Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 April	12 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stare (Three Days Grace song)[edit]

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

First, the song fails any reasonable notablity criteria, either WP:GNG pr WP:NSONG. Second, the creator of the article can't seem to accept the fact that the band known as Groundswell is a distinct entity from the band Three Days Grace. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wrong band! Groundswell is not the same band as Three Days Grace. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, however you want to classify it, its a band consisting of Three Days Grace members performing together before they used the name Three Days Grace. (Allmusic's Bio describes it as the name the band originally formed under, while AXS describes it as "Beginning their careers under a different moniker".) So it's not exactly a crazy assertion. That being said, if such an article existed, it should be attributed to Groundswell, not Three Days Grace. Probably a moot point though... Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is that Groundswell disbanded and Three Days Grace formed well after. This isn't the same situation as The Quarrymen and The Beatles, or The Hype and U2. There was, according to our sources, a clean break. We address this in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My comment - which was rewritten a few times as I kept finding sources, so perhaps its no longer clear - was originally more meant to address the fact that it doesn't really matter either way - it's not like its notability would be inherited by being a Three Days Grace song or something. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Random song released well before band members had a breakout success or major record label signing. The probability of finding the sourcing to meet the WP:GNG is extremely low, probably similar to finding the sourcing of your average band's first demo recordings - almost zero. Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty straightforward: the associated album does not have an article, that album is only briefly mentioned in the early history section of Three Days Grace, and that article does not mention this song as an item of historical interest (though it is listed, incorrectly, as a single in the band's template). More importantly, there is no evidence of this song receiving any media notice as an entity in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just removed the song from Template:Three Days Grace because, y'know, it's not the same band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Spinosauridae. Mz7 (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Spinosaurid[edit]

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

No evidence that this fossil (or very small part of a fossil) is in any way notable. A single reference notes its discovery and the lack of interpretation that can be assigned to two vertebrae. If every fossil was notable then we would have tens of thousands of articles about them. We don't because they, like this one, are not notable. Fails WP:GNG. When and if it is assigned to a new genus or new specie, that would be the time to write the article Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.Avg W (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say Merge to Spinosauridae~~, but distribution there includes Australia.~~Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC) Modified to merge per improved content and sourcing that added content which could be merged (beyond just the distribution in the lede currently present).Icewhiz (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Spinosauridae#Localities. While the lede of that article mentions fossils found in Australia, I am not finding mention of any Australian find in the body of the article (apologies if I missed one). 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/7/6/933 is the uncited main reference to the article. It's notable because it is the only Spinosaurid material found in Australia and confirms it's Spinosaurid presence on the continent. We have plenty of articles for fossils for undescribed species, like the Gurlin Tsav skull, so I don't see that as an obstacle. This guy is clearly enthusiastic and acting in good faith, as can be seen by their editing history, and simply mass nominating their first articles for deletion is churlish and discouraging to new users. This kind of stuff is one of the main reasons Wikipedia doesn't retain new users. Leniency should be applied in these scenarios.Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Spinosauridae. The fact that it exists is certainly noteworthy enough to be included there, but there's simply not enough to say about it to justify its own article. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Spinosauridae. The discovery of a genus is notable and supported by three references and eventually might be able to be split off later when more sources cover this new genus. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 12:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Spinosauridae. There are hundreds of indeterminate dinosaurs, I don't see why this one is especially notable, considering no informal name and fragmentary remains. I can see "Saltriosaurus" and "Nurosaurus" getting their own articles, but not this one. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Cooper (actress)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability: one source about minor role in a TV series, and assertion that she is known for redlinked film and part of a redlinked band. No article in Spanish Wikipedia for this Spanish actress. PRODded as non-notable, PROD removed without edit summary by an editor making their first and only edit. PamD 21:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three episodes on an Irish soap opera and a minor role in Tini: The Movie don't satisfy NACTOR, and she hasn't gotten any media coverage that I can find, so no GNG either. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The spanish version was speedy deleted, see es:Usuario discusión:Mickyberry.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But her bandcamp band is not bad! [1].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a notable actress. SL93 (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. consensus the topic is notable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Setmayer[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a political commentator, whose claims of notability are not properly sourced. Of the five references here, two are primary sources that cannot be used to support notability at all, one is a YouTube clip of her being interviewed about something other than herself on a TV show, one is a blog and one is Glenn Beck's The Blaze (an inherently unreliable source that never belongs anywhere near the references section of any Wikipedia article). As always, people get Wikipedia articles by being the subject of reliable source coverage about them, not by being the speaker in a piece of media coverage about a subject other than herself, so the interview on The View doesn't constitute adequate support for notability in and of itself -- and none of the other references here count for squat, because none of them are reliable sources at all. She could certainly qualify for an article if she could actually be shown to have enough real media coverage about her to clear WP:GNG, but nothing here is so "inherently" notable as to exempt her from having to have reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has had regular gigs as talking head on major TV networks for some while now, so it is unsurprising that sources exist, although article needs improvement. Here, for example, she gets a short, reported profile in The Hill in a list of 50 Most Beautiful People 2010], it has details about her early career jobs as communications director for U.s. House Rep. Dana Rohrabacher. Here: [2] is a search for her name in the Washington Post, here: [3], Politico]]. Here: she is in the Wall Street Journal in 2006: America's Next Top Pundit in a group of "nine (pundits) gaining attention." Setmayre: "Tara Setmayer, 31Day job: Communications director for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.)Claim to fame: Conservative commentary about social policies.Maybe you've heard her: On NPR, saying Clinton administration officials "don't want to face the music" on mistakes they made that may have led to Sept. 11 attacks.Punditry perspective: "You can be telegenic without being obnoxious. But if I told you how to do that, I'd be giving away my secret." This was NOT an exhaustive search, just a quick look, and it looks like teh sources exist to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being named in listicles isn't an "inherent" notability claim in and of itself — but neither of the listicles (The Hill and WSJ) is verifying anything about her that would confer "inherent" notability just because it was technically verified, and neither of them is substantive enough to count for anything toward passing WP:GNG. And the Politico search doesn't bring up any articles that are substantively about her, either, but just hits glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things. If you're shooting for "notable because media coverage exists", then the media coverage has to go a lot deeper than just listicles and glancing namechecks. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there isn't a lot of media coverage about her, but she is a media figure in her own right. A search in Lexis Nexis gets 1200 results, mostly transcripts from her appearances as commentator, as well as a few referencing her role as a spokesperson for Congressional representatives. She has a two-page entry in Contemporary Black Biography v.130 -- which is a little ironic as the entry specifically talks about how she doesn't identify as black, but there you go. I'm disinclined to use it as a source because it is also a tertiary source, akin to an encyclopedia; but she merited inclusion there, and I think she merits here too. -Kenirwin/(talk) 20:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: taken as a whole, the sources already cited in the article, and the sources discovered by E.M.Gregory, they push Setmayer over the bar of notability WP:N. – Lionel^(talk) 07:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. – Lionel^(talk) 07:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. This is a snow delete and, fo0r all the articles except John Madison, also a G5 speedy deletion, as the articles were created by the blocked editor Mouauia rafii, using the sockpuppet Bradshaw Viscera (which was responsible for the only opposition to deletion in this discussion). John Madison was created by the same editor, and subsequently edited by the sockpuppet. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Madison[edit]

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

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

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

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

Biography, referenced only to genealogies with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him as a person, of a person whose only claim of notability is being the father, grandfather and great-grandfather of much more notable people. Notability is not inherited, so a person does not get a Wikipedia article just to help fill out the genealogy of his most famous descendant -- but there's no content here to even suggest any other basis for notability at all, as it literally just documents the genealogy and then ends without actually saying anything else about him. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I'm also adding Joseph Adams Sr. to this nomination. It makes the same "notable for purely genealogical reasons" claim for another ancestor of a president, so there's no pressing need for it to be considered separately from Madison. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update - and two more. Agricolae (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing about him rises to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete This person is very important, he is the great-grandfather of the 4th President of the United States, James Madison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradshaw Viscera (talk • contribs) 22:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. If a person doesn't have his own standalone notability claim in his own right for his own activities, then happening to be the great-grandfather of a president does not hand him a free exemption from having to be notable for any other reason besides that. Every single person who has ever lived could always claim some degree of genealogical relationship to somebody notable — so if being sourceable to a family genealogy as having a famous relative was all it took to exempt a person from having to attain notability for their own activities we'd just be a genealogy site and not an encyclopedia anymore. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTGENEALOGY - I have identical concerns to those raised by NOM over another of the creators new pages: Joseph Adams Sr. (no refs, only claim to notability is that he is great. . . grandfather of the presidents) Agricolae (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've added it to the nomination accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case I will add two more (Madison's father, Adams' son) solely genealogical entries. Agricolae (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Delete- notability is not inherited, James Madison's ancestor's do not get a free pass for notability, see WP:NOTGENEALOGY--Rusf10 (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Team Thicke[edit]

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

Promotional notice of not yet notable company. Might be when they actually produce something, but even this part would need rewriting to remove puffery. A speedy was previously declines DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - Page reads like a puff piece and the company lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with previous commentor. After searching for additional sources that might give the page some notability with a rewrite nothing was found. Wi7less (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Brown (writer)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer and broadcaster, which is referenced exclusively to his own website and his "our authors" profile on the website of his publisher with no evidence of any reliable source coverage about him in media being shown at all. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they can be nominally verified as existing by their own self-published web presence -- he has to have a credible claim to passing WP:AUTHOR, and the reliable source coverage to carry it, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 20:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of 3rd party coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karim Raafat[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY no appearances in professional league. Unable to find entries in regular sources Eagleash (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Govvy (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shut eye[edit]

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

Has been a stub for 4+ years. Talk page suggestion for merge has been ignored. RobP (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Shut Eye as a search term. 1 ref to a youtube video, a neologism. Szzuk (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'll add it to the Glossary of magic (illusion). Since the article itself says its a term illusionists use then it shouldn't be amiss there Nosebagbear (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presto. For the Great and Mysterious Wikipedia's next trick, it will make this page disappear. Not a magician's dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nosebagbear. Martinp (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Memon Abdul Ghafoor[edit]

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

The subject received some press coverage [4], [5] when he was appointed as chairman of the Sindhi Language Authority.. but i believe they are not enough to pass WP's notability requirement. Saqib (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ More than 4 refernces enough to prove notability and sources. Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 22:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note for closing admin: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#Possible_issues_at_AfD --Saqib (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the coverage from reliable sources is about him being appointed as chairman of sindhi language association. A possible case of WP:BIO1E. But the subject definitely fails notability criteria for academics, and WP:GNG as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. samee converse 20:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If his creative and academic work is published in Sindhi-language media, it may not show up on a web search. But see the information in his CV. Google Scholar lists several articles by an engineering professor with the same name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Does have some coverage. I'll go with weak delete here for now. M A A Z T A L K 21:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with Eastmain. He has accomplished quite a lot of research papers, its just that they aren't available online yet.

http://sindhila.edu.pk/profiles/DR%D9%80ABDUL%D9%80GHAFOOR%D9%80MEMON.pdf.
http://www.uok.edu.pk/faculties/sindhi/docs/gm.pdf

1. Philosophy of Knowledge in the poetry of Shah Latif . Kalachi (Research Journal) shah Latif chair University of Karachi.3/4, 2000. 2. Question of creation in Sindhi Literature, Kalachi (Research Journal) Shah Latif chair University of Karachi. 4/1,2 2001.3. Philosophy of Existentialism of Sindh and Modern Existentialism, Kalachi (Research Journal) Shah Latif Chair University of Karachi. 4/3,4 2001. 4. Philosophy of Life in the poetry of Shah Latif................................................... I'll make a change here from weak delete to weak keep. M A A Z T A L K 21:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here is an article about the launch of one of his books. Being chair of the Sindhi Language Authority may be recognition as a significant author and leading scholar in his field. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: None of the books or research work authored by the subject is notable enough to warrant an entry on WP. I don't think authors of books are something that would be expected to have an article on WP unless they meet GNG. Authors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for WP article is determined by criteria at WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK. Also the news piece you provided above is merely a press release with no byline. For what it's worth, only a couple of chairs of this org have their standalone bios so I assume this is some kind of bureaucratic post. --Saqib (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom. The Columbian Journalism Librarian (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aftab Pureval[edit]

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

Politicians are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:POLITICIAN.. this one clearly fails there because apparently the politician never elected to any state or national level parliament.. nor received in-depth coverage to pass GNG. Saqib (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note I am surprised to find out this is not the first AfD. The article was deleted last year via AfD but I am not sure it CSD's G4 apply ? --Saqib (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 18:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 18:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Puravel is an elected official with 800,000 constituents, which I believe qualifies him for an article by WP:POLITICIAN by the same virtues that qualify Mayor Jeff Williams (politician) (who is the Mayor of a city smaller than Puravel's constituency), former Mayor James W. Huston (who was the Mayor of Boise, Idaho for two years at a time when the entire state's population was only about 15,000 and accomplished nothing of note), or Minneapolis Ward 12 City Councilman Andrew Johnson (who is a member of city council with only about 30,000 constituents who has accomplished nothing of note). Even Chris Seelbach, a member of Cincinnati City Council, has an article despite having achieved nothing of note, and the city for which he is one of nice councilmembers is contained with the county that Pureval represents. WP:POLITICIAN establishes that American county officials should be held to the same standards as municipal officials. By this standard, Pureval clearly stands up on these merits alone. However, to satisfy this dispute, I have added some significant and nationally notable events to the page. He and his various political endeavors have received significant coverage. --Avidohioan (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia's notability criteria for politicians are not determined by the number of people who happen to live in the jurisdiction that the person happens to serve, but by the level of government at which the person serves. A county clerk of courts is not handed an automatic notability freebie just because the county happens to be larger than the population of a city whose mayor has an article or a municipal council ward whose councillor has one, because it's not an equivalent role. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in an AFD discussion, because sometimes that other stuff needs to be deleted too, and other times it's not actually equivalent for reasons the arguer isn't taking into account — specifically, mayors just have to be directly elected in cities of at least regional prominence, and city councillors have to serve in internationally prominent global cities — but for a county clerk, the only path into Wikipedia is to get over WP:GNG on the strength of nationalized coverage, expanding well beyond the purely local coverage that any county officer in any county could simply expect to routinely receive. A person also does not qualify for an article just for being an as yet unelected candidate in a future Congressional election, either — if you cannot demonstrate that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason besides the candidacy, then he has to win the Congressional election and thereby hold a seat in the House of Representatives, not just be a candidate, to collect notability on that basis. So no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the Congressional seat, but nothing here, neither the sourcing nor the substance, is enough to already get him an article today. If you want to write about not yet elected candidates in the 2018 midterms, then go to Ballotpedia — helping aspiring Congresspeople publicize their campaigns is not Wikipedia's role, and it is not going to become Wikipedia's role. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the clerk of a county's court is just plain not notable, no matter how large the county is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see immediate above.Roseohioresident (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only plausible case for inclusion is that he is a high-profile candidate for Congress who might meet GNG through coverage beyond the normal coverage of a candidate; the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts is clearly not a notable position. I don't see sufficient coverage outside of Cincinnati or politics sites for this to meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is likely to meet WP:GNG as a high-profile candidate in the very near future (which is why I have been maintaining a draft at User:IagoQnsi/sandbox/Aftab Pureval since the previous AfD). However, right now it is simply too soon. He has gotten a decent amount of coverage from reliable sources, but most of that coverage is not significant enough. Delete, but with the expectation that he may become more notable in the near future (i.e. so a recreation of this article might not be a WP:G4 speedy deletion candidate). –IagoQnsi (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just be aware that if you're continuing to try to make him notable just for being a candidate, rather than having to wait until he wins the seat before he's notable enough, then the bar you'll have to clear to make the article not speediable is extremely high. Like, Christine O'Donnell "got so internationally famous for not being a witch that eight years later I can still name her right off the top of my head faster than I can name the actual senator she lost to, because I'm Canadian and she was getting covered in our media up here" high. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Right, I figure it's pretty unlikely he meets GNG before the election, but that's only like half a year away; I figured that was soon enough to be worth noting. –IagoQnsi (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TNT, with no prejudice against someone re-creating this with better, not so fancrufty sources. I am also willing to userfy or email a copy on request. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undead (Discworld)[edit]

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

Contains only plot summary from the Discworld novels (WP:NOTPLOT). Such content belongs in fan wikis; Wikipedia treats fiction from a real-world perspective (WP:WAF). No indication that this particular topic (as opposed to the individual novels and the series) is notable per WP:GNG. Tagged for sources for 3 years without success. Sandstein 17:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a lot that needs working on in Discworld, and while opinions on how to best address this may vary, I'm entirely convinced that piecemeal deleting parts of 'meh' content is not the best way to approach upgrading our Discworld content to encyclopedic value. Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

- Keep [6], [7], [8], [9] (note that this is a book pointing to another journal article), [10]... and more. There are quite a lot more RS'es discussing Pratchett's use of the undead as social commentary on minority rights. Of course, the current article doesn't reference any of these, but it's clear that the topic itself is notable and that it can be improved through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, these are reliable sources, but I'm not sure that they amount to more than passing mentions. We could write perhaps a paragraph's worth of a proper article based on these sources, and that content would fit well in an existing Discworld article. That's not a reason not to delete this huge pile of in-universe fancruft, which is outside the scope of Wikipedia per WP:NOTPLOT. Sandstein 09:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to trim the article appropriately per WP:NOTPLOT, WP:WAF, or personal preference, and it would be a good thing if more people did actually improve articles on notable topics that currently stink. What's not appropriate is to delete an article on such a notable topic when regular editing, to include merging and redirection, would suffice to remedy the problem. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed. If the topic is notable (which I don't think this is), but the content is worthless, then it's best to delete and have somebody competent start over. Sandstein 09:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support your opinion with policy, please. WP:TNT is an essay; WP:ATD is policy. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ATD are possible alternatives to deletion. To implement them, somebody needs to be interested in actually doing the work - that is, deleting all the crufty plot summary and replacing it with well-sourced real-world-based content. I don't I see you doing that work. And I also don't think that we have enough sources to base a full article on. Sandstein 07:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't cited any policy for your opinion, merely explained how you interpret the deletion policy I cited in a way that isn't supported by the text of the policy. I would love to have time to fix all of Discworld, and Babylon 5, and Stargate, and every other fictional franchise that I've actually read or seen, yes. Failing that, I simply struggle to find time to argue against non-policy-based deletion attempts like this one. You could redirect it somewhere, but you don't, probably because... well, I don't know, redirecting it surely takes less time than debating me here, so why didn't you? :-) And even if you disagree that this should exist as a standalone article due to the sufficiency of the sources, there's still plenty of V content here, so no, it shouldn't be deleted just because you don't want to take the time to merge or redirect it appropriately. You are the one who decided the status quo was insufficient, so the burden of action is on you. Nothing prevents you from rolling your eyes, wishing someone would fix it, and moving along without doing anything. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TNT, the entire article is unsourced. Any information on the Undead that is notable, can later be added to the main universe article Discworld (world) where a section on them exists._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/retarget to be a more general page on races in Discworld (maybe Sentient races in Discworld), and move the character descriptions to Discworld characters. The article isn't sure whether all the races described are undead, and neither am I. I wouldn't object to a TNT deletion; the article is entirely unsourced and written with a far too in-universe POV. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT. Actually, I'm not sure TNT is effective against undead. Normally you need something like a silver-tipped crossbow bolt, or prolonged exposure to sunlight, but WP:TNT is the weapon we have available, so it'll have to make do. Reading over the page, I don't see how any amount of fixing will make it into an encyclopedia article. It's been tagged for improvement for ten years, so I don't think anybody could accuse us of being hasty if we deleted it now, with no prejudice against somebody writing a new version from scratch. I'd be happy to userfy it, if somebody wants to use that to assist in writing a new version. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT article is unsourced in universe fancruft. PhilKnight (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will consider the 3 pages that were added after the fact as soft delete J04n(talk page) 18:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Social Distortion 2010 Tour[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCONCERT and WP:SIGCOV. Barely any coverage outside routine gig news. Nothing of wayback machine. I thought there would be more. scope_creep (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR that has been tagged as being unreferenced for almost five years. Aspects (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the above, fails WP:CONCERT TOUR. Marquardtika (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Folks, Would it be worth adding Social Distortion Summer Tour 2013, Social Distortion Fall 2012 Tour and Social Distortion Winter 2012 Tour. I wanted to determine if they were worth keeping, based on this vote. The three of them dont have much in the way of coverage, and no secondary sources. There is nothing on the wayback machine. There is a single mention in the 2013 tour in Rolling Stone, but not much apart from that. scope_creep (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think a WP:MULTIAFD would be a good idea here. Marquardtika (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Folks, Please consider the following page that I have nomintated:

There is barely any secondary coverage. The Rolling Stone article may be a start. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Note I replied above, but this is about the three tours added later) Delete Summer: Non-notable concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR that has been tagged as being unreferenced for two and a half years. Fall: Non-notable concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR. The first two references are to Social Distortion's website that produce error 404s. The other two references are general pre-tour release of dates that do not show the tour is notable. Winter: Non-notable concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR that has been tagged as being unreferenced for five years. Aspects (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting only to give the additionally nominated pages a full seven days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Zachery Scott[edit]

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

Non-notable YouTube personality with few appearances of note and a rather small fanbase of only a few thousand subscribers. Chimneyrock (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - the most notable source in this article isn't really about him - but his condition. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Shopov[edit]

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

Non notable TV person with no WP:RS. Promotional autobiography. Per his own bio site, just a Stage Manager and Assistant Director. [11]. Apparently, this has been at AfD once, where it was very quickly closed on procedural grounds because the Nom was a Sock. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikolay Shopov, though Kierzek agreed at that time that it should be deleted. Theredproject (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as stand alone article; same as before, he does not have any substantial RS coverage; not notable subject at this time. Kierzek (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are no refs in the article and google isn't showing any reliable sources. Szzuk (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jamison Ernest[edit]

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

Very few substantive WP:RS that don't establish WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST for this vanispam Autobiography. All the references are either press release promo junk, or very passing mentions in society columns. The best I could find was this from the NYPost [12]. Many of the claims are misleading at best, if not downright untruths: e.g the paragraph full of claims of equal collaboration with Vito Schnabel but the best I could verify here was that they are friends, and Schnabel has been photographed at Ernest's events twice [13]. None of the reviews mention Ernest at all. A ton of bad faith name-dropping here and a lot of mentions of working with (e.g for) other famous people, but not in ways that would rise to the kind of collaboration to satisfy WP:ARTIST(3). Theredproject (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are so many refs I don't have time to go through them, I opened a few at random and they concur with the nom. Needs some TNT and it could come back sensibly at a later time if anyone is interested enough. I'm not immune from changing my vote if someone wants to highlight good refs. Szzuk (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something like "deletion is justified in cases of extreme vanity-directed editing that cannot be repaired by TNT" would be very useful to add to the deletion criteria. Might be notable but vanity effort obscures facts.104.163.140.141 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explorer 27[edit]

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

Not sure if this is a test page or what. But this is not more notable then any of the other probes. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC) Hi! I was working on this yesterday but had to log off. will work on it more today. Jspace727 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep. Notable mission, but needs serious improvement, including citations and fixing the bogus chunks. There are specific details in BE-C, from the list of explorer missions: NASA Explorer missions. I don't have time today, but it nobody else gets to it by this weekend, I'll add the stuff from NASA. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most satellites are notable, and there is information to support GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article passes GNG, though needs work. Kees08 (Talk) 10:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Power of Repair Management Method DPRMM[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. Google search does not yield any meaningful results. Article created by a COI editor. Very poorly written, unencyclopedic. J. M. (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the essay. samee converse 20:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DO not delete the essay, 1) I am not COI, and take offence that you slur me with this definition. 2) DPRMM is a new subject area that is being used in 1,000's of companies globally and just like anything new has emerged and is now surfacing. Would you delete Kaizen or Kanban on the first week it was introduced? Just because a subject is new does not mean it is not meaningful. I believe that the editors that want to delete the subject have no actual background in reliability engineering. the article is not related to any company, it is a product of research and was tested in three global sites. The subject is a proven method of reliability management, it has a sound mathematical model base and relies on a lot of academically proven sources. If the reason for deletion is that it is written in a style that some find hard to read, then we can edit it. If the article does not elicit thousands of Google pages, then give it time, all new models have to start somewhere. Kanban, Kaizen, etc... al started out, imagine if we would deny Kanban if it were only published today. I respectfully ask you cancel the deletion, and allow this article to remain . If you think the same thing in one month, and if the article has not got enough google referencing by then, I will not contest your request.Gina Kano (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC).Gina Kano (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, yes, you are a COI editor, as you have been spamming Wikipedia with promotional articles and advertisements. Second, when you say that this topic is new and not covered anywhere, you admit that the topic is not notable and the article should be deleted.—J. M. (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gina Kano: If a topic is 'new and not covered anywhere', it'd constitute original research. samee converse 23:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First: I did not spam Wikipedia I was testing out my sandbox page for the first time and did not know the rules of publishing. I accepted the deletion and even commended the editor that deleted it since the actual page was not meant to be added. The second page was deleted since it was a copy of the first and I had not yet fully grasped the way Wikipedia was used. So, in terms of "spamming" incorrect and a lie, since I only had my one and first article published and deleted, and rightly so. Regarding COI, the editor that psoted this accepted that I had no COI, and as such that is the end of the issue. Please explain COI in relations to a method of reliability engineering? This is not company or a product, this is a research method used in industry. You might as well state that the publisher of Six Sigma is also COI. Second this subject is notable, the very fact that YOU decided it is not notable is not sufficient, are you a reliability engineer? An operations research scientist? Just because you are ignorant of the subject area does not make it irrelevant to Wikipedia. Gina Kano (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor did not accept anything like that. That's just wishful thinking. Anyway, let's stop this discussion, as it's off-topic here.—J. M. (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not least based on uploader's own admission that it is WP:TOOSOON, but also because if this topic becomes notable this wall of text would be of little use in constructing an article. We should be sure to catch all the links to this article added and delete those too. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Raine Maida#Solo work. Mz7 (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We All Get Lighter[edit]

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

An article for this album was deleted in 2010 as a WP:CRYSTAL violation. It was finally released in 2013 but has received no significant coverage in reliable sources. There is no album review at AllMusic and beyond basic listings of its existence, I can only find one minor blog [14] in which the album is briefly mentioned. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raine Maida#Solo work, where its currently already mentioned. The WP:GNG isn't met, but it's a viable search term, and its probably possible to find a source to prove its existence at least. Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Raine Maida#Solo work per Sergecross73 - Obviously fails NALBUM & GNG however this is a valid search term so see no harm in redirecting. –Davey2010^Talk 15:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carmine Goglia[edit]

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

No WP:RS to establish Notability under GNG or CREATIVE. Notability flags have been there since 2008. This is the best I could find [15]. It seems his claim to fame(?) is that he paints versions of the hollywood walk of fame stars...? [16] [17]. Theredproject (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete far below the level of indepdent 3rd-party secondary reliable sources we would need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total absence of reliable sources in article and in search. This is a minor set painter. It's amazing it took ten years for this to come to AfD.104.163.158.37 (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd[edit]

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

Appears to be an essay not supported (just one dubious reference about behaviour) ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 14:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our articles are supposed to be essays, i.e. "A composition of moderate length on any particular subject" (OED) This one started in 2004, over 13 years ago, and so has grown by accretion per our editing policy. What it needs is improvement, not deletion, and AfD is not cleanup. Note that there's no shortage of sources for the topic, such as The Crowd, which is so notable that it has its own article. Andrew D. (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whatever cleanup is needed, the concept of a "crowd" is obviously an encyclopedic topic (which, by the way, is not the same thing as an essay topic – see WP:NOTESSAY). I want to note that this AfD was listed at the Article Rescue Squad. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTESSAY refers to "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic". It does not refer to the essay format in general as that means a piece of prose about a topic – exactly what we expect of an article. Andrew D. (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had understood the nomination to mean it in the sense of a personal essay. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that the nominator's argument is the usual complaint that there aren't many sources. Instead of looking for sources per WP:BEFORE, they bring it here with a WP:VAGUEWAVE to an irrelevant policy. Andrew D. (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per above arguments. samee converse 20:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Join the you-know-what. Among other things, it'd be absurd to have Crowd psychology, Crowd control, Wisdom of the crowd, etc. without their parent article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A WP:BEFORE search in Gbooks alone indicates that GNG is met. Some source examples: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], etc. AfD is not cleanup. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Wanis[edit]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Wanis Autobiography of a non-notable person. Full of Promotional cruft and vanispam, almost exclusively contributed by three redlinked SPAs, who sometimes have their edits fully reverted, and other times only partially. The talk page discussion of the problems goes back to 2008 when DGG undeleted it (from a PROD?), despite feeling that it would then go to AfD and be deleted. It apparently did not, until now. In 2009 Theserialcomma also commented it should be deleted, and last year Nwyant agreed on the talk page, so there is consensus on talk page to bring it here. As was noted on the talk page about "the educational credentials mentioned in the article. It claims Wanis has "degrees" from W.I.C.S. in Pennsylvania and a PhD A.M. from the "Open International University for Alternative Medicine." W.I.C.S. turns out to be the World Institute for Cognitive Sciences, a storefront in a small shopping center in Lancaster, PA. It does not award degrees. The "PhD AM" traces to a distance learning course offered by the Indian Board of Alternative Medicines, registered by the Government of West Bengal, Calcutta, India. Total fees are US$850 and the only requirement for the degree is submission of a thesis of at least 300 pages on any subject in alternative medicine." Theredproject (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In 2008 I deleted it as G11; I restored it on the basis of a statement by the ed. that it was still unfinished. (At the time Draft namespace had not yet been created). I apologize for not following up adequately: since then, it's gotten much worse. The so-callled "books"are not even in Worldcat. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a Google search uncovers no biographical coverage. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (see esp. discussion on second keep vote - nominator withdrawal) (non-admin closure) Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 01:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Garson[edit]

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

Not finding any WP:RS to establish notability for WP:NAUTHOR. And there isn't much of anything at his own bio site to help with that [24]. The page claims that there were favorable reviews for his book in the NYPost and Chicago Tribune, but I couldn't find them. Even if so, it seems like the book itself has a better claim to notability than the author. Right now the best we have are some very local Palm Beach 'hometown boy' kind of articles. Theredproject (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not establish notability.104.163.158.37 (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 13:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable per this page. Rzvas (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging DGG, Vexations for their independent experienced opinion. Does this book linked above Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature, A Checklist, 1700-1974, Volume Two of Two, contains Contemporary Science Fiction Authors II. which was publised by Wildside Press a Print on Demand publisher which has published over 10,000 books since 1989, constitute the kind of source which automatically establishes notability? Theredproject (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have argued in the past that, generally speaking, we ought have an article if another encyclopedic work has one. WP:NBIO says that someone is likely to be notable if "The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." It depends on whether you think Reginald, R. (September 2010). Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature. Wildside Press LLC. ISBN 9780941028776. is a biographical dictionary that is sufficiently similar to the Dictionary of National Biography. One thing I often do is look at how many times a source has been used in other articles. A quick search for "Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature R. Reginald" finds 54 matches. That's an indication that there is consensus that it's decent source. As to whether that source establishes notability, I don't think so, because there is no critical analysis, just factoids, and I see only two working citations on the page that don't provide significant coverage either. I struggled to find independent sources on Garson, but mostly because he appears to have written a lot of about himself. One way to answer the question of notability is to ask if the sources provide enough material to build a comprehensive article. Does "Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature" do that? No, not by itself. Vexations (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Vexation. An additional encyclopedic work useful for this purpose is Gale's Contemporary Authors available online at major public libraries as Literature Reference Center. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to Gale's Biography In Context via the Wikipedia library. They source Contemporary Authors Online. 2007. This link may not work for everyone, but they have this It looks to be enough for at least a stub or a start-class article. Vexations (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, Vexations ok, so it sounds like consensus is that Gale's Authors constitutes a golden ticket to notability. I am going to wait roughtly 24 hours (to give you a chance to respond in case I'm misunderstanding you all) and then withdraw the nomination per [25]. Theredproject (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If 104.163.158.37 agrees, I think that can work. Nominator withdrawal says that you can, if all other viewpoints expressed were for Keep and doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion. I suspect that IP would have agreed had they known about the Biography In Context source. Otherwise I'd just let an uninvolved admin close it. Vexations (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Promo, non-notable, previously deleted via AFD Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subhan bakery[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:NOTADVERTISING - see creator comments on talk page Lyndaship (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Blatant advertising, despite some potential references Nosebagbear (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Situation Query - @Lyndaship: - this entry has disappeared, seemingly just after I made my previous post. Has it been speedily closed? In which case, why hasn't the template here been closed - presumably whichever admin decided CSD was in place should have shut down the AfD? Nosebagbear (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know why but the article was deleted by jimfbleak Lyndaship (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Akaro Mainoma[edit]

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

The only one news source is possibly a press release. Not sure whether it can be covered under WP:NPROF. Diptanshu 💬 11:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created as a part of an editathon where a number of articles were created on Nigerian academics (who were all Vice Chancellors, or alike, of various univerisities). In such a case I would like to withdraw my submission for consideration of deletion. Diptanshu 💬 16:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Won-G[edit]

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

I nominated this article for CSD A7 and G11, while A7 may not may clearly applicable, G11 was clearly applicable considering the amount of paid editing done on this article.

Anyway with only three sources remaining on the article, there is hardly any evidence that the person is notable. After being trimmed by many experienced editors who removed bulk loads of PR sources, what is left of this article is not even near to what should be present on wikipedia. The article has no sources, as checked by Ronz before me and I checked further to it not able to find any reliable source.

The article should be deleted for clear cut lack of notability, attempt to selfpromote the person and ToS violations. I also think the purpose of this article was simply to gain SEO ranking or advertise one self. Drewziii (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator of this AFD discussion, I suggest this article be deleted for lack of notability, promotion. --Drewziii (talk) 11:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep meets WP:NMUSIC criteria 2, by "His song "Nothing Wrong" reached No. 26 on the Billboard Hot 100", verified appropriately to Billboard, which was a reliable source last time I checked. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per Ritchie333. I will also note that "Put It Inside" charted per Billboard as well for extra WP:NMUSIC goodness. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Also per Ritchie333. London Hall (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dream Team (TV series). J04n(talk page) 18:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Sullivan (Dream Team)[edit]

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

Govvy nominated this article for PROD, but I think PROD is improper. His reason is:Fictional character that fails WP:GNG. Thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:FICT, there are no special criteria to assess the notability of fictional characters. (I believe there should be.) So, all we have to assess this by is WP:GNG. The subject fails it. -The Gnome (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't see anything wrong with my reason for PROD, I can't see people searching directly for these fantasy football player will be much, if the name is mentioned on the main article then this page isn't needed. Govvy (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fictional character failing GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dream Team (TV series) per previous AFD consensus, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Fletcher. Giant Snowman 16:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, also per this afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Porter (2nd nomination) Szzuk (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Dream Team (TV series) per the previous consensus that the other "merge" !voters mentioned. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dream Team (TV series). J04n(talk page) 18:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Stone (Dream Team)[edit]

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

Govvy nominated this article for PROD, but I think PROD is improper. His reason is:Fictional character that fails WP:GNG. Thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:FICT, there are no special criteria to assess the notability of fictional characters. (I believe there should be.) So, all we have to assess this by is WP:GNG. The subject fails it. -The Gnome (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't see anything wrong with my reason for PROD, I can't see people searching directly for these fantasy football player will be much, if the name is mentioned on the main article then this page isn't needed. Govvy (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fictional character failing GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dream Team (TV series) per previous AFD consensus, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Fletcher. Giant Snowman 16:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Dream Team (TV series) per the previous consensus that GiantSnowman mentioned, although I wouldn't lose any sleep if the article was deleted. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Szzuk (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dream Team (TV series). J04n(talk page) 18:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casper Rose[edit]

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

Govvy nominated this article for PROD, but I think PROD is improper. His reason is:Fictional character that fails WP:GNG. Thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:FICT, there are no special criteria to assess the notability of fictional characters. (I believe there should be.) So, all we have to assess this by is WP:GNG. The subject fails it. -The Gnome (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't see anything wrong with my reason for PROD, I can't see people searching directly for these fantasy football player will be much, if the name is mentioned on the main article then this page isn't needed. Govvy (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fictional character failing GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dream Team (TV series) per previous AFD consensus, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Fletcher. Giant Snowman 16:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Dream Team (TV series) per the previous consensus that GiantSnowman mentioned, although I wouldn't lose any sleep if the article was deleted. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Szzuk (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dream Team (TV series). J04n(talk page) 18:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Richards[edit]

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

Govvy nominated this article for PROD, but I think PROD is improper. His reason is:Fictional character that fails WP:GNG. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:FICT, there are no special criteria to assess the notability of fictional characters. (I believe there should be.) So, all we have to assess this by is WP:GNG. The subject fails it. -The Gnome (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't see anything wrong with my reason for PROD, I can't see people searching directly for these fantasy football player will be much, if the name is mentioned on the main article then this page isn't needed. Govvy (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fictional character failing GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dream Team (TV series) per previous AFD consensus, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Fletcher. Giant Snowman 16:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Dream Team (TV series) per the previous consensus that GiantSnowman mentioned, although I wouldn't lose any sleep if the article was deleted. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dream Team (TV series). J04n(talk page) 18:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Presley[edit]

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

Govvy nominated this article for PROD, but I think PROD is improper. His reason is:Fictional character that fails WP:GNG. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:FICT, there are no special criteria to assess the notability of fictional characters. (I believe there should be.) So, all we have to assess this by is WP:GNG. The subject fails it. -The Gnome (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't see anything wrong with my reason for PROD, I can't see people searching directly for these fantasy football player will be much, if the name is mentioned on the main article then this page isn't needed. Govvy (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fictional character failing GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dream Team (TV series) per previous AFD consensus, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Fletcher. Giant Snowman 16:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Dream Team (TV series) per the previous consensus that GiantSnowman mentioned. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jay James (singer)[edit]

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

I can't see any notability, other than being a finalist, but didnt reach the final in the X-Factor, Nightfury 10:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of his agent jumping the gun, but mainly for not meeting WP:ARTIST. -The Gnome (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per TOOSOON - Not seeing any evidence of notability either, Fails ARTIST & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Relisted twice with requests for policy-based arguments. None being forthcoming, it does not appear that consensus is forming. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK top 10 albums in 2018[edit]

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

The Lists of UK Albums Chart number ones are very complete and through, so I don't think if there is a need for lists of every album that reached 2-10 or 2-5 (why not top 20 or 40 or 100?) There's also a lot more turnover on an albums chart vs. a singles chart and much less coverage in reliable sources vs. songs on peak chart positions (number one being an exception). A comparable AfD was made in January at Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/List of Billboard 200 top 10 albums in 2013. The amount of information jammed into these also meets WP:IINFO. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Noms argument appears to be idontlikeit. There is no agreement at Listn on inclusion for this type of list, if the article creator wants to write it then I'm happy for them to do so. Szzuk (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Bit confused myself now...~~ Szzuk (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strike own comment, my confusion was cleared up in the discussion below. Szzuk (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it puzzling, what exactly is the rationale for a list of top 5 (rather than top 3, 12, 20, or whatever number)? If it is something randomly chosen by the editor rather than something that has any significance, then I would vote for delete, but I would like to hear an explanation first. Note that per WP:LISTN One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, are there sources for a top 5 UK list? Hzh (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my note at the bottom, there was only a top 5 until November 1958. 03 md 14:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is my concern. At what point does it become WP:IINFO to list every albums's chart run/peak position in the top 10 or top 40. For individual articles for albums, you only list the peak positions of chart performance, more than that it is WP:CHARTTRAJ. Shouldn't that apply for these, too? (For example, what does it mean that an album debuted and peaked in 2016 without any reference to 2018, yet there it is in the list of UK top 10 albums in 2018. Even lists of number two songs have been deleted as extraneous (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Hot 100 number-two singles of 2015), but 2-10 lists are OK? Also, when used in album articles, at least the chart provider is a reliable independent source, but for these lists, they are the primary source without any other independent coverage of the topic (even less so for albums than songs), which makes "top ten" just an arbitrary number. Might as well make a list of every album that ever reached the chart. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i would argue that there is a difference with top 10 (as oppose to top 5) because many publications give weekly top 10 albums (e.g. Music Week in the UK). Top 5 however appears to be arbitrary. Hzh (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Their website (http://www.musicweek.com/charts) shows top 5 and links to a 75-position chart. They also show a UK Radio and TV airplay charts. I don't think there should be top 5 lists for each chart on this page just because it's in Music Week. Perhaps there should be no top 10 lists of this sort for anything other than primary album/song charts?

Keep all. For the reasons given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2004 (2nd nomination). Narky Blert (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. As the article creator, I believe they are worthy of inclusion, and plan to develop them like the top 10 singles articles which are in good shape and quite thorough imo. Regarding top 5/top 10, until November 1958 there was only an official top 5 published, hence it changing to a top 10 after that. We have the same thing with the singles chart - 1952 to October 1954 there was only a top 12 and this was expanded to top 20, which has been explained on those pages in the notes section. When I get to 1958 I will do similar with the album chart. 03 md 14:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based arguments are too thin on ground for consensus here. Please can arguments be made in terms of policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Ohri[edit]

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

The article seems to be an attempt at personal branding. Neither of the person's works is substantial enough to merit an article. Decisionstats is a run-of-the-mill blog with feeble engagement. The books are mostly niche and technical; nothing groundbreaking. A simple Google search turns little more than a few related results for the person. Shubhamjain1 (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retain a writer with three published books (2 in Springer 1 by Wiley). One book translated in Chinese. The not so notable blogger hs ~ 1 million views as on site. Article has been on Wikipedia since two years. Deletion attempt seems more like personal vendetta and targeting (see User Shubhamjain1 does not have a page anymore).

Is there any false statement on it? Notability for article has been achieved by writing books as well as articles and interviews

Writer has been featured in Wired Magazine as well as ReadWrite magazine. In addition he has been featured in KDNuggets as one of the five data scientists for " A Day in the life of a data scientist."

Judging by proposed criterion for deletion all scientists would be considered to have written niche and technical books.

3 books in data science and mentioned in wired magazine, read write magazine, and kdnuggets. by repeatedly pointing out the blog, its obscuring the fact the author has been mentioned in magazines and written books. otherwise all data scientists would be non notable.

This is a clear personal attack by Shubham Jain for making sure business activities contribute to deletion rival blog. Shubham what have you contributed to wikipedia apart for this - that proves its a personal attack not one by honest editor.

Why the haste to put article for deletion tag and then delete page by ShubhamJain1?iwannacrib (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are far more interested in personal attacks than presenting evidence for your defense. The person in the Google search isn't me and I don't have any association (of adversary or otherwise) with the person mentioned in the article. To answer your arguments: no, writing few technical books isn't enough criterion to merit an article. If that were the case, there would be an article for every O'Reilly author. Secondly, there are hardly any comments on the Decisionstats blog, or any press mentions, or any groundbreaking posts. All three are a close proxy for notability. If such low recognition is enough to warrant an article, Wikipedia would be inundated with hundreds of thousands of them.

My account is pretty old, but I don't use it very often. Again, if you think you're being unfairly targetted, you're better-off presenting valid criteria for notability which conforms to Wiki Guidelines than ad-hominems. Shubham Jain (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lets do this analytically. Let the editors with seniority see other activity by me and Shubham Jain, including logins, ip addresses, contributions and see who is fake , or targeting attack.

Book 1 - translated kin chinese 83,800 downloads of chapters http://www.bookmetrix.com/detail/book/4745085a-286a-4093-8b44-a2f50d800243#downloads

Book 2 - 30000 chapter downloads http://www.bookmetrix.com/detail/book/76ceb105-2e40-4a23-96cc-37d893063817#downloads

Book 2 review in Journal https://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v066b04/v66b04.pdf

~iwannacrib~

perhaps my fault was not putting the right links for highlighting. iwannacrib (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.114.102 (talk) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retain page for necessary and sufficient notability

1) Writer has written two books for Springer (a notable publisher) and one of the books is translated in Chinese

2) Writer has written one book for Wiley (a notable publisher)

3) Writer has written dozens of articles for Programmable Web (notable website) at https://www.programmableweb.com/profile/ajayohri

4) Writer has been interviewed in " A Day in the life of a data scientist" by KD Nuggets (Notable web site)

5) Writer has been mentioned both by Wired Magazine and ReadWriteWeb (notable websites)

6) Additional notable writings have been mentioned with proper links in articles

Wikipedia has clear issues of notability. This author in data scientist meets it. This article enhances Wikipedia rather than diminishes it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwannacrib (talk • contribs) 11:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to dispute the rules of Wikipedia about the notability criteria for biographies, you are free to do so at the appropriate forum. In fact, I'd encourage you to do so. Until the rules change, we abide by them. It's actually quite simple.

In the meantime, you accused a fellow Wikipedia contributor of something extremely serious: That he's engaging in a "personal vendetta" against you for financial gain. Do you have something tangible to back up such an accusation, or would you prefer to withdraw it, apologize, and focus on the article? I'd strongly suggest you follow the second path. Take care. -The Gnome (talk)

A google and linkedin search for Shubham Jain finds a blogger for another Indian blog analyticsvidhya.com . That was the basis. Since we live in a fog of who is who and who is anonymous- that was the rationale. Yes Wikipedia has self promoted articles. You have to be fair to each tech writer here. Otherwise people who create wiki pages will be discouraged and the spam page creators would have won Iwannacrib (talk

20:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Comments by hitherto uninvolved editors would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far, I see nothing in the sources that establishes independent notability. I see the subject of the article writing in blogs and interviewing various people, in specialist websites or blogs. Some sources do not even mention the subject, e.g. here. The only mention in a significant source is a single one in Wired, here. Also, there's a self-published book of poetry. It seems it fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCIENTIST. What am I missing? -The Gnome (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are three scientific books written by writer. Both publishers are notable (Springer and Wiley) and the number of chapter downloads in Springer books (links and reviews 85000 downloads of chapters of book 1 and reviews https://www.springer.com/in/book/9781461443421#reviews while book2 is here 30000+ chapter downloads https://www.springer.com/in/book/9781493917013#reviews ) show some notability. Two more notable mentions - ReadWriteWeb https://readwrite.com/2011/06/01/an-app-store-for-algorithms/ and KDNuggets https://www.kdnuggets.com/2017/11/day-life-data-scientist.html

Actually 4 poetry books but they have not been listed as notable https://www.amazon.in/Books-Ajay-Ohri/ Please consider the whole facts and retain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwannacrib (talk • contribs) 05:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BEFORE and 'after' (i.e. this discussion) bring nothing to show independent notability even per WP:GNG. And promotional stuff abounds. -The Gnome (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are a few Google hits about his book on R (programming language), but nothing really about him. Fails WP:GNG
Weak Delete Only 1 reliable source in the article and none in the first two google pages, so might fail WP:GNG. ^{[Username Needed]} 12:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would recommend someone who has data science knowledge to judge here with serious prior wiki editing credntials Iwannacrib (talk

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Majeed (bodybuilder)[edit]

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

Won some local competitions and a hallowed name of Mr. Pakistan at South Asian Bodybuilding Championship, which is equally non-notable.Not even professionally recognized.Most of sources are spammy. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete holds non-notable titles Mr. Karachi, Mr. Sindh.. Subject is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia just because he received some passing press mentions. Some of the news pieces cited in this BLP does not even mention the subject. IMO, we should not use IMAGES as a source on our BLPs because they are more like tabloid journalism. --Saqib (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ there are more than one reliable sources within the article.Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 21:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you run some sort of bot, which generates a strong keep or keep or delete !vote, based on the cardinality of the set of references existent in the article and on the number of G-Hits, retrieved by the subject, before you get topic-banned?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - How could you justify your such comments 'to run a bot which generates vote'?, and what are proofs of allegations for which you saying topic ban. Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 07:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Week Keep~~, he is Mr. Pakistan, which is highest level of Bodybuilding competition held in Pakistan. Mr. Pakistan itself gets coverage [26], [27]. So, Mr Pakistan is significant event. He is profiled in [28] and [29]. So reliability is not an issue. --Spasage (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not cite coverage by IMAGES to establish the notability on AfDs. And by the way, that is not in-depth coverage. --Saqib (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images is magazine published by Dawn Media group. It is credible and reliable. He was featured under Celebrity section. --Spasage (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are wrong. Images is not a magazine. It was used to be but no longer. Now it's more like a tabloid website doing some yellow journalism and clickbait. See here the quality of work Image producing. Fyi, EOS and ICON has replaced Images as Dawn's in paper magazine now, early last yr. --Saqib (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we drop this reference, what about other one.--Spasage (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we need at-least 2 solid references to ascertain the N. --Saqib (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are two reference. One you deem less solid. --Spasage (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#Possible_issues_at_AfD . --Saqib (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While it may be possible to close this based on the present discussion, I would prefer to see more discussion about whether the titles in question confer notability by themselves.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete winning non-notable competitions does not impart notability and lacks in-depth, non-trivial support. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gunpal community[edit]

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

No sources to show that such a group exists. Article created by the self-proclaimed "community leader" who even added his ~~phone number and~~ personal email address. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - multiple grounds, WP:GNG, seemingly WP:BIO, a degree of advertising, failure to reference. I'm not quite sure whether they mean just a general community of people or if they are a family/group business etc. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Paukovich[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unheralded journeyman in the mid-minors, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject can meet WP:GNG. Ravenswing 20:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jay T. Wright[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmmaker. Could not find any RS about him. Natg 19 (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not meeting WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that GNG is met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ori Naftaly[edit]

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

fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG nothing of interest found in a WP:BEFORE search. The sources are too weak. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs work, but references do indicate notability. After pruning for advertising hype, I think it's OK.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep or Redirect to Southern Avenue (band). Not entirely convinced of stand alone notability. There are indeed references to his own band but they are very weak/small time. It's kind of right on the edge of notability because at least the sources are third party and non-promotional. If better ones can turn up I'll change to keep but my search finds most of his coverage/accomplishments have been as a member of Southern Avenue. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lacking independent notability and failing WP:ARTIST; otherwise, merge as above. -The Gnome (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while most of the hits on searches turn up him being mentioned in association with the band, several of them are enough to qualify as non-trivial mentions, such as this Fox News piece, this piece in the Jewish Exponent, an article in the Charleston Gazette-Mail, this one in the South Bend Tribune. Not to mention The Daily Times piece already in the article. And those articles were simply on the first page of the search. Far and away passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Onel5969, and since several of those sources -- which are about him individually -- emphasize the Ori Naftaly Band, not Southern Avenue, he has (possibly narrowly, but neverless cleanly) passed the bar to have an individual article, not just be redirected as per ShelbyMarion. Martinp (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Milar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR - no significant role in any production. Creator of article has similar name to subject and COI tag removed by IP address with no edit history Lyndaship (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked the bluelinks in the article, and turned most of them red. I can see no significant contributions in his IMDb record. A search turned up several social sites, but no third-party coverage. Fails WP:NACTOR. (NB the edit summary by article creator reads, "My own biography".) Narky Blert (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshya Raj Anand[edit]

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

So as per IMDb, Subject has assisted in some notable Indian movies and has directed some non-notable series for which he has received some press coverage (namechecking) but I am unable to locate coverage which discusses him directly and in detail thus he fails GNG IMO. I believe director/producers don't get an automatic free pass over BIO unless they meet GNG or at minimum WP:AUTHOR. The article claim he has acted as well but I'm afraid he fails WP:NACTOR as well. Saqib (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. -The Gnome (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G7 by author blanking text. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kiana Katherina de Rothschild[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet GNG at all and even lacks trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful, unfortunately. Saqib (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this topic meets the general notability guidelines 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Toews[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed that he fails WP:NHOCKEY, but WP:GNG supersedes that and it was plainly shown at the last AfD of this article that he meets GNG. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the claim that Toews passes GNG is passed on a flaed understanding of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps flaed, but the arguments of the last AFD are persuasive enough. In particular this from the winnipeg free press, and this from USA today. The USA today article could be seen as routine coverage of a player opting to sign, however national american coverage of a guy choosing to go to college is very unusual and therefore, I believe, notable.18abruce (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG was completely shown to be met on the last Afd so failing NHOCKEY doesn't matter. -DJSasso (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, which trumps WP:NHOCKEY, as was brought out in the first AfD. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geordie Wudrick[edit]

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Quailer[edit]

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a long list of articles on non-notable hockey players born in 1989.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Missiaen[edit]

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prab Rai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete part of a huge glut of articles on non-notable hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and salt – Non-notable hockey player, no evidence he meets the GNG, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Created by an editor with a history of dubious hockey-related article creations, and with a recent spate of creating bad articles that have been deleted, but repeatedly created. AaronWikia (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve White (producer)[edit]

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

Sourced only to IMDb for more than a decade, I posit that the subject fails WP:NFILMMAKER as being a producer on Live Nude Girls and Amityville Dollhouse with thin sourcing like this seems a stretch for what that criterion requires. This article as well as mere mentions here, here, and here don't make out WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Most everything you can find about the subject comes from stuff like Imdb, LinkedIn, and other Wikipedia mirrors that fail WP:SPS. "Steve White" isn't exactly an uncommon name, so there were lots of false positives, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete It is way past time IMDb was made a banned link so people could not add it to Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia is not meant to be a mirror of IMDb, but too many pages have thrived for years with just a link to IMDB, and nominations for prod deletion of such articles are routinely turned down because the person appeared in lots of films, even if none of their roles were significant. Also we have gone too far in accepting basically every film made in Hollywood prior to 1960 as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joël Champagne[edit]

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryley Grantham[edit]

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Young (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable ice hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Sébastien Bérubé[edit]

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ernesto[edit]

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

No significant, in-depth coverage of this individual in reliable, secondary sources. A non-notable local activist. Even a search of his local hometown paper (the Tampa Bay Times) shows only two results: a passing mention in an article on a protest rally, and a brief "letter to the editor" by Ernesto himself. Neutrality^talk 04:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article is about a local activist who campaigns against war etc. the refs are primary, 404 or link to local press describing demonstrations of 20-40 people, google showing much the same, created by a spa. Szzuk (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for delete were brought outside of the nominators. Consensus is that GNG is met, although this is not a strong consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

South East Football Netball League[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The only independent sources I found were local coverage and this book. WP:NAFL doesn't apply as SEFNL is a separate, regional league and not the top-tier competition. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NAFL is for the notability of players, not for regional competitions. Being familiar with the standard of coverage for local district footy leagues (not a ton I can find online, but for instance: [30] [31] [32] [33]) I'm also not sure if someone's tried to delete a district footy league before? SportingFlyer talk 03:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The SEFNL is centered in one of the fastest growing areas in suburban Melbourne. As new familys move into the area Wikipedia pages like this one would help them feel more settled in their new environment. Purrum (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Purrum: Hi. I'm sorry. You're not new here. Have you ever read WP:N? You created the article in question but did you ever consider notability and sourcing? Chris Troutman (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More sources. This AfD is fascinating to me since there's very good coverage of these leagues locally, and there's not much that differentiates this district league from other suburban district leagues in terms of media coverage. Other district leagues have been kept or merged (and only merged with defunct), and the only Aussie Rules league that has been AfD'd so far that I can tell was a junior league which was speedy deleted for copyright violations! I think this gets past WP:GNG as again Aussie Rules district leagues receive a good amount of local coverage due to the fact the leagues tend to be culturally important to the area, not unlike the many English football league articles we keep at the lower levels of that pyramid. If it doesn't, it should be merged, not deleted outright. Let me see if I can find a good merge candidate. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] SportingFlyer talk 06:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missed a source - from Mildura! [39] SportingFlyer talk 07:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've noticed stuff like that (I mentioned specific local coverage in my nomination). WP:SPORTCRIT says primary sources aren't enough for notability. I don't think local coverage is enough for general notability, either. Please see WP:MILL. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the sources I've posted are primary - they're all newspaper articles on the league. There is also no "local coverage doesn't count" requirement for general notability. Furthermore, I strongly disagree with the WP:MILL assessment here. This is at the highest level of grassroots footy in Australia, and if you go to almost any town article in Victoria they discuss the town's Aussie Rules club, including the suburbs in this league (though Beaconsfield needs a good update.) SportingFlyer talk 14:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Australian rules football at the grass roots/amateur level doesn't get a lot of widespread coverage in Australia apart from local coverage. I would still say the sources brought forward by SportingFlyer are independent and enough to meet GNG. I do feel that there probably could be a better guideline for Australian rules football competitions in terms of notability as I feel if this page is deleted, then every league apart from AFL and state leagues would be deleted. Flickerd (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that WP:ALLORNOTHING is not an argument to use at AfD? Chris Troutman (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the main reason I stated to keep it, the sources and the level of coverage received in Australia were. That was just a side comment to say there needs to be a better guideline for ARF competitions. Flickerd (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this is a notable topic. Consensus also indicates there are considerable OR issues to address. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudomathematics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This uncited article is, so far as it goes, largely a piece of original research. The term "pseudomathematics" rarely crops up, and when it does it's used as a short hand way of saying that conventional mathematical techniques have been misused or misapplied. An example would be the backtest overfitting of financial data modelling, where the prefix "pseudo" has the same general meaning as it does in "pseudo-democracy". In other words, there is no field of endeavour called "pseudomathematics". Eric Corbett 01:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. samee converse 02:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a work entirely of OR, and not a subject that actually exists. When a phrase like psuedoscience is used, it implies a unscientific theory being presented as one, a deception. Something like that just doesn't happen in mathematics, and nobody is out there professing the "truth" of 2+2 being 5. Even the given example is simply a misconception, and nothing more. Pinguinn 🐧 09:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it is a thing — that is, the term is used in the wild to describe numerology, the meaningless formulae of creationists, people who write to math professors claiming they've proved that pi is exactly 22/7, etc. [40][41][42][43][44][45][46]. XOR'easter (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that for your argument to have any credibility the material you cite ought to use the term, which it ought to be possible to find a definition for somewhere. In the first example you cite the word pseudomathematics only appears in the title. The body of the article makes it perfectly clear that what is being described is a misinterpretation of probability theory, not an alternative mathematics. I haven't checked your other citations, but would suspect that the same argument applies to them. Eric Corbett 16:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and numerology is a pseudoscience, not pseudomathematics, based as it is on a belief in the occult properties of numbers. Eric Corbett 16:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

not productive

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It is not obvious to me that "pseudoscience" necessarily excludes "pseudomathematics." Many people classify mathematics as a science, or speak of "the mathematical sciences." --JBL (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics is a science in the same sense that Latin is a science, i.e. not at all. Eric Corbett 17:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical sciences includes mathematics, statistics, probability, and other related fields. It most certainly is a science. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly isn't, but that's a discussion for a different time and place. Eric Corbett 19:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You're (irrelevant) opinion is noted. But I'll take the opinion of national bodies like the National Science Foundation over that of random people on the internet. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make the mistake again of descending into personal attacks, as you have just done. Eric Corbett 19:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one who declared by your own presumption that mathematics is not a science, giving no reason whatsoever. When two different editors pointed out to you that there is an entire division of the sciences, which includes mathematics, instead of acknowledging that perhaps you don't know what you're talking about, instead you doubled down on that view. You made the substance of your bald opinion relevant, not me. Don't cry "personal attack" if someone points out that your opinions are at odds with reality. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss why you're wrong then we can do so elsewhere. In the meantime do not make assumptions. Eric Corbett 23:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, using the word in a title is an example of using the word. Second, your claim about the other references I provided is incorrect. Third, your exclusion of numerology from the category of pseudomathematics is both arbitrary and inconsistent with the way the term "pseudomathematics" is used in practice (e.g., [47][48][49][50]). XOR'easter (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the above references show, this is an accepted term with an accepted definition. The article needs references, yes, but not deletion. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as nominator. Eric Corbett 19:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second delete !vote struck. As nominator, your nomination already counts as a delete recommendation. See, for example, Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Miscellaneous_advice. --Mark viking (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pseudomathematics has been noted by the refs provided above by XOR'easter and by others as being the realm of countless cranks and charlatans over the ages. In the 1890's the Indiana legislature almost passed a bill enshrining in law a pseudomathematical way of squaring the circle. "Creation scientists" use probability pseudomathematically to try and disprove evolution. Edison (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: both the article and the deletion rationale seem poor. An alternative possible title might be mathematical crankery. (The article crank (person) includes in its see-also list the links pseudophysics, pseudoscholarship, and pseudoscience.) --JBL (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a dictionary. This article, such as it is, seems mainly to be a platform for expressing points of view. I dont disagree with those views, but also dont see that we need an article for collection of criticisms. 01:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kablammo (talk • contribs)
Keep. Whether a person accepts this topic as existing on its own, depends on the level of abstraction this person is willing to go to. Since this is derived from "mathematics", and deals, amongst others, with questions requiring high levels of e.g. algebraic abstraction, I argue for keeping this article, and not following the non-encompassing view of comparing it with arbitrary "pseudos". I do not dispute room for improvement. Purgy (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is certainly a topic here, but it might be more aptly titled "mathematical crankery" (e.g., [51]. Crank mathematics is quite old, and can be found explicitly referenced in a paper by G.H. Hardy [52]. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mathematical cranks are mentioned in this article. Mathematical Cranks exists, but bounces to Underwood Dudley's article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with changing the title. XOR'easter (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if there is a problem with an article it should be rewritten as opposed to deleted.ApolloCarmb (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: it is not clear from the article what the intended topic is. I can claim that 1 + 1 = 10 and I'm not wrong, just using binary; similarly, if I claim that it is possible to construct a square with the same area as a given circle, I am not violating the theorems around squaring the circle but instead am going beyond Euclidean geometry or finite algorithms. This is very different from actually doing maths wrong, such as accepting the definition of pi (geometrically or as a power series) and then declaring that it equals 25/8. And this is also very different from misapplication of mathematics—if I claim that the weak law of large numbers disproves Pascal's Wager then I'm misunderstanding mathematical theory or choosing a poor model of the situation, but the end result is not exactly an incorrect piece of maths.
This distinction is important because while both topics could be notable as their own articles (or perhaps better, as lists), it is not a good idea to conflate them. The article as it stands does not strike me as useful or correct—it makes the astounding claim that people attempting to trisect an angle are pseudomathematicians! (I hate to imagine what the author would think about proof by contradiction)—and so I'm tempted to argue for TNT'ing it, as it is at best not clearly defined in scope and at worst spreading outright misinformation. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that it says angle trisecting using only compass and straightedge is pseudomathematics - as, indeed, it is. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "pseudomathematics" is not a (if you'll excuse the pun) well-defined term, and you are being disingenuous in your summary; the article implies that even trying to trisect an angle is in some way pseudomathematical: it says "One common type of approach is attempting to solve classical problems in terms that have been proven mathematically impossible" under a section clearly marked "Types of pseudomathematics". In what way is attempting a problem in the wrong way "pseudomathematics"? I suppose I'm engaging in pseudomathematics every time I am set a "find a proof or counterexample" question for homework and have the gall to look for a proof before discovering that there exists a counterexample. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point: We shouldn't say "attempting to solve" these famously proven-impossible problems, but rather "claiming to have solved" - that's when it gets into pseudomathematics and crankery. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As demonstrated by XOR'easter above, the term exists and is notable. Paul August ☎ 00:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be our main article on mathematical crankery, frequent mistakes, and the like, a notable topic (the subject of whole books, e.g. Dudley's Mathematical Cranks, Barbeau's Mathematical Fallacies, Flaws, and Flimflam and More Fallacies, Flaws & Flimflam, or de Morgan's A Budget of Paradoxes). Probably a better name can be found for it, but that is not a good reason for deletion. For the same reason the nominator's argument that "to have any credibility the material you cite ought to use the term" itself lacks credibility — per WP:NOTDICT, our articles are about notable topics, not about English words, so it is the topic, not the word, that needs sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is certainly not a great article but the topic is legitimate and, particularly given the work done since the deletion nomination, the article is not a TNT case. The article is not egregiously bad and can be further improved using the current base. The nomination errs in seeming to suggest that Pseudomathematics is only a real phenomenon if the practitioners of it self-identify what they do as Pseudomathematics. If generally accepted, that type of argument would doom a great many other valid articles, most obviously Pseudoscience as nobody self-identifies as a pseudoscientist. Similarly, I never saw a conspiracy theory admit itself as such and (as we are endlessly reminded on some Talk pages that shall remain nameless) the Nazis never called themselves "Nazis". The nomination is correct in saying that the term is not very widely used but the sources show that it is widely enough used to support a short article. While the subject is clearly valid, I have no objection to a move and redirect if a better title can be found. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per other mathematical editors, the topic does exist even if the article could be better written. I was initially a little confused about Martin Gardner's contributions; mostly, however, his "fads and fallacies" articles on fringe science avoided mathematics (his mathematical interests were broad—he was the acknowledged expert on recreational mathematics, à la Conway, Guy, et al). Mathsci (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G7 See [53] NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eldred Lee[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable Ph.D. student, possible A7 candidate. Courcelles (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "A former musician," in the first sentence, is a giveaway. At best WP:TOOSOON. 2601:188:180:11F0:1581:EFC0:30C5:ED97 (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that it should become a standard surname page. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gloor[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable family name and unsourced, personalized background. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site per se. Quis separabit? 00:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. samee converse 02:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but only if pruned back ruthlessly to make a standard surname page: there are enough "X Gloor" articles (5) to justify it in that form. I agree entirely about the NN genealogy. Eustachiusz (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and overhaul per Eustachiusz. There be enough Gloors in them thar hills to make a decent surname page. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GaryTheGent[edit]

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

Not yet notable. Legacypac (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Record Breakers Chart is not a notable chart, it’s a blog. The 9Elements is an unimportant music blog. Source HipHotonDeck is user submitted promotional (See: http://www.hiphopondeck.com/p/contact.html# ). Other sources are just self-download. No indication of significant independent, third party recognition. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The center of the discussion was regarding WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST, and whether or not this article subject met these guidelines. It also centered around Haroon Janjua#Awards and whether or not the awards are notable, and hence whether or not the article subject is notable as being a recipient. In the end, both sides made statements that basically stated "yes, this meets the guideline" and "yes, the awards are notable" vs "no, this does not meet the guideline" and "no, the awards are not notable". The sources provided here seemed to be providing primary coverage on the award ceremony or event or primarily covering the award itself more-so than providing primary coverage on the person. In the end, neither side made direct and compelling arguments that fully took the concerns from the opposition into account. Therefore, I find that there is no consensus regarding the deletion of this article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon Janjua[edit]

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

Fails to meet GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. most of the cited ref are self published. Saqib (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the WP:JOURNALIST criteria is not very helpful as it is shared with Artist and other creative professionals. The Haroon_Janjua#Awards section is enough for me - that's more recognition than 95% of journalists get, and especially for a relatively young person. Legacypac (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Most of the awards are not notable. --Saqib (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the first one is notable for sure. Presented by the UN Secretary General. Legacypac (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatsoever, the subject clearly fails GNG. receiving an award which does not have its own Wikipedia page, does not makes one notable. --Saqib (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He won silver right here [54]. I found video of the presentations from 2015 [55] (not Moon preesenting) and 2016 when Moon presented. I suspect the author got confused. So the Moon part should be removed. Legacypac (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the subject himself writing this autobio. --Saqib (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone tagged it that way, and an acct by the same name edited it, but an IP wrote it. I noticed the first edit by the subject was to fix his name, which is not something the subject would have gotten wrong if he was the creator. Also the page contains enough ESL stlye errors that I doubt it was professionally written. But who knows really. Legacypac (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think the article is notable enough, [56] [57] however it needs alot of improvement. M A A Z T A L K 13:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly, article appears on some notable personality but when one digs deep, more or less it is a promotional autobio piece. It would be better if you explicitly cite some references to establish the notability of the subject instead of posting vague search results which does not bring anything either. Writing for major publications does not makes one notable enough to quality for Wikipedia entry. --Saqib (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We need articles about the subject, not by the subject.And, please don't link G-Search pages, as they are meaningless as to determination of reliability et al.~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable sources about the subject:

https://www.hipinpakistan.com/news/1148590
http://www.edinburghjournalisminternational.com/competition
https://www.thecable.ng/thecable-editor-fisayo-soyombo-shortlisted-2015-thomson-foundation-journalist-award
http://unca.com/2015-unca-awards-winners/
https://www.mcgilldaily.com/2016/01/labouring-for-unpayable-debt/ M A A Z T A L K 11:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this person actually accomplished some impressive widely fead work. He got awards for the work. Way more notable than most olympic athletes or pageant winners who are barely noticed. Legacypac (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: But you're missing the point. I am unable to find a single source which discusses the subject directly and in detail which means the subject fails to pass basic GNG. The subject may have received some awards, but not all of them are notable or major enough. On the other hand, you yourself nominated this BLP for speedy deletion only a couple of day ago and now you want to kept it. --Saqib (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged a batch of AfC "Advert" declines as a test and cleanup exercise. This was one of the few tat survived. Legacypac (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LPac, you're just being acutely disruptive over here.Moving this kind of acute-promo-stuff to main-space, after a declined G11 seems to be the very definition of pointy action to me and it is not the sought end-result of the repealing of your restrictions.If you find some notability in the draft, please clean the article up, to minimal qualities.~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I genuinely feel this subject is about 100 times more accomplished and notable than the subjects of many bios here. For example most cricket players (some of whom can't even be verified to have existed beyond a score sheet entry have pages) , East German handball players, pageant winners and one hit music artists that are auto notable for radio play are kept at AfD. By hey we have to accept that Wikipedia values fancruft far more than professionals who actually accomplish useful work. Reporters that go into tough areas and do hard work that wins them awards are less interesting than American teenagers with great genes who attend a one day contests and get a sash and crown. Legacypac (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--None of the awards are notable.The first one is one conferred by UN, upon those who cover their work in hallowing prose.Just because it's UN, it hardly means that they are adverse to self-promotion.And, this is G11-able stuff.~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On that basis we should toss out all industry awards starting with all pageants which are purely self servibg attention getting awards conferred by the pageant companies to generate press.Legacypac (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, we regularly do that in all-most all cases of CORP-articles.But, as much as there are reputed journalism awards (none of which has been clinched by the subject), there exists notable and intellectually independent industry-awards too!~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A section you cut out " Haroon Janjua had published an article on November 4, 2016, about the plight of the lady from Afghanistan, Sharbat Gula who had been arrested and locked up in Pakistan for purportedly obtaining a fake Pakistani ID after a crackdown. According to the article, "Gula’s face is well-known around the world. American photographer Steve McCurry’s 1984 portrait of Gula, then a 12-year-old orphan in a Pakistani refugee camp, became one of National Geographic magazine’s most famous cover images" actually deals with a story he published that I remember distinctly as being covered by other media. He tracked down Afghan Girl and published about her. Other media reported on his story. I'll see if I can dig up refs. Legacypac (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: It was Steve McCurry himself who first reported about Gula's arrest on November 3. Also see this Guardian report from October 2016 and from February 2015. --Saqib (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So this is coat tailing on the story he was not involved in. Ok, if we have debunked some claims and Winged thinks all the awards are useless than there is nothing I more can say. Legacypac (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Are you still in favour of keep it. I think it would be better if you clarify because other users (see below) quoting you. --Saqib (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in WP:RS. Sorry to say but Maaz mentioned links isn't what needs to pass WP:NJOURNALIST. Non-notable awards. Störm (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Legacypac and User:Ma'az. He is notable and written a lot. --Spasage (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And, how does writing a lot equates to passage of notability guidelines?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion

Note for closing admin: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#Possible_issues_at_AfD --Saqib (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note for closing admin -- Please ignore this instance of Poisoning the well by Saqib. If that RfC closes by banning the indicated users from AfD then fine, but it has not closed yet, and the fact that it exists means nothing. Anyone here could start exactly such an RfC on Saqib's AfD practices and obviously there's no conclusion to be drawn from that. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note for closing admin -- **Note The IP address is suspected of socking and an investigation is under way at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unscintillating. Furthermore, it is suspected that a XFD topic banned user is behind this IP per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_possibly_being_used_by_topic_banned_user_to_get_round_ban. Furthermore, it is obvious from the discussion that there's a clear consensus to topic ban the reported users. --Saqib (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note for closing admin -- Saqib can't stop poisoning the well here. Sure there's an open sock puppet investigation on me. One in which no one but two disgruntled AfD editors thinks there's a possibility I'm doing anything wrong, which I'm not. Still open proceedings are not evidence of anything, otherwise they wouldn't still be open. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Per Legacypac. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable prizes, writing news stories, it all looks pretty ROUTINE for a journalist. Notability is validated by having other journalists write about you, which I am not finding.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has the sources to pass GNG, plus at least the first award is notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show that this is a notable award? According to the linked article, he won the silver (presumably second place) 2015 United Nations Correspondents Association#The Elizabeth Neuffer Memorial Prize. The WP subhead page on these awards is unsourced, no lists of former awardees. Can you demonstrate that 2nd place for this award is a notable prize?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorofthewiki: which sources? The article cite only 3 and none discuss the subject in depth but merely namechecking. --Saqib (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. And I don't think the cited and provided sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. --Saqib (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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