Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 April	18 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John S. Weinberg[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO not enough sources to meet GNG. Nothing of interest in a WP:BEFORE search. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of WP:BIO or WP:GNG notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above SeraphWiki (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Only deleting the 2015 page, the other 2 didn't get the alerts placed on their pages J04n(talk page) 16:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jingle Ball Tour 2015[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NTOUR, which demands significant coverage of the tour. A few mentions/reviews of individual shows don't cut it. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jingle Ball Tour 2014 and Jingle Ball Tour 2016 are full of the same issues; their only thing is common is that iHeart put them on with their radio stations, otherwise they all have horrid sourcing that is merely either "it exists", outright unchanged PR, or "This performer really looks hot so we'll write first grade words around a summary of their performance" sourcing (including one garbage Daily Mail source). I would support a delete all if the 2014/16 articles were added. (Note: For full disclosure I argued a keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jingle Ball Tour 2017, but I've begun to take a dim view on these horribly-sourced tour articles.) Nate • (chatter) 00:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge All those articles representing different years into one. Acnetj (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge SeraphWiki (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Goldfarb[edit]

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

Non-notable voice actor. No reliable sources to show significant coverage. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article lacks any reliable sources at all and nothing in his career makes it seem likely we will find any.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. Thegooduser Let's Chat 00:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above SeraphWiki (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Payne (Entrepreneur)[edit]

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

I cannot find any substantial coverage of the subject in reliable sources other than a single interview in a local newspaper. We require more coverage to meet our notability standards. SmartSE (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable computer programer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A little bit of coverage from at least one source that qualifies as WP:RS, but not much else. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela Rose Reagan[edit]

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

We do not need to be keeping such poorly-written articles on basically children who barely scratch the surface of notability. There's a few mentions in some gossipy leaflets, but nothing substantial for GNG or NARTIST. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sonia Manzano as plausible as her mother. Nate • (chatter) 00:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every person who appeared in a named role in a major TV show is notable. Only that sort of standard would cover Reagan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom SeraphWiki (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per below, sources from Sergecross73, and WP:FUTUREALBUM. Back-to-back #1s on an album being released in two months. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion (Drake album)[edit]

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

Way too soon. Although the page will eventually need to be created in the future, we know nothing about the album other than the name and its executive producer. I think it's best to just leave it as a redirect to Drake discography for the time being, until we are able to get more information on the album. BAPreme _{(T / C)} 22:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - album fails WP:NALBUM, no significant coverage beyond its announcement. Hayman30 (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination, and this stance, is a massive failure of WP:BEFORE. Sergecross73 msg me 13:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - Someone was pretty lazy with the article creation, but the deletion nomination is equally lazy. It's already plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Don't waste time and effort fighting a redirect with this, focus expanding the article.

https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/8342152/drake-scorpion-new-album
https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/8342208/drake-scorpion-album-twitter-reaction-ryan-gosling-drive-zodiac
http://variety.com/2018/music/news/drake-reveals-new-albums-title-and-release-date-1202756361/
http://www.complex.com/music/2018/04/everything-we-know-about-drakes-new-album-scorpion/drake-scorpion-2
https://pitchfork.com/news/drake-teases-june-release/
https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/drake-reveals-the-executive-producers-on-scorpion-news.48050.html
http://www.thefader.com/2018/04/16/drake-scorpion-new-album-release-date
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrolli/2018/04/17/drakes-scorpion-rollout-is-already-more-successful-than-his-views-campaign/
https://consequenceofsound.net/2018/04/drake-announces-new-project-scorpion-due-out-in-june-2018/
http://www.nme.com/news/music/drake-announces-release-date-mysterious-new-project-scorpion-2294202
http://ew.com/music/2018/04/16/drake-release-date-new-album-scorpion/
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/drake-confirms-scorpion-album-details-via-jacket-photo-w519220

All sources have a consensus for being reliable per WP:RSMUSIC, or are major entertainment publications (Variety, Entertainment Weekly, etc) Sergecross73 msg me 13:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Drake is a very well known artist and this album is significant even before it comes out. JE98 (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was leaning towards delete, but Sergecross73's evidence is enough to keep the article. Also the album is coming in June. The article is quite messy and void of content but nothing that can't be fixed by someone willing to work on it. → Call me Razr Nation 06:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hayman30 SeraphWiki (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Jawad (singer)[edit]

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

Non-notable singer with no article on ar.wiki that was created by a user who was blocked on ar.wiki for creating non-notable articles. A brief look at the sources here suggest that they all don't meet our coverage standards for living people. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment notable singer. I am not blocked on the Arabic Wikipedia but I have an automatic reference authority. So you must respect the person in return and make sure that the information before posting - accept my greetings--IamIRAQI (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if that was not clear, but you were blocked on ar.wiki for creation of non-notable articles for three days. It's pertinent because most English speakers are not able to read the sourcing and it shows that we should take a closer look at the sourcing giving the judgement of the admins of the language edition where the sourcing is a native language. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes this is a misunderstanding and I have automatic reference authority--IamIRAQI (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references cited are mostly promotional and not reliable sources. The external link interviews show some promise because they purport to be interviews with Iraqi media that may be reliable sources. The search tools at the top of the page show zero for reliable dedicated articles/coverage. If the article's creator gets to work and demonstrates that this individual receives enough coverage from reliable Iraqi sources, this will change to keep. Without that = delete. Tapered (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources added since this comment are not reliable sources: a blog and YouTube videos. Tapered (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacking sourcing to reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing's been done since my above 'comment' to significantly improve the sourcing. Time for this article to go. Tapered (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkwalker[edit]

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

paid advertisement .Even if they were notable, this is in violation of the terms of use and should be removed. As for sourcing, Forbes is a promotional mention, as are the other articles. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGIND. No secondary coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom SeraphWiki (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gita Hashemi[edit]

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

I do not see clear evidence of notability ; no major award, no evidence of work in museums, no critical studies of the wwork. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added sources to the article. She is a performance artist and as such museums don't always collect their work. However, there are plenty of reviews of her work in RS and I found some biographical information. Passes CREATIVE with reviews. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I should add that these are critical studies of her work: [1], [2] in case people don't have full access. The other reviews aren't as in-depth, though the Hemispheric Institute reviews several of her works throughout the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after Megalibrarygirl's improvements. On the one hand, notability by our standards is met, just. Lots of people have written on her work and she has had good shows. I do believe that articles representing an established person from a diversity group like this that should be bent towards keep rather than delete in cases where the !vote is close. It is better to include diversity than to exclude it. I know it's not policy to say that, but the rest of the Western world recognizes the importance of diversity: for example, Harvard values diversity, Apple values inclusion and diversity, the US government does, The European Union does, but WP:CREATIVE does not. Basically every large company or government in the Western world recognizes the value of inclusion and diversity. It's something to consider. 104.163.140.141 (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusivity and diversity are imperative when it comes to recruiting and retaining new Wikipedia editors, but are not valid rationales for deciding notability of article subjects. Certainly, we need to account for and counter systemic biases, but we still need sources to write an article. I think that we can have articles on artists who do not meet any of the criteria in WP:ARTIST, but then the subject does need to fulfill the requirements of the WP:GNG which I interpret as: "Do we have sources that are sufficiently in-depth, reliable and independent to base an article on, so that everything we say about the subject can be verified?" Even then, if an artists meets the GNG they almost certainly meet 4(c): has won significant critical attention. I think that's the case here. Keep. Vexations (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iridda[edit]

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

Somali "town". The one source cited says it's actually an "intermittent stream", which is corroborated by satellite imagery. Per WP:NGEO to be notable as an intermittent stream we would need sources which give significant information about it. Note the word means "gate" in Somali so there are lots of false positives on Google. Hut 8.5 21:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur that notability isn't established either for a location or anything natural. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't feel good at all, I am supposed to parachute into this place tomorrow at 02:15 local and conduct covert anti-vandal ops, but I don't fancy dropping in on non-existent places. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:20, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mudulow[edit]

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

Somali "town". The one source cited says it is actually a small hill with an elevation of 255 metres. Satellite imagery supports this. To be notable as a hill it would need some decent coverage per WP:NGEO and it doesn't appear to have much. Hut 8.5 21:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hill 255 to save storming it and having any last stands which might lend notability. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:21, 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. Mz7 (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Jackson (fighter)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NMMA because he doesn't yet have three fights in the UFC. Subject also fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. This was de-PROD'd only hours from deletion for no good reason by whom, I know not. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.PRehse (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as failing GNG and NMA. Should probably be semi protected for time being.L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, doesn't even deserve to be in the UFC being 0–1 as a pro, for sure doesn't deserve an article (yet).--Rockchalk7 17 18:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He may become notable, but that's WP:CRYSTALBALL. Right now he doesn't meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters and lacks the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MMABIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Aboagye[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NSPORTS, under WP:NCRIC, as he's played in the World Cricket League (point 3). Also coverage here[3], [4], [5]. At worst, redirect to Ghana national cricket team. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's now also the captain of the Ghana team in their latest fixtures. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above. Sources exist, and he is captain now. Kees08 (Talk) 03:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Mangila[edit]

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

I cannot find coverage in reliable sources that indicates either WP:BIO is met. Numerous poor-quality sources state he was given the "'Most Influential Travel Journalist Award’ from European Tourism" but this does not seem to be a notable award. SmartSE (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. insubstantial notability. scope_creep (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ollia Tzarina[edit]

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

I cannot find coverage in reliable sources that indicates either WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE are met. SmartSE (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. poorly sourcedadvertising, presumably an example of undeclard paid editing . DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not well sourced and also somewhat promotional. Eagleash (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO scope_creep (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrae Alexander[edit]

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

I cannot find coverage in reliable sources that indicates either WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE are met. SmartSE (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Written by undeclared paid editor. I can not verify that he had a major contribution to "Birth of a Nation"--he's one of the many composers listed. I haven't checked the others. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mixed career, seems to trying several different creative endeavours with mixed success, per WP:TOOSOON, with no prejudice on a potentual future article. This needs to go. scope_creep (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No opposition to someone creating the redirect, although I'll note it's not mentioned in the target. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbulb[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NPRODUCT. The page was created by Sunlitemfg and who seems to be a COI/PAID editor. This is straight WP:PROMO. Jbh ^Talk 19:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – At this time. Wikipedia is not intended or meant for the promotion or the advertisement of new products or ideas as they relate to Shabbos. If and when the item or idea impacts the rationale behind Shabbos. Then it become encyclopedia worthy. However, nice work to the author who edited the piece. We could use your talent here to improve existing articles. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article reads like an ad crossed with a pamphlet for the bulb, and said product has not generated the coverage needed for inclusion on Wikipedia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NPRODUCT. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although I have heard plenty of people talk about it, and heard rabbis debate it, it does not get enough main stream coverage to meet WP:GNG. - Galatz ^Talk 21:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, maybe. Based on the limited sources, this doesn't warrant a separate article, and the promotional tone doesn't help. But since it does have a couple of sources, a footnoted sentence could be added at Shabbat lamp, an article that was kept by an AfD in 2009, or at the more general article Electricity on Shabbat. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shabbat lamp per above. While neat, and a clever possible solution to Orthodox Sabbath working/non-working rules, fails the GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shabbat lamp. Otherwise the page name is WP:ADVERTISING. Yoninah (talk) 06:05, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potty the Plant[edit]

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

PROD removed on the basis that this student made film won a significant award. It won an RTS London Student Award. I would not call this a significant award. Delete on the basis of non-notable student film. Polyamorph (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a 12 minute student film, nn. Szzuk (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus this version of the article is OR Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Life in Casablanca[edit]

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

Non-notable, unsourced essay JMHamo (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This topic is exhaustively covered in the scholarly literature. The article's in terrible shape, but so what? Here are just a few RS: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and so on. There's no way this topic isn't notable. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This really needs some work, as it is completely uncited, and likely duplicates content from other places on the project. I note that Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries has a decent section on Morocco which led me to History of the Jews in Morocco.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR/Essay. Szzuk (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Vizag[edit]

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

I'm not even sure where to begin with this as there's nothing acceptable to revert to and it's a hot mess of promotional content. I also can't find any independent sources that talk about the magazine. I'm nominating this with some explosive devices as it needs to be nuked from orbit and rewritten if rs can be found. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because of how the article was organised, all I could think of is its content written like an advertisement. If only there were more strong sources to support its notability, I would have voted otherwise. Overall, I believe it didn't comply with WP:GNG. Romrom9 (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hemadpanti architecture. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdamba Tahakari[edit]

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

No sources apart from some videos are available to indicate notability. MT Train^Talk 17:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Hemadpanti architecture. As per this Marathi language source the monument exists and if someone having knowledge about Hindi languges can locate more coverage in RS. This article can be easily rescued. Unfortunately I don't know Hindi languages. In worst case, redirection is better than delete. After all redirects are cheap. --Saqib (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, agree with Saqib that this should be a redirect until someone writes a well cited article (on the village that has the temple?), but maybe to Akole that already has a paragraph on this temple, the article Hemadpanti architecture could also have a redirect to Akole. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Carone[edit]

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

Not notable person. Poor source for WP:BLP. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 17:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. over thirty official links. encyclopedic value as it has carried out an activity in the political, environmental and medical fields. enriching this encyclopedia with the characters who have held the major positions in environmental institutions is necessary. I only ask to improve the shape of the

text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.169.144.255 (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was an important personality in the field of environment and ecology, leading the entity which, since 1997, has been recognised by UNESCO as the largest environmental heritage in Europa, with its 189.000 square kilometres of surface. Sources are precise and reliable, also relating to ministerial decrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.148.130.4 (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was a famous surgeon and drove the largest national park in Italy (National Park of Cilento and Vallo di Diano, Unesco World Heritage). His nomination for the national park was commissioned by the Italian environment minister. it can not be justified as publicity because the public figure died three years ago due to illness. In addition, he has made many important pediatric interventions in his career at the Italian Ministry of Agriculture. He will be honored with the title of knight of the work of the Italian republic. It would be a serious mistake to downplay its political, medical and environmental activities and added value for those who believe in this encyclopedia. All links, which I have personally countered, come from institutional sites or from registered newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noemi54321 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In environmentalism there is no more important institutional charge. It does not represent the biography of a living person because he died in 2015. Links to official websites testify to the fundamental activity in the field of environmental policies. Under his direction, the national park of cilento, vallo di diano and alburni has become the UNESCO heritage and the largest geopark in Italy by extension. In Europe, the Cilento National Park is among the first three most important as superimposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.25.15.191 (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is really confusingly written, and is basically a prosified version of a résumé rather than a proper encyclopedia article — and I just checked the Italian Wikipedia, where an article about him was also deleted a couple of weeks ago for being advertorialized. Where I get hung up a bit is the claim that he was "the group leader in the Senate of the Republic of the XV Legislature Pecoraro Scanio": I'm not familiar with all the nuances of Italian politics, so I'm struggling to understand whether this means he's actually been a sitting member of the Senate of the Republic (Italy), or whether this is just a bad translation of something else entirely (e.g. he was a candidate who didn't win). Given the bad writing and sourcing that are actually on display here and the lack of an article about him on the Italian Wikipedia, I suspect "bad writing" is the likelier explanation — but if he really did serve in the Senate, then no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually write and source a new article properly. But absent that, nothing else here is a strong notability claim at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Since my original comment, the article has been updated to reflect that he was not actually "the group leader in the Senate of the Republic of the XV Legislature Pecoraro Scanio" as it originally said, but was the coordinator (i.e. campaign manager) for the actual group leader in the Senate of the Republic of the XV Legislature. So I stand by my comment even more firmly now: there just isn't a strong notability claim here at all. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty much per Bearcat. It is nigh on impossible to tease out what is being said in the article. Maybe he is a politician, maybe a civil servant, or maybe some environmental activist. The multiple accounts, so new they do not even know to sign, which showed up within 15 minutes of each other makes me think there is some sort of UPE in play here. I do not give the benefit of the doubt in situations like this. Fails GNG (from what I can tell). Fails NPOL (from what I can tell he was not elected to the Senate of the Republic). If someone can make sense of things ping me and I will reconsider. Jbh ^Talk 11:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical Kangaroo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is no non-trivial coverage of the topic. wumbolo ^^^ 15:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, you have to look for coverage in the world, not in the article. Out there, thousands of schools in dozens of countries take part every year. The topic's notability is in no doubt. I've added some non-school citations to make the point that the competition is taken seriously by mathematicians. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – International coverage under “International Mathematical Kangaroo”. As stated in piece and redirected to Mathematical Kangaroo. Due diligence is required for all articles nominated here at WP:AFD. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shoessss: I did my due diligence for GNG as the nominator and found no significant coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 18:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sometimes we have to do a little more than a quick search on a subject matter before nominating for deletion. Did you look here [12] and here [13] or here at Google Scholar [14]and by the way here International Mathematical Kangaroo….Ohh that redirects here Mathematical Kangaroo. Please do not take this as a swipe at this nomination. I believe all nominations here at AFD are made with the best intentions. However, sometimes in our rush, we have a tendency to overlook the obvious. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shoessss: Oops. I now see a bunch of sources at Google News, which I didn't find before for some reason. Going to review them and update my nomination accordingly. wumbolo ^^^ 20:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wumbolo: - hi - can I just check that you've opted one way or another on your nom-review? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: yes, thanks for reminding me, and I'm still not convinced that the subject is notable. All mentions of the subject that I could find were either minor mentions (not significant) or promotional material (not independent of the subject). Since you voted "keep", please give me those sources that you found. You may also want to clarify a sufficient scattering of others to me. Let me now go through the references present in the article:

N[15] Promotional material from a charity.
N Dead url. Archive shows that it is actually about the Australian Mathematics Competition and it is original research to suggest that it is related to this article.
Y[16] Might pass.
N[17] Wikis are not a reliable source.
N[18] Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

@Shoessss: I didn't take a deep look at Google Scholar so do you have any specific article which goes in-depth on this subject? wumbolo ^^^ 11:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think your wish to keep the article may be getting the better of your judgement here. Ref [1] is a simple news item in a mathematical publication. Ref [4] may be structured as a wiki but only the owners can edit it, and it's a reputable mathematical society, so we should use some common sense and discretion here. Ref [5] is a sober mathematical conference paper which discusses the MK. It is in no way "indiscriminate". Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: I read the sources and they're clearly WP:PRIMARY sources, unsuitable for proving notability. wumbolo ^^^ 12:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The only "primary" source would be the MK organisation itself. All the other organisations that have heard of, respect, research, or wish to communicate to their members about MK are by definition secondary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. WP:PRIMARY says: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Ref [1] is UKMT talking about an event organized by UKMT. Take ref [4] to WP:RSN if you want to use it, you should prove (WP:BURDEN) the credentials of the author which I can't find anywhere on the internet (User:Hesa57 on AoPS is the major contributor to the article). Ref [5] does NOT discuss MK, it merely uses its results in a study about "Problem solving competency". Feel free to add other sources which independently discuss MK. wumbolo ^^^ 14:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Double nope. If we were to interpret "close to" as meaning "is also a mathematician" or "is also a mathematician interested in school maths" then of course it would include virtually every possible source: but it doesn't. The plain meaning of primary is directly connected to the organisation involved. If Prof Jane Doe of Harvard has penned a biology paper on kangaroos, and John Doe works in Jane's lab, then sure, his thoughts are primary; but if Dr Bloggs of Yale is interested in kangaroos too, and has independently written about the Does' work, then it's secondary. Let's leave this now for the closing admin, as we have both/all expressed our arguments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: this is from the very article:

The UKMT hosted the “Association Kangourou sans Frontières” conference for the first time in October 2013

although all worked hard throughout the five-day event to finish the six Kangaroo papers

As well as the Grey and Pink Kangaroo the UKMT also runs the Senior Kangaroo, and we are currently developing a Junior Kangaroo which we hope to launch in 2015.

All our Kangaroo competitions are follow-on events, so to become involved in these, the first step is to enter our Maths Challenges!

Not promotional at all, "utterly unworkable" as you put it, and not WP:PRIMARY in the slightest. wumbolo ^^^ 15:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: good work on the new references, but note that they don't demonstrate notability as they are not significant coverage of the subject. wumbolo ^^^ 16:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of sources I found last night, without too much difficulty. Filtering some of them for suitability was tricky (not necessarily poor, just unknown) but both plenty of those and a sufficient scattering of others to definitely make this a keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing improvements. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Chiswick Chap. Seems to meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chaitali Das[edit]

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

OK so the managing trustee of some non-notable entity called Rakshak Foundation (page was speedy deleted a few days ago).. the subject has received some namecheck type of press coverage and nothing substantial at all so fails to meet GNG. Also received an Award from Women Economic Forum (page redirects to some other entity) so I assume the award is remotely notable.

Merely having some namechecks type of press coverage (given their abundance, these days) does not makes one notable enough to merit a standalone entry on WP. GNG states we require "Significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". & I am afraid based on the available coverage, we cannot curate a proper BLP at the moment. for what its worth, article has some OR, already. Saqib (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Saqib please check following references she has been mentioned in many reliable news media like Thestatesman, Telegraphindia most of references are intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject so page fulfill WP:BASIC and she has significant award for her social work by "Women Economic Forum". WEF awards woman's for their contribution in societal upliftment in India so her page fulfill WP:ANYBIO criteria. I was wondering, why did you flag her page just because Rakshak Foundation page was speedy deleted?? so dear this does not make this page to get delete so i request you kindly check again all references properly if you have any suggestion thy will be welcome but if still you have any other Q. to ask me feel free to ask.

Peakat (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GretLomborg Kindly check page and references properly and explain a valid reason saying "per nom." is not enough Peakat (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : a couple of fleeting mentions in the Telegraph is about as good as it gets; this is unfortunately insufficiently in-depth or persistent coverage required for a subject to pass the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:03, 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 redirect to Lewsey. Since the text appears copied from parent article closing as redirect but any additional information can be taken the history. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lewsey Farm, Luton[edit]

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

There is nothing which differentiates this from Lewsey - Seems to simply be an alternate name for the same place. Indeed, this article seems to be a virtual cut and paste of the Lewsey article, with minor changes made. Is there some official site in the UK (like the GNIS site for US locations), which can state these are indeed two different locations, and that they are both notable? Is Lewsey Farms a neighborhood in Lewsey? I am not seeing anything which indicates that a virtually identical article needs to happen. Why are the two articles virtually identical? If they are two distinct locales, then the articles should be about those particular places. Appears to be a generic local name for a certain area, and as such does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are no official means for naming suburbs in the UK, all suburbs are simply colloquially named and are sometimes used on maps and sometimes not. However, Lewsey, Lewsey Park, and Lewsey Farm are used enough separately and are well defined enough to warrant separate articles. The most official source which includes both suburbs is the Luton bus routes, see https://bustimes.org/localities/luton-beds if you click on each suburb you can clearly see the separate areas they contain. Also see the coordinates on both pages which clearly show they are different areas. The pages are also not the same. The only sections which are remotely similar are the history sections, and this is correctly so as both place names are derived from the areas historic landowners, who owned the land both next door suburbs are built on. This page should not be deleted as Lewsey and Lewsey Farm are recognised by locals, estate agents, bus routes, and the local council as separate areas.LordDaly1 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?: It seems that "Lewsey Farm Estate" was the name of a council estate built in the 1950s. So it is possible that the residents think of it as an area that is distinct from "Lewsey" to the south. The names used for the areas within a town often change, and it is misleading and confusing to have articles for all of them suggesting that they are all current names, especially if the areas overlap (as here with Lewsey Park, Luton). It is different if an article is about the history of a past area which was significant, but this article does not even mention the council estate. A ward (such as Lewsey) at least has an official boundary, and its article can cover anything within the boundary. But as it is difficult to know what names are used by real people for neighbourhoods, I do not have a strong opinion for this article. By the way, I think that ", Luton" is unnecessary disambiguation. JonH (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Striking dupe !vote (albeit unsigned) of Lorddaly Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Having read the comments on this page I believe all the issues with the article have been addressed. I have added information on each individual local area to the Lewsey, Lewsey Farm and Lewsey Park articles, as well as added to the history sections when each local area was built (note that each of the three areas was built separately decades apart - a fact which in essence led them to having sepearate names and being referred to as separate suburbs). The fact that each suburb was built at different times means each has a unique style of architecture and layout, and at ground level the differences can be seen between each suburb. Also with reference to the previous comment, the areas do not overlap - see stated boundaries. I also wish to raise the point that merging the articles under the heading “Lewsey” is not appropriate, as this implies Lewsey Farm and Lewsey Park are extensions of Lewsey/or suburbs of Lewsey per say. This would be incorrect as they are each individual suburbs of Luton, Lewsey did not expand of its own accord, and neither suburb has a greater standing. The fact that the ward they are contained in is called “Lewsey” is of no consequence, wards in the U.K. are not a construct to define an area or an area’s name, they are simply an electoral division assigned a number of councillors and used to determine results of parliamentary elections. Therefore I believe Lewsey, Lewsey Farm, and Lewsey Park are all articles in their own right of enough importance to stay on Wikipedia.[reply]

Merge, I don't think this has ever been an officially designated place - such as a ward. The official ward itself is called Lewsey. The same goes for Lewsey Park which isn't part of this AfD but should also be merged. Szzuk (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Environmental planning. Its unsourced OR so the merge argument isnt a winner Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Context theory[edit]

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

This article is a theory within environmental planning but not one that is of specific notability. I propose that this article should be deleted or at a minimum merged with Environmental planning as it doesn't appear to have significant encyclopedic information. There are currently no references. When I search for context theory I get results relating to education and psychology. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom, leaning very weak keep - I think the article's original purpose may be justified, but I agree that alot of the content at present isn't suitable (it's really just opinions, some uncited and in some cases with questionable relevance). I'd wonder if the article, if kept, would benefit from a name change as the "context theory" naming may itself be OR/invented, or at the very best, not necessarily a term that has caught on with any degree of notability. I think the current content can be easily condensed and merged into Environmental planning, where it's perhaps better suited. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an essay full of OR, the article has been around since 2006 with 40 or so edits and has never been referenced, google returns what you'd expect from such a vague name - everything but environmental planning. Szzuk (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JitBug[edit]

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

Promotion of non notable, new app. No evidence of notability in search. Speedy declined. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 15:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though whilst not new (this news post is from end of 2015), it doesn't seem to have had any media reporting about it or any discussions to make it notable in any way. You could argue WP:TOOSOON if it had just been released, though over 2 years and still nothing of any note? I think it is just promotional and not really in need of an article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Adabow (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SOFTWARE. The app is simply not notable and nothing exists to assert how the app is significant enough to include in an encyclopedia. The only coverage of the subject I found is ([19]) an article from 2015 which mentions 80 teachers using the app; this news article is also not viable as a source as it consist to a large degree of interviews with teachers. The path to deletion is open wide.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:49, 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 redirect to Foxy Brown (rapper). Mz7 (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

King Soon Come[edit]

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

A WP:CRYSTAL violation. A variety of articles from 2017 note that Foxy Brown is "working on" this album but those articles are all about other events in her life and appear to be repeating each other's gossip (e.g. [20]). The album itself has no confirmed track list or release date. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Reliable sources verify it's existence and name, but none seem to report on anything beyond the fact that a vague allusion that "she's working on it". Seems like virtually no details are known beyond the title. Should be a short sourced sentence in the artist's article until the subject is covered in significant detail. It's too soon to have its own article right now. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foxy Brown. Very much WP:CRYSTAL – no confirmation anywhere of a definite release date, or that the album will definitely see the light of day in 2018. Best redirected to the artist's page for now, and can be recreated as and when a concrete release date is announced. Richard3120 (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If redirecting, make sure it goes to Foxy Brown (rapper) as there's more than one person of that name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten Hope 2[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. I had originally seen this article to perform cleanup, but the references given in the article are predominantly from non-reliable sources, other than one GameSpy review. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as appropriate for WP:WEIGHT (probably a one liner if you could only find the one review) to Battlefield 2. --Izno (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, sources not reliable Gomedog (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shepherd's Crossing[edit]

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

Seems like a non-notable game. Metacritic has zero reviews for the game. There is a cool looking preview in IGN, but that's all I could find. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and it's preview alone doesn't seem to fully satisfy WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 02:49, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Nealon[edit]

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

Autobiography that doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria; no in-depth WP:RS coverage about this person; references are mostly credits and mentions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just being a journalist does not default make one notable, and nothing in the article or sources suggest he has any other claim to notability. His work is not shown to be impactful in a way to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 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 redirect to Nina Sky. Can come back if events change Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brightest Gold[edit]

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

This album was described as "coming soon" in substantial and reliable articles from the likes of Billboard and Fader (already cited in the article), but then nothing happened. The infobox says it was released it 2017 and the artist template says 2016, but neither is actually true. I can find no sources discussing the album, coming soon or otherwise, since mid-2016. The release is apparently in long-term limbo and here it's at least a WP:CRYSTAL violation. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not really a WP:CRYSTAL issue just when an album is delayed without a new release date. If its not released, then yes, the years of released should definitely be removed, but it's not a CRYSTAL issue if the EP has been officially announced, and there's reliable sourcing discussing and verifying this. This is doubly so when you're getting such high level, mainstream coverage as Billboard. My only concern here is whether or not it meets the WP:GNG currently. Its getting reliable source coverage, but it's mostly passing mentions - the EP doesn't seem to be discussed much itself.

https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/hip-hop/7416465/nina-sky-champion-lover-lyric-video-brightest-gold-album
http://thesource.com/2016/07/05/listen-nina-sky-drops-tropical-infused-champion-lover/
http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article78824147.html
https://www.vibe.com/2015/06/nina-sky-forever/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nina-skys-new-song-is-proof-theyve-only-gotten-cooler-since-2004_us_57727961e4b017b379f74360

There's more too, but they're basically all the same - mostly just consisting of a single sentence saying something to the capacity of "X is a song off of Brightest Gold, their upcoming EP." Probably leaning redirect unless someone finds some more in-depth sources... Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I don't wish to nitpick over definitions. While WP:CRYSTAL is mostly about future events, I was thinking of criteria #5: "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors." An album is a product. You found several "coming soon" announcements for the album, which I also found during my research, but I will repeat that the most recent is from two years ago. A redirect would indeed make sense unless the album has been deemed unreleaseable by someone in the biz. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the sources were not reporting on rumors, nor were they mere press releases. Reliable sources wrote full-fledged articles here. It's just that said articles focused more on the artist or the songs than the EP itself. Anyways, as you say, regardless of of our different interpretations, we both seem to be coming to the same ultimate conclusion - redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with history - Redirect with history to Nina Sky, due to no release date nor complete track listing. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:15, 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 no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Mz7 (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Cass[edit]

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

Delete: fails notability as actor and GNG. Sole links are to unreliable sources: ({{IMDb name|143912}}{{tcmdb name|id=30465|name=Maurice Cass}}{{Find a Grave|8025087}}) Quis separabit? 20:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 20:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while not the most famous actor, he had roles in dozens of notable films.Vincelord (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 12:54, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-1003b[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTRO, in particlar WP:NASTCRIT. Only coverage is various exoplanet database listings and the discovery paper where it is one of 1,284 new planets and not even listed under this name but as KOI-1893. No popular coverage, nothing apparently note-worthy. Lithopsian (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it's quite something that space exploration has advanced to the point where a giant planet can be unnotable. SpinningSpark 16:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or any planet for that matter. Now they're announcing them a 1000+ at a time, and pretty soon there will be a dedicated satellite that should discover them by the tens of thousand all on its own. Same could have been said about supernovae a couple of decades back, now about 50,000 have been seen, but the exoplanet count is going to pass that number very quickly. Lithopsian (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Delete as WP:TOOSOON, without prejudice to future creation once the starships reach it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per another similar object, fails WP:NASTRO. Contains only information pulled items on a list. The list is notable, not every entry in the list. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with above. Nothing found on Google Scholar. Its just a data card with some formatting. Praemonitus (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent publishing[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks — trying to build the page, so examples, sources, citations, and additional language have been added. Will continue to add. Daysof1971 (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional references have been added to the article which need examining
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. essay/ neologism. No consistent use in sources. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sonali Kulkarni (businesswoman)[edit]

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

I don't see how the subject passes our notability guidelines.Near-zero coverage in intellectually-independent reliable sources.Typical paid-for-interviews.Insufficient in-depth or persistent coverage, as required for a subject to pass the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO, is found. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Meets GNG. Here are other sources:
- Sonali Kulkarni, Fanuc India: Leading From The Front - Business World March 8, 2018
- Empathy is as important as intellect - India Today April 2, 2018
- Making Robots Work - Business Today October 8, 2017
- Robo Queen - Business Today August 31, 2014

There are more, but this is enough to establish that she definitely meets GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi, thanks for your sources.Can you please provide the links, in future, for easy maneuvering.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi, thanks for your suggestion. These sources are from databases that don't provide links to articles on the open internet or even indicate if there are such links, so I don't really have any better way to do that than you do. As I'm sure you're aware, offline sources are just as good as online anyway, so I don't really see the benefit. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IP. I am just curious if I can have access to that said database? --Saqib (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I suppose anyone who pays for them can have access. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it.. what is the name of database? --Saqib (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One's called LexisNexis and the other's called NewsBank. If you're going to keep participating in AfDs you may find that it will help the quality of your work in the future if you learn how to search effectively for sources, and these are good places to start. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sonali Kulkarni, Fanuc India: Leading From The Front - Business World March 8, 2018

Empathy is as important as intellect - India Today April 2, 2018

Making Robots Work - Business Today October 8, 2017

Managed to find 3/4 of the sources online. Cesdeva (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Person passes notability.
- August 2014, Felicitated by Business Today as one of India's top businesswoman
- Covered by She The people, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParulThakur (talk • contribs) — Note to closing admin: User:ParulThakur is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broderick Zerpa[edit]

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

fails WP:NJOURNALIST and GNG the sources do not point to sufficient notability. The only indepth article is a puff piece that smacks of PR Dom from Paris (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete puff pieace articles are a dime a dozen and not everyone who gets one is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James E. Byrne[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and the sources are too weak for WP:GNG, there is no indepth coverage in independent RS Dom from Paris (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article makes no assertion of notability, there are refs but they describe him doing his job, I looked on google and news and it is showing the same. Szzuk (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Social Sounds[edit]

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

non-notable small festival The Banner talk 10:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. It looks like this two-day festival has only taken place during four years – 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2016 – and I'm struggling to find any reviews apart from blogs and local listings magazines... hardly surprising as the festival is designed to showcase musical acts from Belfast, where it takes place. Richard3120 (talk) 16:16, 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. Mz7 (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prachee Prakash Javadekar[edit]

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

Inadequate evidence of notability. The first source is a piece by her, the second no longer exists, the third does not mention her, the fourth has only a brief mention.

(The subject has requested deletion at the Help Desk; I don't consider this relevant.) Maproom (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per sources in the article not showing WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 09:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 09:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 09:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fails WP:GNG, BEFORE and AFTER. -The Gnome (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - it is possible that a case be made for her notability; but this article does not do it. (And I concur, her request that it be deleted is not relevant to our purposes.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:55, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SNAC Shareholders Committee[edit]

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

Almost totally unsourced WP:OR, doesn't meet our new notability guidelines Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article about a not independently notable subject for failing to at least hide their original work. -The Gnome (talk) 09:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable subject - this format is for the first time being put to a RBS PLC AGM this year and with likely HM Treasury Approval. This is a first for the entire UK. It may not in your eyes be notable because it is not main stream press however reading the Tomorrows Company report on Shareholder Nomination to the AGM committees circa 50 pages or going through a couple of thousand pages of Corporate Governance text will not get you very far "as its unwanted by CEOs" quote Chris Philp MP UK Parliament. This is my first mainstream published wiki article on something that will have a far greater effect than a bird listing. Changes will effect UK society and world governance of PLC's and capitalism. Sure its not a perfect article but so far there is nothing on Wikipedia. Please edit it with your knowledge. Be reminded that there is also no consistent composition of a Shareholders Committee otherwise called a Shareholders Nomination to the AGM Committee. I have excluded my award for best conference paper held in the Houses of Parliaments Corporate Governance Conference and many more for brevity etc which had a new twist on its composition. SOURCES HOW MANY DO YOU NEED? Given the wide ranging effect this needs something and who else is going to make it. Sure I could add another 20+ newspaper articles and mentions but why? It only got large because I thought it was published but it was still in my sandbox. Perhaps in the quick read you didn't read the long papers below linking to the related documents, the most recent newspaper article. Sadly I contributed and informed others of the idea who have since run with it and I didn't come up with the idea that was someone from the Swedish Association. Read the recent Press Release with the same four major published papers on it. Perhaps you didn't go to the source of articles or the organisations ShareSoc and UKSA. 2A02:A44E:67A3:1:19A3:74F2:4EB0:73D1 (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article is not ready yet, e.g. what does SNAC stand for. There should be some online refs - not just "sources" listed - certainly there have to be independent sources that mention SNAC. So, if I were to !vote I'd have say Delete (not yet). But please get the refs for SNAC (not just the concept of shareholder activism), and fix up the article in your sandbox. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shareholder Nomination to the Agm Committee is the first letters of the main words. Director Cliff Weight of ShareSoc thought SNARC. I was recommended by the Swedes to add in the 'Nomination to the AGM' part as otherwise people listen to it as just a meeting of shareholders yet it has the Chairman. Also the CEOs when they hear Nomination to the AGM get what the committee 'could do' because the four shareholders collectively have more than 5% shareholding to put a resolution forward or 100 members willing to get shares and sign the forms. Anyway what needs to be changed or removed to improve it. Shall I lengthen the title? Winsome P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A44E:67A3:1:EC65:8108:38F3:FFB9 (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also realise that the title is a bit stupid having the initials to start. The title should of been Shareholder Nomination to the AGM Committee (SNAC) or Shareholder Committee. Sorry but it wont change for me does it need a copy of what it is removing and then republishing all together? Winsome P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winsome P (talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a great idea either to write an article without reading any guidance eg Wikipedia:Your first article. that title still doesn't conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Please read our guidance, don't just dump your random thoughts here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete suggest the article creator seeks assistance from WP:AfC. Szzuk (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moustafa Nouraldeen[edit]

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

Author are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:AUTHOR. this is author of only one book which is not notable (at least by WP standards) Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person and his book so Can't see any significance here. Basically fails GNG as well. Saqib (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fails WP:AUTHOR. -The Gnome (talk) 09:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also cross-wiki spam by various sockpuppets. hiàn 23:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR, specifically the need to have a significant, oft cited impact on their field of literature.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment The article has been edited and adapted to suit the encyclopedia, please read it and show your opinion.--انتريا (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. DrKay (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-promotion created by sockpuppet. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well also delete Draft:Moustafa Nour, created by the same user. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Alaa :)..! 21:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Super League[edit]

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

Literary no mention in independent RS so this cricked league does not appear to meet GNG at all .. Saqib (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The words "mega" and "super" in the title are not enough for notability; "ultra" and "cosmic" should be added. -The Gnome (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Saqib, looks like you beat me to the nomination. Delete. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no obvious coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Can any Pakistani editors find better coverage than I could? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: I'm Pakistani. Search doesn't produce anything at all about this super mega league. --Saqib (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking WP:SIGCOV (most sources are article's subject own website) and as being promotional content. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Creator is probably also an undisclosed paid editor ("We (the TeamMSL)…"). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like it's by 'street cricket players'. samee converse 02:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need of any reasons here. M A A Z T A L K 03:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NACAr[edit]

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

Searches on all of the recommended sites (Google News, Google Books, etc.) have failed to turn up a result for NACAr. It has lacked sources for eight years and never had any to begin with. If the second embedded link ever contained a passing reference to this, the site's archives do not go back to the time the article was created, and the current searchable archives do not contain a mention to NACAr. Fails WP:N. Swissarmysalad (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails sourcing requirements of GNG. Most of the article is OR in one form or another. MarginalCost (talk) 13:39, 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 redirect to SoundCloud rap#List of rappers in the SoundCloud rap genre. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of SoundCloud rappers[edit]

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

Deletion was originally proposed by User:Discospinster because "SoundCloud is a music distribution service, not a label, so there is no particular connection between it and these rappers.". I agree with Discospinster. The template was removed the next day by the user who created this page with edit summary: "SoundCloud rap is a genre of music. Maybe move the article to List of SoundCloud rap artists?". The same user also created:

SoundCloud rap
Emo rap
Black Excellence
East Carolina University student riots

Update: I'm also fine with a hard redirect to SoundCloud rap#List of rappers in the SoundCloud rap genre. (which did not yet exist when I started this AfD)

- Alexis Jazz (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, no substance, no usefulness, no effort, no notability. No pain, no gain. -The Gnome (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's worth noting that SoundCloud rap already went to AfD and was kept as meeting GNG. Arguments that this should be deleted because "SoundCloud rap" is not a real/notable subgenre should probably start with contesting that article. Also, why are the other articles listed here unless they're also nominated for deletion? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much to give an idea of the amount of effort this user puts into articles. While any article should be judged on its own merits, it's good to have some context. Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Merge selectively, with sources, into SoundCloud rap. Many of these do not have sources in their articles for being called a "SoundCloud rapper" (being a rapper and releasing music on SoundCloud is not the same thing). What few do have such sources can easily just be in the main article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updated -- since the list has been copied over, there's nothing to merge. As SoundCloud rap includes a section literally titled "List of SoundCloud rappers" a redirect is logical, and I don't know that there's any reason to delete the history. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What is there to merge? An unsourced, possibly inaccurate, list? SoundCloud rap does not need a list independent of the main article at this juncture.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone through all of them. Certainly if none of the articles on this list have sources that call them a "SoundCloud rapper", then nothing should be merged. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: I copied the whole list to SoundCloud rap anyway with an {{Unreferenced section}} header. Still needs cleanup but this list article can now be deleted and nothing will be lost. I would be fine with it if all entries that are still unreferenced in a month or so are removed from the list. Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. -The Gnome (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For reasons pointed out above. What next? A wiki article that lists celebrities with Facebook pages? ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. -The Gnome (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ShelbyMarion: Everipedia beat you to it! Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is high time we made it impossible to create an article lacking any sources. I know too little of rap to have any clue ifthis term is notable, however even if it is, a free standing list is only justified if indepth coverage of lots of practitioners above the level one would epect to find in the base article is justified, and no one has come close to showing this. Especially since musicans can change from genere to genere, especially when dealing with sub-generes, so just because a sub-genere is defined enough for an article does not mean creating works in it creates a coherent group that is worth having a seperate list article for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The very title of this had me laughing, due to the proliferation of internet jokes about "a career as a Soundcloud rapper" and the like. Indeed, John Pack Lambert himself may be a humble Soundcloud rapper, as he rightfully notes that sourcing is really essential for all articles, and his mix tapes have not reached that level yet, but without sourcing no one would know either way.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holy moly, a soundcloud rapper recently went to #1 on the charts? I am a few months behind the times. My apologies to Lil' JPL420 and all those crews.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually looked into this a bit more. For the record I have never tried to create any rap compilations, and my roles in other form of musical production have never risen above singing in non-audition university chorals and in non-audition church choirs. I once auditioned for a community choir which audition I failed. I have written one or two songs with intended music, but lacked the skill to write the music down, and was never sure if I originated the tunes or had unconsiously borrowed them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To return to the matter at hand, I am not sure if it is clear if this merely refers to anyone who has posted works of rap on SoundCloud, or it this article is meant to be limited to those whose rap works are felt to fall within the boundaries of the SounCloud genre, thus excluding those who may have posted rap to SoundCloud but whose work does not fit within the parameters of this genre (I would guess maybe if you rapped without explicit mention of sex, and/or wwithout mentioning narcotics, I remain unclear on weather you need both to fit, can fit with just one or the other, etc.) on the other hand, my second definition would assumably include those who have never in anyway had their work posted to SoundCloud, but are still felt, presumably based on being so identified by reliable sources, to fit in this genre. Until we see evidence that this who categorization is based on reliable sources we need to scrap it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made the page into a soft redirect because people were working on both the copied list and this article. In the (seemingly unlikely) event that this list is kept the list could be copied back from SoundCloud rap. Alexis Jazz (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alexis Jazz: I reverted that change, see my reasoning here. Furthermore, the plain {{soft redirect}} template is unused in the mainspace, but that is beside the point in this case. Best regards, — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SoundCloud rap#List of rappers in the SoundCloud rap genre, as synonymous, which also invalidates most arguments made for the deletion of this title (but not its content). To clarify, it should be a hard redirect not a soft redirect. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SoundCloud rap#List of rappers in the SoundCloud rap genre. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Alexis Jazz (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ~~merge~~ to Eric Weinstein. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC) AFD closed voided based on this discussion Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual dark web[edit]

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

Not a notable neologism. Coined by Eric Weinstein this January, and coverage universally refers to him when using the term. I don't see evidence anyone else identifies with the term, and, much like "alt-right", identifying people as being part of this without them self-identifying is likely to be controversial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I concir with the nom. Neologism without proper sourcing. Best covered in creator's article. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a merger suggestion to both articles to reflect this. Seems like a good compromise suggestion. - IDW5605 (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree that listing people as part of the movement who do not explicitly identify with the movement is contorversial. In fact, I think it actually adds credibility, given that people are not usually objective with themselves, which is why we require secondary sources in an encyclopia like this. David Duke, who is a former Klansman, is referred to as a White supremacist on Wikipedia even though he objects to this and refers to himself as a "European–America human rights activist". I know this is an extreme example, but the logic is the exact same. Furthermore, the Intellectual dark web is not just mentioned by E. Weinstein: Douglas Murray wrote an essay in the Spectator on it (as cited on the page); Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, and Weinstein had a live podcast that sold out an entire theatre entitled the Intellectual Dark Web that covered this topic exclusively. It has been covered on The Rubin Report (as cited), on Big Think (as cited), The Providence Journal (as cited) and Quillette. - IDW5605 (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A term that has been gaining ground and certainly will keep doing that. All the people involved share a specific vision and thus, a certain group identity but have no other term to describe them (from the inside, I suppose we can dismiss derogatory terms assigned by their opponents). "Dark" in this context refers to it's counter-cultural aspect. The ideas expressed by those people can't be expressed on the main stream media, except very few outliers. While at the same time the combined number of followers/viewers on the internet reaches the same magnitude as several mainstream TV channels combined. Should solve the problem of "insignificance" quite nicely. The idea that a reference to a counterculture can be interpreted as ad hominem attack only shows total lack of understanding of both the term itself and the cultural phenomenon it describes. All the people listed here are under constant attack for their relatively controversial views and so is, by the extension, also anything created by them or related to them. Attempt to delete is just an attempt at covert political censorship[21] in the wider context of the ongoing cultural war in the 20-21st century western society. Which, once again, underlines how accurately the term describes the reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifth Entity (talk • contribs) 19:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. As per nom. It's a horrible term anyway (there is nothing "dark" or countercultural or subversive about several of the cited figures). Will just end up in ad hominems. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dark in this case doesn't mean sinister, it refers to the percieved lack coverage of some of these ideas in the mainstream press. At least do a modicum of research before voting. - IDW5605 (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "sinister". Invest in a dictionary. Some of these figures are, in fact, mainstream. Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, Maajid Nawaz... these are mainstream public figures with near celebrity status. It'd ludicrous to portray them as part of a "dark web" of any kind. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Invest in a dictionary" I think you mean thesaurus given sinister is a synonym for dark. From looking at your talk page you seem to have a habit of making combative edits while pushing your POV. - IDW5605 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*No, a dictionary. You don't seem to know the meaning of the word "sinister". And, from looking at your talk page and contributions, you are an obvious sockpuppet. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No personal attacks! ^That kind of comment is why you've been blocked at least once in each of the last four months. Just stop. -- IDW5605 (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion about whether it is ludicrous or not is irrelevant. What is pertinent is what reliable sources say, and whether or not it has enough weight to support inclusion. Marteau (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now with Eric Weinstein's article as a separate section or paragraph due to WP:RECENTISM. Keep working on the article in sandbox (according to NPOV and other editing policy) until the term or movement gains enough notability for creation of separate article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Weinstein's article. Barely notable, and seems to be a case of recentism. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 13:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unfortunately. I say "unfortunately" because one argument for keeping it as a separate article would be an included list of those characterized as such. I don't see how a list of those characterized as "intellectual dark web" types can be migrated to Weinstein's article, and that will probably be lost in the merge. As Miki Filigranski advised, I would keep a version in a sandbox because the term does seem to be gaining traction and I suspect it will gain notability and warrant an article soon. But for now, it's ALMOST there, but not quite. The feature piece in The Spectator was big, and Megan Daum in the Provident Journal has credibility. Some of the other links might be useful for context but don't go far enough to establish enough weight for a separate article, in my opinion. One more heavy hitter would be enough for me (and I'm talking New Yorker level or NY Times level, not "Rubin Report" level). Quillette looked promising, but I can't see any mention of it in any of their articles. "intelectualdark.website" is literally the work of an anon and can't really be used to link any of the people to being "intellectual dark web". Marteau (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while I'm at it, @Power~enwiki: your complaint about "identifying people as being part of this without them self-identifying is likely to be controversial" is something a clueless newbie would complain about, not someone who has been here as long as you. That's not how Wikipedia works, and you should know better than that. Marteau (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent months watching, participating, and ultimately avoiding discussions regarding whether people are "alt-right". If this is half as controversial, it will also be painful to determine what examples should be listed of people associated with the movement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being, 'alt-right' is often used as a political pejorative, while this doesn't have the same negative conotation whatsoever. – IDW5605 (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I'm sure Harris and Pinker would be delighted to be listed as "intellectual dark webists". Ludicrous. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except Harris hosted a live podcast entitled The Intellectual Dark Web, featuring himself, Weinstein, and Shaprio. — IDW5605 (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because he was interviewing Weinstein about The Intellectual Dark Web, among other things. At no point does he identify as a "member" of the "intellectual dark web". He's also hosted - on his Waking Up podcasts - a show entitled "White Power". Does that make him a neo-Nazi? ~~Engage your brain, Mr Sockpuppet Single Purpose Account.~~ ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor"

Best we keep the discussion civil, hurling accusations and insults is petty and doesn't advance the discussion.

If you want to discuss the validity of Sam Harris being mentioned in this article, you may do it at the talk page: Talk:Intellectual dark web#Sam Harris, but this page is about what to do with the article itself. Thanks, -- IDW5605 (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Here's a pertinent observation, not a personal attack: you are a sockpuppet.~~ ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not true! — Assume good faith. -- IDW5605 (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Weinstein's article. Unfortunately, Weinstein did not choose the term "intellectual dark web" with enough care. As a physicist, he was thinking perhaps of dark matter, which is not a bad association. Just as 80 percent of the universe may be unrecognised dark matter, so also perhaps 80 percent of rational debate on social and political thinking may be missing in mainstream media. But the association most people will have will be with the dark web, which conjures a spectrum of dubious, if not nefarious activities. Maybe that is stopping a wider acceptance of the term. There is also something paradoxical about Wikipedia requiring that the term must first go mainstream before it can warrant an entry here. I have been following the use of the term on the web, and at the moment it is stalling. In time the concept of the "intellectual dark web" may win acceptance, perhaps because a better name is found for it. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Left (Liberal Party of Australia)[edit]

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

This is a joint nomination along with Conservative Right Liberal Party of Australia: both articles are entirely original research, largely unsourced (and unsourceable) and raises a bunch of BLP issues through the unsourced addition of names to the article's various claims. These "factions" do not exist: there is no quantifiable grouping calling itself the "Moderate Left" or the "Conservative Right": there are just moderate and conservative MPs with varying points of agreement and disagreement as in any political party. There are kind-of-factions in the Liberal Party: but they're not these factions, and an article on the actual factions would actually be able to be sourceable (since reliable sources would, in fact, exist). The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this page were to be deleted, then I suspect that the matching Conservative Right Liberal Party of Australia should also be reviewed. They are the two notionally active factions mentioned in {{Liberal Party of Australia}}, along with two noted as defunct. I think the best solution may to merge sourced aspects of both articles to Liberal Party of Australia#Philosophies and factionalism then if the need arises extract a single subordinate sourced factionalism article from it. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Lord, that one is even worse - have nominated it as well and rewritten the nomination. The sentence in Liberal Party of Australia claiming that there are two left/right factions is unsourced nonsense and probably added by the author of this article - I actually chopped the whole paragraph because it was an unsourced mess. I think there's very little that could be salvaged apart from adding a sentence or two about moderate-conservative ideological tensions sourced to actual facts. An actually-sourced article on Liberal factions would have to refer to the actual (state-and-usually-personality-based) factions-of-sorts: e.g. Michael Kroger vs. whoever is opposing him these days in Victoria, the four or five groupings in New South Wales, and the equivalent (real) groupings in other states as opposed to these two articles spouting unsourced fiction. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I stand by "merge sourced content",~~ but also accept the comment further down by Dom from Paris and The Gnome that it could well be a null edit. The few references used for the long list of MPs do not actually support the claim being made. I support delete without redirect as there is no evidence of an organisation to document. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottDavis: The problem with merge is that someone has to do the job and to do so requires leaving this article available and then creating a redirect. Maybe if you believe there is stuff to save you could copy the article to your sandbox and then do the merge after the deletion if that is what is decided. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Merge advocacy struck through. Thank you. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as per nom. No need to attempt to merge WP:OR into any other articles. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination this atrociously written thumbsucker of an article. It's so fully infected by biased, original work that it cannot be saved. And, of course, it should not be allowed to infect other texts. -The Gnome (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:OR and not a neutral POV. Not plausable search terms so no need to redirect to anything either -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Factions in the Liberal Party of Australia should be created at some point to discuss the various intricacies of the party, but the current articles are awful. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some level of discussion of the factions, acknowledging the fact that they are informal ones, is useful somewhere as it does have a bearing on the current understanding of the Liberal Party. Agreed, this article needs lots of improvement, but some consideration should be given to relocate some of it into other articles.
- But there's nothing here to salvage: these aren't articles on Liberal factions broadly, they're articles on two specific - and completely fictional - factions. There's nothing to improve. A hypothetical Factions in the Liberal Party of Australia article on actually-existing factions could use nothing from this article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:56, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Sangsamanan[edit]

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

Article was PROD but tag removed without explanation or any update to page. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG NZFC^(talk) 02:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NSPORTS and WP:NFOOTBALL. Has he, at least, played...in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues? If he has, the evidence is not to be found. Don't article creators care at all? -The Gnome (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence that the player passes WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 19:27, 17 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) 15:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Delete or draftify, either way it should not be in mainspace. Thanks. ATZNA 16:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)This account is a sock Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:21, 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 speedy delete. G11. Randykitty (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SinFest Metal Festival[edit]

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

Non-notable festival. Page's only reference is a Facebook page. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:46, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whispurr[edit]

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

Article is blatantly promotional. Sources are promotional in nature. Cannot find any reliable secondary sources. Website is for sale, cannot find any proof that it was ever in business. Rogermx (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article describing the feature-set of an apparently-defunct web proposition, sourced with blog and dead links. No evidence that it evern attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of association footballers who died while playing. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Stefan Petrovski[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSOCCER or WP:GNG. Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and the coverage of his tragic death doesn't make him notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Never made an appearance for Melaka United before his death and he doesn't meet WP:GNG as really only so many newspaper articles on him because of the one event. NZFC^(talk) 03:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could he deserve a mention on Deaths in 2018? Govvy (talk) 19:40, 17 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. Almost all coverage is for one event and we need to adhere to WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Fenix down (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of association footballers who died while playing - I believe Govvy means Deaths in 2016. Anyway I think this would be better served as a redirect to the said mention article as I belive it could be a valid search term. Also the same subject (but different article name) was AFDed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Petrovski roughly a year ago. – Inter&anthro (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Inter&anthro suggestion. Govvy (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KDEL Channel 20[edit]

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

Local cable access station, fails WP:GNG & WP:ORG. Serves a town of about 20,000 people Rusf10 (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Searches of google and Newspapers.com fail to turn up any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 13:47, 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 keep. Consensus to keep is clear. I recommend starting a move request in order to decide what the title should be. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Muller-Moore[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E concerns; the only coverage is about his "Eat More Kale" slogan.

Eat More Kale currently redirects to Chick-fil-A#Advertising (after a previous AfD). That doesn't seem like a feasible redirect target for this article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles in Time, The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, NPR, Adweek, etc. show that this is not your run-of-the-mill event. The Washington Post article states "The measure required a Commerce Department study into how large businesses use trademark laws against smaller businesses." That plus lots of other sources in the article demonstrate it had a lasting effect. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. As Clarityfiend has noted, and as is obvious from the footnotes in the article, Muller-Moore received substantial coverage at the time in the national press, and his response to Chick Fil-A is now cited in several books and articles about business ethics and trademark law, etc. So, I don't think notability is a concern here.

About the Eat More Kale article: I actually didn't spot it before making the Bo Muller-Moore article. Looking at it now, I see that at the time of the decision to delete it, (a) several of its sources were poor; (b) it had an unencyclopaedic tone (it was both too informal and too promotional for an encyclopedia article); (c) it was nominally about the Eat More Kale business, which was, in a sense, less notable than the case or than the proprietor; and (d) some of the accounts of the Eat More Kale case in books and articles about business ethics and trademark law either had not yet been published or may not yet have been available via Google Books or other sources readily accessible to Wikipedia contributors. So, while the AfD decision might have been reasonable in response to the article's state at the time, and the sources available to Wikipedia contributors at the time, the situation has now shifted somewhat, and Muller-Moore or Eat More Kale now seem to be an appropriate topic for an article.

However, I do think it should be just one article. Probably the best outcome would be for either:

Eat More Kale to be redirected to the current Bo Muller-Moore article, or
the current Bo Muller-Moore to be renamed to Eat More Kale and to be made to focus on the case rather than the person, with a redirect added from Bo Muller-Moore to Eat More Kale.

Either way, it might make sense to either regard this discussion as a sort of deletion review for Eat More Kale, or alternatively to put this discussion on hold while a deletion review is held re: Eat More Kale, based on the idea of incorporating much of the text and sources from the current Bo Muller-Moore article into a new Eat More Kale article. Zazpot (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for meeting WP:GNG. I see your WP:BLP1E and raise you one Lee Harvey Oswald. -The Gnome (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This whole article is a one event NPOV violation. Just because the liberal media is an echo chamber that hates anyone who stands up to their promotion of some ideas, which is why they have a irrational hate of Chick-Fil-A and a willingness to attack it at any turn, does not mean we should give undue space to this irrational coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and the moon landing was faked too!104.163.140.141 (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a copyright dispute. The text does not appear to take sides in the dispute; in fact, it offers a multitude of sources for the legal texts themselves that we can peruse and form our own opinion on the issue. There are no politics in this discussion. (More accurately, there were no politics until you, John Pack Lambert , brought them in.) -The Gnome (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When the governor of a state makes statements about a copyright dispute, politics clearly exist in the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Politics may be brought in but that does not affect the substance of the case, which remains a dispute about copyright. A subject does not lose its notability (the merit of inclusion in Wikipedia) because a politician makes a political case out of it! Otherwise, the content of Wikipedia would depend on the whims of politicians. -The Gnome (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I agree with the suggestion that it should be renamed to "Eat More Kale" and adjusted to focus on the "case" Jmertel23 (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This case is shaping up to be rather significant, and probably deserves to have its own article here. In sum, we should perhaps give to the article a title with the name of the case. And the slogan redirect should redirect to the legal case, rather than to Chick-Fil-A. -The Gnome (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and add redirect to Eat More Kale trademark lawsuit. It would be better, but I can't find an official lawsuit name such as Chick-Fil-A vs. Eat More Kale. The article has almost no biographical info on Muller-Moore - indeed, you'd be hard pressed to build any sort of an in-depth article about him using the identified sources. To counter the BLP argument above, I can write a lot about Lee Harvey Oswald using his media coverage, including documentaries. We can add the renamed article to this list: List of trademark case law. Also redirect "Eat More Kale" slogan to the renamed article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: thanks for your support for keeping the article in some form. About your suggested titles: AFAICT, there was, technically, no lawsuit between Muller-Moore and Chick Fil-A. Rather, Chick Fil-A seems to have attempted to control the outcome via two other mechanisms:

by filing an objection, with the USPTO, regarding Muller-Moore's trade mark application; and
by sending lawyers' letters to Muller-Moore, demanding that he stop using the "Eat More Kale" slogan and that he give up his business to Chick Fil-A (even though no court had ordered this, nor had any court found Muller-Moore to be in breach of any law regarding his slogan).

Their use of the latter mechanism seems to be the main reason why this incident is characterised, by several sources, as an example of a large corporation bullying a small outfit, as it would obviously have put Muller-Moore out of business. I would guess that if Chick Fil-A had simply filed an objection with the USPTO and left it at that, commentators might have merely characterised their actions as overzealous (because t-shirts are not Chick Fil-A's business, and fast food is not Muller-Moore's business, so the likelihood of consumers confusing the two businesses is minimal), but not bullying.

What makes the incident notable is that unlike other small businesses Chick Fil-A had approached in this way, Muller-Moore resisted both through the USPTO and through the court of public opinion, in such a way as to overturn the usual order of events, resulting in substantial coverage in the press, some coverage in academia, and a general re-thinking of how businesses should handle such issues. If you think the article should clarify that there was no lawsuit per se between Chick Fil-A and Muller-Moore, then I would agree, assuming a suitable WP:RS could be found to support the clarification.

I hope this comment was helpful (and apologies if you already understood all this and my comment was superfluous). Thanks again, Zazpot (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marisa Peer[edit]

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

promotional paid article about minor author. None of her books is held by more than 100 libraries, which is utterly trivial for self-help books of this sort. The remainder of the claims are for "appearances" , "panels of experts"on TV shows, and the like, DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:A7. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 01:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:A7. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes some very basic criteria for notability. Marisa Peer is notable as an author of several books translated into several languages, member of TV shows, creator of her own psychology method and frequent contributor to popular media. One just needs to check her WorldCat profile, visit IMDB page, Google “Marisa Peer” +”Rapid Transformational Therapy” and make a Google News search for “Marisa Peer”. Disclosure: this is a properly declared COI contribution. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Today's historical trivia: Shakespeare actually never wrote the line "Vanity, thy name is woman." So, there. -The Gnome (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable in the article and can't find anything salvageable from a before search. SportingFlyer talk 14:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We really, really need to stop moving this kind of crap into mainspace – five different high-value volunteer editors have spent precious time cleaning this up when all that was needed was to let it rot as a draft. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:38, 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.