. Let's continue this discussion. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being 'Facebook famous' does not make one notable. -- Longhair\^talk 06:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE -- The guy is a twitter bombing, facebook provocateur, self promoting attention seeking propagandist : why oh why does he have his own WIKI page? Isn't wiki worth more than this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.145.210.246 (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NPOL and there's nothing better. WP:TOOSOON (or maybe never) per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rough consensus that available sources aren't suitable for notability purposes. ansh 666 07:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Namloyak

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

Does not meet WP:BIO and WP:IRS. Shobhit102 | talk 16:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shobhit102 | talk 17:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shobhit102 | talk 17:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article links to one reliable source I recognize, but its a dead link [www.abc.net.au/stateline/wa/content/2006/s2217239.htm] and searching that site does not reveal any mention of him. Someone who speaks Chinese will have to see if any of the Google news results are about the guy and give significant coverage. Dream Focus 19:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't make a reasonable claim to notability. There are a lot of pseudo-noteworthy poets in all languages, and the "major publications" don't look all that major: Tibet’s first collection of poetry in prison might be noteworthy if it were sourced, but honestly it reads like an arbitrary criterion created to artificially make it "the first". No mention of him having received any major awards or the like. Most of the broken-link sources look like interviews, which are useless for GNG, and honestly when popular media in countries with geopolitical disputes with China (or even with sizable numbers of sinophobic racists) interview people who may be loosely associated with the Tibetan Government in Exile, that's arguably even worse than them just being interviews. Additionally, the article's being structured like a resumé is very suspect. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The French interwiki is better detailed, and can be translated in English. I've started the translation. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rédacteur Tibet: Most of your recent additions are cited to primary, not independent, sources, some overtly nationalist and clearly biased. fr.wiki is not a reliable source, so your assertion that it provides non-trivial coverage is pretty useless for AFD. And you know the fr.wiki article is not a reliable source because you basically wrote and published the entire thing yourself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the fr.WP page based on available sources. Among them, there is, in particular, a precise biography of Namloyak by International Society for Human Rights. When I started the page on fr.WP on February 2015, the en.WP did existed (since 2011), based notably on sources from ABC and "www.penchinese.com" (Independent Chinese PEN Center, I beleive). --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate is telling me that that source, which is 332 words long (not "trivial", but hardly in-depth) portrays him as a dissident, smuggler and exile, and doesn't make even the barest mention of his poetry. Also possibly worth noting is that that group's German home page has a "Tibetan flag" prominently displayed, and the English home page currently leads with a chop-suey piece of stereotypical "Chinese" tattoo-parlour gibberish that makes it kind of difficult to take seriously any legitimate concerns they might have about human rights in the PRC (and the fact that the piece itself, while undated, was clearly written in or before 2008 indicates that it's been there for a decade or more, indicating that either no one on the staff thought in all that time that maybe ridiculing the Chinese language with Fu Manchu stereotypes was counterproductive, or they know they are engaging in retrograde orientalism and are reveling in it). Anyway, as I said above, biased sources providing piecemeal coverage to someone known only for opposing the PRC's government, and indeed not even mentioning the stuff that our article is austensibly about, do not make a good case for keeping the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is mostly known as a political prisoner, and he is known under several names, which help finding other sources. Two are from Tibet Information Network (founded by Robert Barnett (scholar)), 1997 :[40] and 1999 : [41]. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, more biased sources that are of course going to give undue weight and not demonstrate that the subject is notable enough to be covered in a neutral encyclopedia? Also, nothing in the article implies he is "mostly known as a political prisoner". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, none of these sources are described as biased, neither TIN (and Robert Barnett), neither International Society for Human Rights. There is also biographical data on Namlo Yag by Congressional-Executive Commission on China. All these sources demonstrates the notability. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

State-sponsored media in a country that opposes several of China's territorial claims are not biased on issues related to China's territorial claims? ISHR has an anti-Chinese racist caricature on its English homepage and has apparently done so for ten years running, and its German homepage explicitly promotes "Tibet independence": how could that not be biased? I have no idea why you keep bringing up Barnett, who isn't cited in the article under discussion; TIN is a WordPress blog and so uncitable for BLPs anyway, so it doesn't even matter if you say it is not biased. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, there is no source supporting that ISHR promotes "Tibet independence". As for TIN, I quote James D. Seymour : Especially effective and reliable on Tibetan issues is Tibet Information Network (London) see item 20.. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demanding "sources" for AFD arguments over the reliability of sources is a violation of NOR and is almost always a sign of tendentious editing: they fly a "Tibetan flag" on their German homepage, and refer to "China and Tibet" as two separate "countries".[42] Demanding a secondary source despite this is just trolling. It is clear that you either don't understand what I am saying or are deliberately pretending not to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is stuffed with PRIMARY sourcing and stuff form inside his particular activist bubble, but searches (using Latin alphabet spelling of name; did not search in other writing systems) of news, books, scholarly articles fail to turn up WP:SIGCOV, despite unique name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have included 3 "Tibet Information Network" sources in the page. I have also added references indicating his essays published by HRIC. I have added a reference (Namlo Yak: Poetry from Prison, p. 21, in Incomparable Warriors: Non-violent Resistance in Contemporary Tibet, ICT. 2005.), in which there is a short biography of Namloyak, and a description of his poetry and appreciation by a Tibetan scholar. There are other appreciations about his work in Chinese, but I'll need time to have hem translated. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rédacteur Tibet: You appear to have accessed those "Tibet Information Network" sources via the "Canada Tibet Committee" website. Can you clarify the connection between these two groups? Because the former is defunct and their website no longer live (apparently having been occupied by an unrelated domain squatter), and if the only way the sources can be accessed is via mirrors of questionable copyright status they violate WP:V and WP:ELNO. Additionally, you seem to have implied that original, now defunct, TIN was the brainchild of the author of those sources, which would make them very close to violating the spirit, if not necessarily the letter, of WP:BLPSPS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Meher Baba. Although there were more keep !votes than anything else, the sources provided did not hold up to scrutiny. As Kingofaces43 points out, Meher Baba is not an ideal redirect target because Donkin is not mentioned there, but no alternatives were put forward and redirects are cheap. – Joe (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Donkin (physician)

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

I fail to see an iota of notability of the subject and non-trivial significant coverage about it, except in some biographies and self-sources.Trivial mentions in a few books around the broader locus of the cult are located.

Has written some books but fails WP:NAUTHOR by aa mile or so.Overall, he existed and might have been too proximate to have breath roughly the same composition of air......But, notability isn't inherited and he fails our notability criterion by a mile.

Deletion or a redirection to Meher baba sought, as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty Davy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eruch Jessawala and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faredoon Driver, which dealt with very similar articles.

This t/p thread may provide some backgound aspects on the issue. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep COnsider the references. If someone writes a book about you, you're probably notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Eastmain:--The website of the publication house states Oceanic Publishing is a self-publishing venture created primarily for book publishing. and also self-describes itself to be a house devoted to the Meher-Baba cult.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Donkin wrote books, and had a book written about him, as Eastman says. Notable in this subject area, which is a legitimate and notable subject area. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that writing books don't contribute an iota to the notability of the author, unless the book has been subject to numerous critical reviews, which covers the author or author has managed to retrieve significant coverage, independent of the book.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to explain any?~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, per request, to Meher Baba, with note that Donkin was a disciple. Having looked into the publishing house and the book written about Donkin a bit more, I noted the following: "Oceanic Publishing is a self-publishing venture created primarily for book publishing", as above; but, moreover, "Author Bob Mossman, a retired Canadian journalist, has been a follower of Meher Baba since 1967." per [43]. That's more than enough for me to doubt the reliability and independence of Mossman as a source. So, given precedents Eruch Jessawala, Faredoon Driver, and Kitty Davy: delete and redirect. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 18:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, many other books cite Donkin or quote from him. [44][45] (published by the State University of New York Press) [46][47]. This book seems to have a lengthy piece on him. SpinningSpark 23:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Your first link does not work.~~The first link mentions Donkin as an author in a bibliography-list.
- The one mentioned in the second link mentions Donkin in the trivial-est of manners.Both of them them are again hits as author in a long list of Meher-baba related bibliography.
  - I've no idea about whether you mean every author mentioned in the list passes our notability guideline.
- As to the 3rd and 4th link, Meher House Publications isn't anything close to a reliable publisher, given that it's run by a trust of Meher Baba and has a (sort of) self-proclaimed goal to publish anything and everything related to Meher Baba.
  - Consequently, that does lend precise nothing to establishment of notability.
- The last book,which do have a lengthy piece on him, is from the semi-official biographical hagiography of Meher Baba. (See Bhau's entry at WP).Common sense is that such books will cover a lot of trivial characters related to MeherBaba in grandest detail.

Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the link, but I doubt you will like that one either. I never claimed those links were any more than mentions, but they are mentions as recommended further reading, thus indicating that the author thinks Donkin's work is notable. SpinningSpark 05:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that mere mentions do not lead to passage of notability guidelines.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Meher baba. a disciple is not something that would be expected to have an article on Wikipedia, unless meet GNG or relevant notability guidelines such as NAUTHOR. In this case, I see both fails by a mile. Also note, the standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. My comments are concerned with sources used to establish notability above. And I don't think the provided sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. The article has existed for over 5 full years without ever having any better sources added so I don't think we should keep it any longer. --Saqib (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You've absolutely hit the nail on the head when you say:--the standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N.I've no problems in utilizing the above sources for supporting claims but either individually or in totality, they fail to establish anything close to notability.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meher baba at a bare minimum. However, I'm not seeing substantial content there or picturing William Donkin as a search term either, so deletion is probably better. The keep votes don't have much substance as simply writing books does not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC, not to mention WP:INHERIT applies. There's not an appropriate level of secondary coverage in independent sources either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move (draftify) to Draft:Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Korea. There was a rough consensus that while the notability of the subject of the article could not be established, its parent organisation probably is notable. 59.149.124.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) requested that the content of this article be preserved in a draft so that it could eventually be incorporated into an article on that parent organisation.

Note: I have placed an AfC submission template on the draft since the editor who intends to work on it is not logged in. This means that it will likely be deleted under WP:CSD#G13 if it is not worked on for six months. – Joe (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Korea Presbyterian Theological Seminary

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

This organisation does not appear to meet the guidelines for notability, and is closely related to two other related organisations Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Korea (recently deleted through AfD) and International Union of Reformed Churches (currently considered in AfD). The only secondary sources are incidental references and the article reads as G11. It would be useful to have some Korean readers look at the sources. Caorongjin (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Caorongjin (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Caorongjin (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for deleting the OPCK and KPTS articles are unwarranted. All information is available when you visit the official site of this institution. If there is something that is lacking, you can finish the article more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.33.184.69 (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion for deletion is raised because the subject of all Wikipedia articles must be understood as notable. Moreover, citing an official website does not prove the organisation is notable. Instead, sources must show significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. It may be that it is too soon for the organisation and, when it is more notable, can have a valid article. --Caorongjin (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Caorongjin (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable organisation. Not many hits on Google and it looks like there is COI for the user who created this as they decided to create a duplicate which has been nominated for A10. Also, the user who created this article removed the deletion template twice and is constantly trying to stop the article from being deleted. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- A college 105 years old with 12 teaching staff might be notable. Seminaries are typically small, but that does not prevent them being notable. What is more problematic is that we no longer have an article on Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Korea, whose speedy deletion ought not to have happened. If this is (as it sounds) a denomination, its AFD ought to have been allowed to run its course. I know nothing of the subject, so am not asking for DRV, but someone should. The normal rule is that denominations are notable but local churches are often not. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article seems to be well-referenced with citations to multiple news outlets. I can't read Korean, but I will assume good faith that they are real references. Plus, tertiary institutions are generally notable. St Anselm (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't work out whether it's accredited, but the list of faculty indicates that it's a real seminary. St Anselm (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The citations in the article are not very good. Only the Daily World Religious News ones (#8 & #9 currently) appear to be on-topic and contribute to notability. #1 and #7 are just official websites of the parent organisation and the school. #3 Kukmin Daily isn't about this school at all and doesn't even contain the word "Presbyterian"; #2 Kookje Daily News and #6 Hankyoreh are WP:ROUTINE one-line events announcements, #4 Naver Knowledge In is WP:SOCIALMEDIA (the Korean equivalent of Yahoo Answers). Searching on the exact Korean name in Naver News gets only four hits, and ~900 in Google at large. Leaving off the word "Korea" (the first two Unicode codepoints in the Korean name) gets many more hits but I think those are almost all about another school (ko:장로회신학대학교) established in 1901. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - This article claims Park Geun-hye attended the school for a few months. To me, that strikes me as a fairly meaningful indication that the seminary is suitable for an article. I understand that this justification is, in a sense, a version of inherited. But the question really is, "Is this a real tertiary institution? To me, having faculty and alumni(?) of substance seems as good of an indicator as accreditation (which we haven't found indication of). Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're referring to this passage in the article you linked: 박 대통령은 1981년 9월 서울 광진구 장로회신학대학교 대학원에 입학, 11월까지 다녔다 (emphasis mine). Rough translation: President Park entered the graduate school of the Presbyterian University Theological Seminary in Gwangjin District, Seoul in September 1981, and attended until November. That's referring to a different, much older school (ko:장로회신학대학교), which I also mentioned above in my comment as comprising most of the Google Hits on the name. The school we're discussing in this AfD is in Gangnam District, Seoul and was founded in 2012. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you are right. Hmm, I'm not sure, and have struck my !vote. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify for potential merge Due to the language barrier, some commenters above made assumptions of good faith or accidental misinterpretations of sources, like that this school is 105 years old, that the newspapers cited in the article actually discuss this school, or that an ex-president attended. But in reality this is a six-year-old school with no evidence of notable alumni or faculty, and little media coverage. However I agree with User:Peterkingiron that the notability of the parent organisation Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Korea should be investigated more thoroughly. When I have time in the next few weeks I'll look for Korean-language sources, and if that denomination is actually notable, I'll draft an article about the denomination and merge the some of the content from the draft about the seminary there. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the last suggestion. 59.149.124.29 needs to sign in when responding, so that there is a page where the text can be userified. If Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Korea is indeed a denomination, not merely a local church, its article should be reinstated. My view is that denominations (unless they only have one congregation) are notable. A short section on the denominational seminary can then be added to that; and the article converted to a redirect to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draft as suggested above to allow the potential merger with the denomination which seems a valid outcome, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify at Draft:Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Korea#Korea Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Better to have the parent an sub organizations as a single draft to increase breadth of notability. Better in draft than userspace because the person originally who originally suggested draftifying is an IP. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parvardigar Prayer

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

I fail to see an iota of out-of-Meher Baba-universe notability of the subject and/or any non-trivial significant coverage about the subject, except in his biographies and hagiographies, which has devoted some pages to it.Notability isn't inherited.

Deletion or a redirection to Meher baba sought, as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prayer of Repentance and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meher Baba's missing book, which dealt with very similar articles.

This t/p thread may provide some backgound aspects on the issue. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only background aspects I see in the link you provide above is that one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, i.e. WP:5P4, means absolutely nothing to you. "What kind of whacko does write a biography -etc" refers to a fellow Wikipedian, I see accusations of "vested interests", expressed suspicion of myself as "um" (evidently Dazed's sock) and tons of bad faith, let alone the bias expressed against the topic. I am surprized you even link openly to this thread as background aspects. You are also openly sarcastic towards me in related AfDs, although I am treating you with due etiquette. Hoverfish Talk 22:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources, please.....~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you see me vote Keep, ask me for sources, please. Hoverfish Talk 21:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what the page says about the prayer: "The prayer is one of three frequently recited prayers by followers at gatherings, long with the Prayer of Repentance and the Beloved God Prayer. The three prayers are recited morning and evening at Meher Baba's samadhi in Ahmednagar, India at 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. each day, followed by devotional songs which compose Baba's aarti." If this is true, the prayer is pretty notable. Wouldn't it have been kinder of the nominator to recognize when something is probably notable, and before nominating it for outright removal would think, maybe once in awhile, of putting a "citations needed" tag on the page instead? Randy Kryn (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Randy--I don't doubt that is false but that isn't an indicator of notability.Secondary-sources covering the subject in a non-trivial manner, are.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well secondary sources can't be found as this group of people keep their beliefs to themselves as a discipline. It will take future developments to get to where some independent theologians or academics make papers about them. If this means that it HAS to be deleted, it is pretty much undefensible (no nukes needed, all it takes is a simple stab in the back). Therein lies the kindness and understanding on behalf of the nominator. And I am not saying this as in "oh we poor ones, etc", neither do I wish to act as a lawyer for them. If I sound lawyer-ish, it is on behalf of Wikipedia as an informative medium (no, not just ANY info, and no, I do not think that I am saving the day for Wikipedia on this). There has been an effort to include here some basic information in a NPOV way about this group. Dazedbtb has done a good job in this, although maybe he has gone too far in some areas in the past. If all we must see is black-or-white, all information relevant to the Meher Baba movement will be obliterated, with LOSS from the side of Wikipedia, rather than any real gain of "spam-cleaning". Don't expect me please to vote "keep" here or in other prayers or in the Parvardigar (film), unless I see that what is being proposed is really central to the philosophy of Meher Baba, like his very few books and very few terms and concepts we have. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 06:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.

Keep and add a "sources needed " tag, a very important prayer to the subject and of Wikipedia's collection on this fellow. Wikipedia is built of individual collections of topics, almost each one most likely the best neutral encyclopedic coverage of that particular topic in existence. Even while asking for sourced coverage the nominator admits notability likely exists, because it is obvious this topic is extremely well-covered and historically discussed. Just not by the right people, who get to choose who is notable and who isn't. Meher Baba is notable, that's been decided, and this is one of his main prayers (and no, I am not a disciple, acquaintance, or reader of his material, and have never said, read, or chanted one of his prayers), and the main prayers of a long-time worshipped religious figure should find exception and be among the things from which notability can be inherited. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never admitted anything of that sort.notability must be demonstrated or else the article must be purged......As simple as that.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Randy Kryn: - "and the main prayers of a long-time worshipped religious figure should find exception and be among the things from which notability can be inherited" is a very significant thing to be claiming and certainly isn't something either you, or even everyone in this AfD could decide - it would need to be discussed specifically as a notability change. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow! Thanks for pointing that:) I missed that line and umm.....mind-boggling would be an understatement.Sigh.....~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPRAYER would certainly be the most interesting guideline in the whole set... Nosebagbear (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Meher Baba. SOFTDELETE per no input from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheriar Irani

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

I fail to see an iota of notability of the subject and any non-trivial significant coverage about him, except in his connection as the father of Meher Baba, in biographies and hagiographies of Meher Baba.Notability isn't inherited.

Deletion/Redirection sought, as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mani Irani, which dealt with Meher Baba's mother's article.

This t/p thread may provide some backgound aspects on the issue. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. based on the strength of the delete arguments: 1E applies, and while he may have done this to himself, the BLP policy starts with a basic presumption of privacy. Given what the article is focused on, deleting until notability is proven under our policies and guidelines is the most conservative option. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mao Sugiyama

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

Notability concerns. The WP:MILL coverage of an egregiously blatant publicity stunt doesn't make a person notable, and there are WP:BEANS reasons to discourage this as a path to notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this guy really had balls to do that.104.163.139.33 (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- also, Delete. 100% of coverage is for the single event.104.163.139.33 (talk) 06:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever that we may think about what he did, he has enough coverage in reliable sources [48][49][50][51], and collaborated with other artists - [52][53] as Yuma Hamasaqi. I don't think WP:MILL (what he did is not run-of-the-mill, nor is the coverage) or WP:BEANS (people are more likely to read about it in mainstream media than go looking for him here) is relevant here. Hzh (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an odd collection of trivia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the one thing the fellow's known for, delete. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 18:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Re-name WP:1EVENT would seem to apply - certainly that event looks like it would have notability. I suppose we could re-name it and tweak it, I'd be happy enough to do that if people were minded. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – While rare, this is not unheard of in the literature. For a similar case which does have notability on its own, see Armin Meiwes. The content here doesn't appear to rise to that level of notability, but could be merged somewhere. A search for anthropophagous paraphilia at Google books and Scholar both turn up serious references. List of paraphilias currently lists Anthropophagy but that entry is currently piped to Cannibalism, although the latter topic is far more than just the paraphilic practice, which the Cannibalism article barely discusses. If vorarephilia has its own article, then surely Anthrophagy could. But if no one volunteers to write it, the content of Mao Sugiyama could be merged to Cannibalism and the title become a redirect to a section there. Mathglot (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also agree with Nosebagbear that this is clearly WP:1EVENT. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Henry's Church (Lahore)

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

Nothing historic found. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails, WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article lacks any sources and does not even give details on when the Church was formed. Not every Catholic parish is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart Church, Gojra

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

Nothing historic or encyclopedic. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails, WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St Philip's Church (Hyderabad)

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

Nothing historic found, fails WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Myanmar football transfers 2018 (winter)

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

OR/GNG/SYNTH/LISTCRUFT/FANCRFUT and etc. Another such articles. Quek157 (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilnae867 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For this we have an entire AFD for the past few list and others are up for AFD with unanimous (almost) consensus that it should be deleted. --Quek157 (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is AFD? And how do i need to do for this article to be a permanent? (talk • contribs) 23:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a AFD already, is likely to be a gone case when the rest are closed. --Quek157 (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Worth another week of discussion given the ultimate fate of the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 13:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we often keep the list of football transfers of professional leagues, and since Myanmar's league is considered fully professional, I do not see why this article is inappropriate, all the content is fully sourced. Article needs improving not deleting. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this is a notable topic and that sources are collating this information. Eldumpo (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The similar lists of Myanmar football were already nominated for deletion. One creator (Modernrocker4) even blocked for continuously adding unsourced content. If the list can't even had external source as citation, i think we should not keep the list. Matthew_hk t c 16:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For this 2018 winter list alone. I am really not sure quoting https://www.facebook.com/ShanUtdFC/ is reliable or not. It did not have blue tick so it may be a fans page rather than official football club facebook page. Either it is truly official, it still a primary source which lacks of GNG secondary coverage. Matthew_hk t c 16:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mosharraf Zaidi

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

No quality source discusses him. Being columnist is not enough. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:PROF and WP:ANYBIO. DanielQ8 (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)~~ struck per WP:SOCK power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not able to find substantive coverage of this individual in independent reliable sources (author biographies in publications that he writes for do not count, as they aren't independent). That said, he is widely quoted as a columnist: in The Guardian, The Express Tribune, Guardian again, NPR, The New York Times, NPR again, and Dawn. These indicate that he has a reasonable profile within his field, and I cannot argue to delete here. Vanamonde (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am convinced he is definitely a well-known Pakistani journalist. I looked at and reviewed all the above 'solid' 7 links listed by Vanamonde above (my thanks to him for good research). They all mention the journalist Mosharraf Zaidi in their articles. That should be enough to establish his notability. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's not actually a journalist. --Saqib (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the coverage noted by Vanamonde above are not enough to establish WP:N because none of them discusses the Zaidi directly and in detail, as require by GNG. And I agree with the nom that no quality source discusses the subject in-depth and being columnist is not enough. However I think the subject still passes our WP:N because in 2014, he was recognized by the World Economic Forum as a Young Global Leader as per this RS which I believe is some prestigious award or honor so having said that the subject passes criteria # 1 of WP:ANYBIO. --Saqib (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Sorrows Church, Kasur

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

Nothing historic found. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails, WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St Francis Xavier Church, Sargodha

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

Nothing historic found. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails, WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of ironic awards

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

Long, unsourced list without any context or proper content. The title containing "ironic" is also quite subjective. Lordtobi (✉) 11:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced WP:SYNTH + WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — JFG ^talk 11:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ironically this fails SYNTH and LISTCRUFT / LISTN --Quek157 (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @JFG and Quek157: how did you say "synth" and "unsourced" in the same sentence? wumbolo ^^^ 14:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good catch, ironically indeed!

I guess what I mean is this thing is not sourced as a list, and even if each item was sourced individually, it would be synth. No saving grace… — JFG ^talk 14:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the existing Category:Ironic and humorous awards does the job this list is supposed to do, so the encyclopedia won't lose any information if this gets deleted. WP:PRESERVE is safe. — JFG ^talk 14:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

as above, but I didn't say OR.Quek157 (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Completely subjective list. Ajf773 (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, this is essentially the same as Category:Ironic and humorous awards (and if inclusion there can be verified, then this list does not present an issue). These entries do share the common, defining characteristic of recognizing poor performance, failure, etc., in other words, the exact opposite of what is considered meritorious enough to award. Whether "ironic" is the clearest descriptive word to unify these (the dictionary would suggest so), it seems clear that they are of the same character and all else seems to me mere semantics. How else would we index these? I'd expect some more substantive discussion on these point beyond the WP:VAGUEWAVEs above before we'd consider deleting this list or the category. postdlf (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We similarly have List of awards. wumbolo ^^^ 20:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really not sure how this comment makes any attempt to support keep. Ajf773 (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is also long and unsourced. wumbolo ^^^ 11:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like a case for delete. Ajf773 (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename something else, maybe List of mocking awards? Ironic doesn't really describe it and, as has been noted, is too hazy. It could be organized by subject as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/rename to ~~List of mock awards~~ List of mocking awards. List is good, the title isn't though. Nate • (chatter) 01:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Mock" means fake or non-existent. These awards are real, hence my preference for "mocking". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate the extension of your explanation for the title ('the title isn't though' was to the title of the AfD). I'm convinced enough now. Nate • (chatter) 23:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: these are blue-linked entries; meet WP:LISTN. Current name is fine: List of ironic awards. Or perhaps List of sarcastic awards? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite claims to the contrary, the list is not indiscriminate and has clear inclusion criteria. Inclusion does not rely on the opinion of the person adding items as to whether they are ironic/mcoking. The criterion is that they are intended to be ironic/mcoking by the awarding body. The number of such awards does not seem to be so large that the list cannot be exhaustive. If that should happen, we can always limit the inclusion criteria to blue links only. SpinningSpark 00:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that an award is intended to mock the recipient is one of the most basic factual claims that can be made about that award. It's first-sentence-of-lead-paragraph material. (For example, "The Golden Raspberry Awards (also known in short terms as Razzies and Razzie Awards) is a mock award in recognition of the worst in film.") As such, it doesn't really need footnoting in this list, as long as each item has a blue link. The title might need revision, but it's serviceable for now. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous "Keep" votes. A useful and welcome list of amusing awards which does not duplicate listings within categories but, quite the opposite, sorts the awards under genres and specifications as well as providing descriptions of each award. None of that can be expected from categories which commingle all entries alphabetically. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hexayurt

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

Barely cited, barely notable. Most of the article is cut'n'pasted OR from the project's wiki. Puffery. Page talks about "forthcoming" plans cited to the single RS, which is from 2006. WP:BEFORE check shows little to no evidence of notability. Started by a friend of the founder, but problems have been flagged for a couple of years unfixed. The history shows this has never been an adequate article, since its recreation in 2009. David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the best sourcing available, NYT, only mentioned this in passing. I can't find any substantial coverage. Marquardtika (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There are better sources than are on the article now, with more than passing references to hexayurts. A quick search finds articles from Wired, Wired again, BoingBoing and FastCompany. The article needs serious work, but it's not obvious that it fails notability. I only say weak keep because I can't see myself doing the necessary work in the near future. --Chriswaterguy talk 15:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed all the dubious and completely uncited content - there are literally three sentences left. (I left the completely uncited intro, else it would have been just the third sentence.) If there's an article to be written about this, the first thing is for someone to bother writing it - David Gerard (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. --Chriswaterguy talk 12:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: References are mentioned above and there are more. StrayBolt (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete even after some cleanup it remains clearly promotional; there are insufficient sources with which to generate a decent Wikipedia article. Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete non notable & promotional, looks like promoting "Vinay Gupta" Heshiv (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your comment, I reduced the designer's name mentions in the prose from 2 back to 1. StrayBolt (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Seung Ri

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

WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG not met --Quek157 (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Momoland as {{R avoided double redirect}} of Nancy (South Korean singer), and protect it to avoid recreation. (Not that this will stop the inevitable whack-a-mole games; witness Park Ji Min (BTS), Park Ji-min (1995), Park Ji-min (born 1995), Park Jimin (bts), Park Jimin (male), Park Jimin (musician), Park Jimin BTS, Park Jimin(BTS), Jimin (BTS), Jimin (singer), et cetera ad nauseum). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft as the blocked nominator only waited 3 minutes after creation to AFD this which caused the abandonment of the article. In draft space it can go through the AFC process if it is picked up, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aatifi

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

All three sources are from different pages of an art book. That art book is published by the same publisher for which the subject worked/works for. He seems to be non-notable. Dial911 (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "art book" is an exhibition catalog for a solo exhibition at the Pergamon Museum. I don't see any indication that the artist is affiliated with the publisher. There are also four additional sources listed in the bibliography. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those additional sources are exhibition catalogs. Exhibition catalog has a purpose of promoting particular/respective exhibition. I don't think it would be deemed as a secondary and reliable source that is devoid of any conflict of interest with respect to that exhibition and its participants. Dial911 (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are also additional references in the corresponding German article (though I don't read German). I also added some additional (German) news articles under further reading. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even I don't read German, but these web pages can easily be translated to English on Chrome. The first additional reference is his own website, the second reference is again a press release from Pergamon Museum about the exhibition. Only the third reference is an art magazine. I am not sure if this article would survive only on the basis of this art magazine (I don't know if this magazine is really notable in Germany either). Dial911 (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there are also additional print sources in the German article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks independent, in-depth WP:SIGCOV. I searched and could not find any additional sources beyond the book mentioned, which is the single ref supporting the article.104.163.150.200 (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A solo exhibition in the Museum für Islamische Kunst is a form of exceptionally rare and serious critical attention that would trump almost any coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cases like this are why WP:ARTISTS exists. There are sufficient sources to sustain an article. The nomination for deletion hinges on the assertion that the subject works for the publisher of a book that is used as the only source. Presumably, that is Aatifi – News from Afghanistan, published by Kerber verlag. There are two problems with that: 1) there are more sources cited under Bibliography (albeit not all as inline sources, but that is not a requirement). 2) I see no evidence that Aatifi is employed by Kerber. In fact the lists of all their employees does not mention Aatafi. The assertion made by the nominator appears to be factually incorrect. Vexations (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough evidence he passes WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ARTIST per above exhibition. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many indications of a serious, long-term commitment to the visual arts. It is a career that has evolved over time and even geography from Afghanistan to Germany. The exhibition schedule suggests substantial recognition by opinion-makers in the area of visual art. It seems the artwork of Aatifi has been shown at the Berlin State Museums. Bus stop (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Staleworth

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

This band does not appear to be notable enough. 2Joules (talk) 08:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Wooley

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

There are no independent reliable sources that cover the subject of this article in detail. 2Joules (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even by normal standards of non-notable businessmen, Wooley is particularly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George M. Wyckoff Jr.

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

An article with only one source - my attempts to find other sources brought up his wife's obituary, a company registration with his name in it, and some mentions about the closing of the town mill. Nothing on him specifically except for the obituary. His political position doesn't get a notability pass. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 21:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not ever mayor of a place with over 10,000 people is notable, and that would need to be the standard to grant Wyckoff notability with the actual level of coverage of him we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Article passes core content policies (V/NPOV/NOR). Wyckoff's career has been covered in depth in papers from his home states of Pennsylvania and Maryland, and newspapers.com gives 200+ articles which mention him.[54] Their was some national coverage of his 1982 mayoral campaign, but that was due to a human interest angle as there was a significant write-in campaign for a dog in the race. From the rest, there is a passing coverage in The Philadelphia Inquirer Pittsburgh Post-Gazette The Pittsburgh Press, but most of the coverage is in local Cumberland papers. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being able to nominally verify that a mayor existed is neither an automatic NPOL pass in and of itself, nor an automatic exemption from having to pass NPOL just because the article is technically V/NPOV/NOR. In cities this size, the test is the ability to reference the article over NPOL #2 — which requires considerably more than just a small handful of the local coverage that every mayor of everywhere could always show. And Cumberland is so close to Pittsburgh that it's either inside or only just barely outside the local coverage range of most of Pittsburgh's television and radio stations, so the fact that a bit of coverage can be found in Pittsburgh media is not strong evidence of expanded extra-local notability in and of itself. He'd probably qualify to have an article if it were referenced much better than this, but the fact that the content is technically VNPOVNOR is not in and of itself enough to exempt him from having to have a stronger notability claim, and better sourcing for it, than just "he existed as a mayor, one local source and two obituaries, the end". Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that Cumberland, Maryland is 100 miles from Pittsburgh. The Pittsburgh Media Market includes Garrett County, Maryland but not quite neighboring Allegany County, Maryland, where Cumberland is located. That said, your point stands, if one thinks that local coverage should be (heavilly?) discounted, Pittsburgh papers could be considered local. All the more because Wyckoff's father was a leading Pittsburgher as well. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure local coverage should be discounted for being local, but if there's a bunch of local coverage and little to no coverage outside of the area, and we're taking a very zoomed out look at the article (ie not discussing specific sources), I think an assumption could be made regarding coverage that is only WP:MILL. Looking specifically at this article, it's currently sourced by two obituaries, and the actual non-aggregated sources I can find discuss him in passing of the mayor of a town whose mill is closing, golf tournament agate from Pittsburgh, the and the dog write-in votes story. Just not enough here, and doesn't get a pass for being mayor. SportingFlyer talk 04:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot see how the individual meets the requirements of NPOL; the coverage is routine and not indicative of notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY I did a modest, expand, source. The obits to which the article was sourced made it clear that this dude who owned a steel company in the 1980s was notable. But I added stuff like an long profile of his life and mayoralty that ran in the Baltimore Sun, coverage of Cumberland Steel in the Washington Post, and coverage of him in a profile of the city that ran in the San Diego paper (I presume it was a wire service story,) commemorating Cumberland's bicentennial. Unsurprisingly, there is a great deal more available in news archives.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep Not especially important person, or mayor, but there does seem to be enough sources in the newspaper archives. The population of Cumberland is irrelevent. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Records

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

Not notable record label. No sources in article except to a single non-RS (albeit professional-looking) website. A cursory BEFORE search on Google News finds no references. Chetsford (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination: fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. A staff listing that includes the head of logistics and head of IT rings a COI bell, but that's not a reason for deletion. The references are mainly about Nasty (musician), and I can't find significant coverage online in WP:RS for either him or his company, so there's no point in merging this article to his bio. TMG^talk 09:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable record label. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources found to support this minor record label meets NCORP/GNG. Sam Sailor 10:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Abhijeet Nath and Nilotpal Das

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

WP:NOTNEWS Chetsford (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON. This is a very recent event (8 June 2018). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another article on the same subject, 2018 Karbi Anglong lynching, has been created. MT Train^Talk 14:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Six months later the subject will not even warrant a footnote in the main article...WP:NOTNEWS applies here. — F R ⁺ 14:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who can tell, if there is more coverage in six or 12 months, but for now it is a NOTNEWS case; delete per WP:DEL14. Sam Sailor 06:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Hustmyre

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

Not notable. Does not satisfy WP:BIO, as I could find no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. A prod was challenged by someone claiming to be Mr. Hustmyre with the comment: "I was the subject of the article (Chuck Hustmyre) and the article was totally accurate. It seems unfair that it was deleted." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 07:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not yet notable per WP:BIO or WP:NAUTHOR. I can find only passing mentions in WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources. TMG^talk 07:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boondoggles, Bonanzas, and Other Alberta Stories

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

Promotional article about a book with no clear notability; appearing on a list of best-sellers in Calgary is not sufficient to meet WP:NBOOK, and there are no other references about the book. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Deletion of this page would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because the page on this book could be merged and redirected to the page on its author. James500 (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per WP:NBOOK, created by suspected sock. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 19:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have been unable to find anything useable with a gsearch, unfortunate that references cited in the article are not viewable, according to WorldCat, book is available at around 24 libraries thruout Canada and the USA (quite an achievement for this kind of book and the lack of trade reviews), problems/issues with spas/sockpuppets and COI are a matter of concern (may be another case of a new editor not realising the seriousness of these issues), with the recent spate of articles on some of Brennan's other books looks like a case of WP:PROMOTION (although i do acknowledge James500 points). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saurav Gurjar

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

No notable wrestler. It's just a develoment wrestler with WWE with just a few matches. It's too son for this article. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has coverage from reliable third party sources, most of this focuses on his tv career which the article does not cover. But the rule is not that the article has to prove notability in itself, the sources do that - the article needs improvement, but not deletion. his WWE career so far is not enough for notability, but he's more than just that. MPJ-DK 22:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete-Per WP:TOOSOON.The coverage looks encouraging. If the subject wins anything then I am sure we will have enough coverage. Up-till now it is only interviews. — F R ⁺ 06:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- He seems like he's notable enough for his TV career. Should really be edited into the article, not deleted. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not extremely notable as a wrestler but combined with other TV work probably passes WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His TV credits give him a pass. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Airport (film)

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

Not a notable film. A failed television pilot (which are rarely notable) which aired as a TV movie. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, fails both WP:NFILM and WP:NFO -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue it deserves an entry - it aired as a stand alone film, regardless of the fact it was picked up as a pilot. It was made by a noted directed, Don Chaffey, and producer, Aaron Spelling and the cast were very notable.Dutchy85 (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Dutchy, does have some rs press coverage shown in the article WP:AGF as they aren't linked Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The press coverage is not "significant coverage" as required by NFILM. The first and third are mere TV guides mentioning a program will air that evening. From NFILM: "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, capsule reviews..." -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It can pass WP:GNG independently of WP:NFILM, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Aired after the end of the television season and failed to win any awards. Whatever the claims of an 'all-star cast', the mentions are merely 'this aired' and 'these people starred in it' and 'here's a plot summary'. There's just not enough here to justify an article. Nate • (chatter) 05:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Airport (novel) This source says the material was based on this book, and was basically an attempt to bring Airport (the film) into a weekly television format. So it's at least notable for being that, but not much more. Nate • (chatter) 22:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should qualify under WP:NTV - A dropped pilot which does go to air as a standalone television film or special [...] may, however, qualify for an article on that latter basis, and an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations. Hzh (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, may qualify being the operative term, following the necessity that "significant evidence that the pilot has notability for reasons beyond simple confirmation of its existence." No person is yet to provide any sources which demonstrate notability. As mentioned earlier, existing references are mere mentions of the basic plot and listings in TV guides - per NTV and NFILM that does not demonstrate notability -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is about simple announcement of a planned pilot that may not be aired, and this one was aired as a TV film on a TV network, and it is therefore "likely" to be notable as noted in the guideline. There are many sources in books - [55][56][57]. Hzh (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it states "A dropped pilot which does go to air as a standalone television film or special [...] may, however, qualify for an article on that latter basis which refers to "...significant evidence that the pilot has notability for reasons beyond simple confirmation of its existence." The book quotes you mentioned are again trivial mentions that something exists. The film/pilot did not win any awards, does not have a cult following, and is not noted in multiple reliable sources for anything meaningful that would establish notability here for it to hold its own article. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misreading. In a sentence, when two items (or groups of items) are mentioned, the "latter" refers to the second one mentioned, and that is "a standalone television film or special". That is, the notability is determined as television film or special that has been aired on a television network (which is considered likely to be notable). The line you mentioned clearly is about a "pilot in development". Hzh (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, there is still no establishment of notability. The mere existance of a TV pilot becoming a movie fails to do so, and all the references brought up are trivial mentions - not critical review, awards, cult status, etc. which is required to pass NFILM, NTV and indeed the GNG -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A show that is "likely" to notable and mentioned in books would mean notable. This is not counting the fact there would likely to be reviews, but these would be from a pre-internet era that made them hard to search for. Hzh (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely" according to what? WP:NFO is clear about requiring notability via reliable sources. The film does not meet any of the 8 criteria in NFO. The closest it gets to is "significant involvement...by a notable person" and even then it could be covered in their bio article, or as Mrschimpf suggested, at the novel's article. But there remains no verifiable, reliable sources to establish notability for this failed pilot in its own right. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely" is merely a reminder by WP:NTV that a show broadcast on a main network nationally would likely receive significant coverage in the press, which is especially true when there were fewer channels. It is simply harder to find sources for older shows because of the issue of archiving (something not archived on the internet does not mean they don't exist), or special subscription may be required to look for them. Hzh (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying that may be the case, but verifiable sources are still needed to establish notability regardless. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Of course, it's noteworthy. A made-for-TV film with an all-star cast, broadcast in prime time on a major network and reviewed by TV critics in newspapers around the country, automatically qualifies for inclusion. TV films regularly pass notability guidelines without any questions and this entry should be no exception. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not per WP:NFO and WP:NTV. Extensive coverage in verifiable sources are needed. The film was not 'made-for-TV', it was a failed TV pilot which aired on its own, and it was not reviewed by notable critics in great detail, it was listed as 'something on TV that night' in newspaper TV listings at the time. It has not developed a cult following or the other requirements of NFO. NTV says "A dropped pilot which does go to air as a standalone television film...may...qualify" if there is significant evidence of notability for a standalone article. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A number of made-for-TV films were structured as pilots for potential TV series — some of those features were successful and served as the basis for a TV series — other features merely remained as stand-alone made-for-TV films. International Airport was one of the latter and appears on Wikipedia's List of television films produced for American Broadcasting Company#1985. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of that establishes notability. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources. The title should be listed in the article you mention for completeness, but that doesn't mean the title deserves its own article. There are many red links in that list article, and International Airport should be one of them -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not distinguish between "notable" and "non-notable" films. For the purposes of inclusion in Wikipedia, every film from around the world, whether made to be shown in movie theaters or not, is eligible for inclusion. Section header "External links" is expected to contain links to standard film sites, such as IMDb, American Film Institute (AFI), British Film Institute (BFI), Turner Classic Movies (TCMDb), AllMovie, TVGuide, Rotten Tomatoes, etc. References are also expected, of course, with one or two newspaper or magazine reviews being deemed sufficient for avoiding deletion. International Airport has links to IMDb, BFI and TCMDb as well as three cites, including two-and-a-half paragraphs of text in Chicago Tribune, published at the time of the film's premiere. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true. I suggest you read WP:NFILM: "To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage." The external links to imdb, etc are user-generated sites which can't be used to establish notability. The "three cites" are not extensive coverage, they are TV listings detailing basic plot outlines, including the one you linked to. Further, in WP:NFO which mentions that "significant coverage is not always possible to find on the Internet, especially for older films", it lists 5 alternate criteria for such cases, and this film doesn't meet any of them:

1) It is widely distributed on a national network, but has not received full-length reviews by 2 or more nation critics

2) No evidence of historical notability

3) No awards

4) Not preserved in the national archive

5) Not taught in university or college

It also fails the three "inclusionary criteria"

1) Not a unique accomplishment in cinema

2) Not a major part of a notable actor's career that would "clutter up the biography page"

3) America is a major film producing country

This failed TV pilot turned TV movie is not notable by the outlined criteria for general notability or topical notability. -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with WP:NFILM and I interpret it to mean that International Airport has met the "reliable sources" qualification under "External links" — in addition to IMDb, which is appended to every film, no one questions the reliability of the BFI and TCMDb links and additional external links to AllMovie or TVGuide can be easily appended. Also, Chicago Tribune gave it a brief write-up, not simply a TV listing.

Furthermore, if those "5 alternate criteria" were to be strictly applied, there would be no need to cherry-pick or single out International Airport for deletion nomination. Deletionists could run riot over the entire List of television films produced for American Broadcasting Company or all titles under Category:Television films by year, with 95 percent of all such titles nominated for deletion.

Ultimately, the barn doors would be wide open. A strict application of the "three inclusionary criteria" would enable deletionists to set upon List of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer films, List of Warner Bros. films, etc and start to AfD each film which they felt was "Not a unique accomplishment in cinema". It would open a Pandora's Box (presumably that would not be one of the films nominated for departure from Wikipedia). Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Crowe (footballer)

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the subject Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY having never played in a fully professional league or in a senior international fixture. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league or a senior international fixture and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I appreciate you have to boundaries for things but can we look at it from the point of view of a Preston fan; They have just signed a goalkeeper from a fellow Championship club and deserve to be able to read about him on Wikipedia, is that not what this website is for? He’s been named in full welsh squads, it’s not like he’s a jobbing semi-pro no mark. User: Hildreth gazzard talk 08.56, 10 June 2018 UTC
Delete - as per nom and Kosack, still fails GNG and NFOOTBALL 21.colinthompson (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just found this https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/44383006 . There are lot other recent media coverages relating to this. Farahpoems (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer announcements are considered routine sport coverage and do not contribute to general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draft I have no problems with a draft of the player, but at the moment he fails WP:NFOOTBALL having not played a professional game. Govvy (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I can understand the arguments put here for keep, at the moment it is clear that he fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Of course if he plays for Preston in a league match or gets a full cap with Wales this will change. As either of these seems possible within the next year or so so keeping as a draft article as suggested would seem a viable option. Dunarc (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lutz Ebersdorf

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

Most likely a hoax (see the talk and [58]), but even if not it fails WP:NBIO and WP:ACADEMIC massively. Just google "Lutz Ebersdorf" -suspiria. Nardog (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: concur with @Nardog -- does not reach threshold of notability even if not a hoax. Quis separabit? 02:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax and a movie promotional publicity stunt. The article can be recreated if the hoax itself becomes notable but should not pose as a legitimate BLP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I think about it, perhaps we should redirect it to Suspiria (2018 film) once it's deleted. Nardog (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also BLP violating, no references whatsoever for a (claimed) living person. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I believe this is a hoax and a stunt, and, quite honestly, the lack of sourcing (and a great deal of it coming from the studio itself), as a BLP matter, is more than enough to push this one into a firm delete. If this fellow actually exists, and I doubt it, where's his Abschlussarbeit? Where's his website? A Google link, at least, to his office? None of these items can be found. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 17:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I'd be open to a re-direct to the film, too, aye. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 17:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Suspiria (2018 film). If Ebersdorf is later determined to be a real person, and not just Tilda Swinton in heavy makeup, the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Fine by me. Maybe I should have done that boldly rather than this AfD... Nardog (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - I am now leaning towards delete again because the chances of the article meeting the notability/verifiability threshold are so low regardless of whether he turns out to be a real person. I've revised Suspiria (2018 film) so that it is ready to be redirected to from the page in discussion. Nardog (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced biography and probable hoax. Thanks to Nardog for initiating this AFD. I should have done so myself but was busy with other things. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reading the above article, Ebersdorf is definitely "real", but may be Tilda Swinton. Maybe a similar case to Roderick James? Test No 1 (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that if Ebersdorf is indeed Swinton, we probably should redirect to the Swinton page. We don't really have enough info at present though... In addition, there are no references to Ebersdorf in Swinton's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Test No 1 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are horrible ideas. Wikipedia should not be facilitating and encouraging dishonest advertising.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This shows everything that is wrong with our current system. 1-we do not speedy delete articles with only IMDB as a source. This is exhibit A on why we should burn and destroy every article sourced only to IMDb with extreme prejudice. 2-we need better control over creating articles. 3-hoaxes like this should never make it to main space. We need to make it so every article needs to go through the AfC process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Johnpacklambert, this AfD debate is not the place for meta policy discussions, and you know it. Please restrain yourself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some policies need to be attacked at any and all turns, and the current wild-west approach to article creation and the over-reliance on the clearly unreliable IMDb are two such things that need to be attacked at every turn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the article should be deleted for the above reasons, as well as lack of notability, at least until Suspiria comes out. Test No 1 (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sam Sailor 05:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Cope

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

Delete: as non-notable individual. Can a groupie ever merit an article in an encyclopaedia? Quis separabit? 01:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Can a groupie ever merit an article in an encyclopaedia?"... Cynthia Plaster Caster? Richard3120 (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120 -- Thanks for reprinting my comment, by which I still stand. Cynthia Plaster Caster "who creates plaster casts of famous persons' breasts and erect penises" is (at least nominally, IMHO) is also an "artist" by today's standards anyway so it seems to me that it is kind of like comparing apples and oranges. Quis separabit? 14:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable. Please expand it to explain that and it may have a chance of not being deleted.Accesscrawl (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This is an odd one, someone who is only famous for being a groupie (and a reference in a song). But as there appear to be a number of reliable sources on her, she probably just about pass WP:BASIC. Hzh (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Can a groupie ever merit an article in an encyclopaedia?" Yes, as long as there are reliable and verifiable sources about the individual to establish notability. That standard is met. Alansohn (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple reliable sources independent of the subject: it passes GNG. There are tons of bios in here about people whose lives don't inspire or even interest me, but bio subjects don't need to interest anybody here if they inspired enough interest in WP:RS to pass GNG. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough coverage by reliable and independent sources to meet the general notability guidelines in my opinion. Million_Moments (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ten inline cites are sufficient to indicate notability and those cites, including the obituaries, describe how earned her own specialized claim to fame. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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