Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 April	22 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 speedy delete. G11, unambiguous self-promotion. -- ferret (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flappy Mouse[edit]

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

I find no evidence of notability for this video game. In searching, be sure to distinguish it from mobile apps with the same name. Largoplazo (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my PROD rationale which was overwritten by this nomination (bad timing?) Adam9007 (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:35, 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 and redirect to [of Marvel Comics characters: O]. We don't as a rule merge unsourced material but a redirect to somewhere where a one liner could be created seems supported by tye discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ozymandias (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

Unlike its namesake character from DC Comics, this character does not appear to be relevant - there are no sources cited except comic books in order to establish notability of the character outside of its fictional universe, and a Google search only leads to results about its namesake, or wikias. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the recent discussion on Blaquesmith. More suited for a wikia. Does not pass WP:GNG. --Killer Moff (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: O. Unlike Blaquesmith, this article (a) contains enough real-world information for a brief entry, (b) demonstrates repeat appearances across at least a year of publishing, and (c) is linked from 15+ articles. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above due to no real-world references. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources, to much plotcruft to merge. Sandstein 06:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Trending keep, but clearly no consensus to delete. Sandstein 07:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Identity Extremism[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rename to FBI report on Black Identity Extremists. It is true that there has been significant coverage on this topic. However, the subject isn't really Black Identity Extremism itsself but the FBI report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitigresito (talk • contribs) 17:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CyberSafar[edit]

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

Article for advertising of non notable magazine. If not for the empty, unreferenced claim of being published, this is A7 straight. But better knock it down here, in case it is recreated as was the case for every advert content–Ammarpad (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May be a small-scale selling magazine, its listed in notable RS like ′itunes.apple.com′ and ′magzter.com′. As no much info is available about the magazine, only available content, what reliable sources say, are included in the article. Only intention of article's creation is because of encyclopedic interest. Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 08:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A mere listing, without any hint of a breath of a suggestion of notability or of sources thereof. It doesn't even list the circulation. --Calton | Talk 14:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine is officially registered in Office of the Registrar of the Newspapers for India. Article includes the registration info. Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being "officially registered" is meaningless except possibly as evidence of existence. --Calton | Talk 17:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without legal proof of establishment and circulation details, a magazine cannot be registered in RNI, as per RNI's duties. Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really understand Wikipedia's concept of "Notability"?. Even though, you've been here for a decade, but your style of defence put question mark on that. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ammarpad, As you've mentioned, I created the account a decade ago, but I am editing since only from January 2018. I've provided few reference citaitons like 'itunes.apple.com' and 'magzter.com' in the article. Aren't they reliable sources? | Thank you. Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If business/store sources like itunes.apple.com is what you add in your articles as a reliable source, then there's more problem than this. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ganeshprasadkp: - hi, sources have to be reliable, 3rd party (not original research (OR) or self-published) and independent. The content has to also not merely be a passing mention - significant coverage is required. I'm about to run though the current sources to see what they're like. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"CyberSafar - January 2018". magzter.com. - shopping details aren't neutral, and it doesn't give much detail in any case.
"CyberSafar Edumedia". tradeindia.com. - The detail here is so scarce, it's hard to determine whether it can be relied on for the location data.
"CyberSafar". play.google.com. - as with a shop source, the details here wouldn't be reliable, nor is it a significant source.
"Cybersafar Magazine No 2 April 2012". scribd.com. - my translate was playing up with this one - if it's just a copy of the actual magazine, then its worthwhile to have a link to, but can't be relied on as it's OR. If that isn't the case, apologies - I can't read it to check, anyone who can please say.
"ઈ-મેઇલની જરા અંદરની વાત". divyabhaskar.co.in. - I couldn't tell whether this was OR or not - it's a different website, but indicates "Article of Cyber Safar by Himanshu Kikani in Kalash Magazine", suggesting that it is a duplicated piece of work. Can you confirm?
"CyberSafar 4+ Magzter Inc". itunes.apple.com. - Another store/shop etc source and therefore not reliable
"Website and Reviews of CyberSafar Edumedia". grotal.com. - Recruiting company - Not reliable and not a significant source
"IT MAGAZINES/BOOKS". pcpersonalised.com. - very passing mention, just noting it was a possible provider of articles
"Cybersafar Edumedia". startuparena.in. - Some OR provided minimal details in a start-up platform.
"Web Analysis for Cybersafar". cutestat.com. The web bit is OR, but that isn't mentioned in the article so that isn't an issue. However other than noting that Cybersafar exists, it doesn't provide any significant coverage
"Cybersafar Handy Guide Set". clickabooks.com. - Another store link, without any appreciable information in any case
"Registrar of Newspapers for India". rni.nic.in. - ~~broken link.~~ Seeming government list of newspapers publisher/printing addresses. While it could act as a source for that detail(s), not significant independent source for general notability.
"Cybar Safar". newspapers.in. - Again just a confirmation it exists, it doesn't provide any appreciable coverage to indicate that Cyber Safar has sufficient notability for its own article
"CyberSafar Cyber Crime Topics-2016 (Gujarati) Paperback – 2016". amazon.in. - another store link, just demonstrating that they have made a book (worth mentioning though, if you can find a source)
"Cyber Safar". careerage.com/. - Not CS related.

Delete* Userfy - The general source quality has been poor, so I also had a look for other potential sources that might work, but nothing beyond a couple of comment mentions came up. I just don't believe it can satisfy sufficient sourcing under Notability (media). Creator is actively engaging - userfy seems logical route Nosebagbear (talk). 15:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ammarpad:, @Calton: - I'd missed that this article had only been edited by the creator, who is actively participating with us. I've altered my delete to userfy, since if it is going to go that way, it might as well be draftified. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--There's no point in giving false hopes and wasting our editorial resources at AFC, by a draftification. This topic isn't notable by a mile and will not be notable, in the near future.The sourcing quality is not just poor but it's pretty equivalent to non-sourced stuff.[[[WP:NOTNOW|Not now]] and you may spend your efforts elsewhere, at any one of our millions of existing articles.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Steinberg[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Most of the sources seem to be articles that he himself wrote. Very little if any independent sources to support notability. It seems that the article was already deleted three times in the past, making it a good candidate for salting Rusf10 (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I nearly "soft closed" this as delete, but it would seem that to salt it there should be some community consensus this time around to solidify the deletion. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & salt: does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NAUTHOR. Coverage is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. In general, promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concentric (company)[edit]

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

article has no sources outside of company's own website DocumentError (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: it's listed on the NASDAQ OMX, so there should be some presumption of notability, but a quick search hasn't turned up any reliable, independent secondary sources that discuss the company in detail. If such sources are found, of course my !vote would change to keep. --Slashme (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It is a legitimate company, but seems to fail GNG and WP:NCORP. There might be some sources out there but the adjectival nature of the company's name makes it difficult to search. As above, if someone can provide sufficient coverage I will change to keep. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finnmark independence referendum, 2018[edit]

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

The referendum will not address the question of state sovereignty, which has not been raised by a political body either. The referendum is about whether or not to uphold county status vs. a merger. Several of the claims are unsupported, such as that about Sami secessionism. Geschichte (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The referendum appears to be about the merger with Troms. Number 5 7 08:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, even the second source is about the actual referendum, which is the merger with Troms. Also NPOV etc etc issues Nosebagbear (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't claim a lot of personal knowledge of Norwegian politics, but a Google News search confirms that the nominator is correct: this is not an "independence" referendum, but merely a referendum on whether to maintain Finnmark's existing county status or merge it with another neighbouring county. Either way, nobody's leaving Norway or changing their sovereignty status, because sovereignty is a concept that attaches to nationhood, not countyhood — but much of this article falsely claims that Finnmark will become independent of Norway if the referendum passes, which is absolutely not what's happening. No prejudice against creation of a new, neutral and accurate article about the vote, if desired, but this is an ideologically loaded and wrongheaded mess that badly misrepresents its subject — so even if an article is warranted, the blow it up and start over principle would pertain. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 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 redirect to Wakhi people#Wakhi Tajik Cultural Association. Content can be merged from history subject to consensus. Sandstein 06:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wakhi Tajik Cultural Association[edit]

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

I found some coverage in the books via G'books but trivial therefore this one fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Saqib (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wakhi Tajik Cultural Association is mentioned in many books and news articles. I did not find anything which is promotional, people who researched Wakhi people, almost always mentioned this and what this organization is doing to preserve local culture. Among other reference, I found [4]. This book has more details. This article should be divided into background, as in most cases, reason for creating this was to promote Wakhi culture as it is overshadow by modern culture. Coverage in all the books is related to their culture, langugae and threats to their way of life and how this association is helping. So in context of Wakhi people and area where they live, this association is significantly mentioned, in reliable sources and multiple times. What is your opinion on this. --Spasage (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MY opinion, it fails per WP:ORGDEPTH. --Saqib (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - Note for closing admin: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#Possible_issues_at_AfD --Saqib (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it may be redirected to Wakhi people#Organizations. samee converse 20:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content over there is unsourced and risk getting deleted. Redirection does not make sense unless someone fix it. On a related note, I don't understand why would someone mention the organisation (which is not notable at least by WP standards) in quite detail in an article about Wakhi people. Generally, we are not supposed to do that. A wikilink makes sense but whole passage does not. --Saqib (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say to simply merge it with Wakhi people#Wakhi Tajik Cultural Association. M A A Z T A L K 13:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I would say why? --Saqib (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? WP:AFDFORMAT reads: Alternatives to deletion should be considered. If you think the article should be a disambiguation page, a redirect or merger to another article, then recommend "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge". Do not recommend deletion in such cases. Explained in WP:ATD. M A A Z T A L K 20:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my above comment dated 11 April. --Saqib (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:ATD is a stronger argument here. M A A Z T A L K 17:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:02, 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 Inch Park. Sandstein 06:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Inch[edit]

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

Single-sourced biography of a city councillor, in a city not large enough to hand its city councillors an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing. As always, city councillors only get an immediate presumption of notability in internationally prominent global cities on the order of New York City, Chicago, Toronto or London -- in cities on the order of Hamilton, Ontario, city councillors are accepted as notable only if they can be well-sourced to a depth and range of coverage that marks them out as significantly more notable than the norm for city councillors. But this demonstrates nothing of the sort; it just cites his brief entry in a local biographical dictionary, which is not enough all by itself. And having had a city park or neighbourhood named after him is not an exemption from having to have more reliable source coverage than this, either -- most municipal infrastructure in most cities is named after former aldermen and mayors and merchants and other local figures, so it doesn't inherently make Inch special. There's simply not enough substantive sourcing here to deem him notable for any of this. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 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 02:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete The only source given is unavailable and I'm a bit dubious that it contains all of this info. In particular I could not verify that the neighborhood is named after him, and that's all that begins to constitute a significant claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Inch Park. I did a little searching, added a couple of sources about Inch, and I suggest that we move this article title and create a new article about Inch Park. The park, built on part of Adam and Jaqueline Inch's old farm, has quite a lot of coverage down the decades, and the Inches are remembered as founders of the neighborhood around the park. the park is large, with ball fields and an ice hockey arena. And there is coverage of the Park in regional and local press over the decades . E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect not possible until target article is created.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I ~~will have time to create such a page later this week~~ created... E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inch Park.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Blakey (music producer)[edit]

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

Reason Wikitigresito (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I believe Michael Blakey is not relevant to wikipedia. There was a very long article written on his life, mostly un- or badly sourced and very likely intended to push his prestige and public image a little bit. After deleting everything that is obviously not relevant, the only possibly noteworthy things he has done were music production activities for a couple of famous musicians (especially Engelbert Humperdinck). However, it seems to be that he mostly co-produced the less well-known, 2nd tier pieces of these artists.

Edit: The article has previously been deleted based on broad consensus (WP:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Blakey) for failing notability and has been reinstated under a slightly different name.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep have restored the full version of the article for the purposes of the AFD to enable proper evaluation which shows in the deleted content now restored that he produced a Grammy nominated album so he passes criteria 8 of WP:NMUSIC Atlantic306 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for your input. I also saw this album, it is not a music album, but a compilation of comedy storytelling. Therefore, notability criteria for musicians should not apply. Also, the criterion does not explicitly imply producers as relevant people. I would question whether it applys to co-producers then. Wikitigresito (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should not be deleted because: 1. It doesn't fall under any of the Wikipedia reasons for deletion in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, 2. It meets the relevant Wikipedia:Notability (music) requirements, e.i. falls under criteria 8 and 10 in Criteria for musicians and ensembles, as well as criterion 1 in Criteria for composers and lyricists in WP:NMUSIC. Namely, AllMusic lists him as a musician (drummer)^[1] on such famous records as Will to Power by Tidal Force and I'll Be There by Gloria Gaynor. He is also given credit as a composer on numerous famous records by the same music directory^[2] 3. Although the article might need further improvement, I believe it is written in a non-promotional manner, majority of the statements are well referenced. 4. The length of the article as well as the facts contained therein only confirm that Michael Blakey has had a long-term career as a musician, producer and composer that dates back to 1970s and that he is still relevant today.Maralon1956 (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand that you disagree with the deletion of this article, as you have been a major contributor over years. 1. and 2. However, he does not meet criteria 8, because as he only co-produced the relevant album, he does not belong to the group of "bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists" (Wikipedia:Notability (music)). He also does not meet criteria 1, because there is no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Being mentioned on allmusic.com does not contitute coverage. From your arguments, I don't see how he could meet criteria 10. Furthermore, the "famous" song "Will to Power" and its band "Tidal Force" are not notable. "I'll Be There" (please notice that the version you mentioned is not even listed on the wikipage) is also not notable. 3. Additionally, the article is written in a promotional manner, for example, by trying to associate the subject in the introduction with the famous artist Tupac Shakur. Google searches for "Michael Blakey 2pac" and similiar terms produce no relevant results. The previously deleted article was found to be probably self-written, it seems likely that the same applys to this piece. Wikitigresito (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter who has been the major contributor to this article, what matters is whether this nomination for deletion is valid. From what you've posted above I can only see that the nomination was purely made based on personal dislike. I cited AllMusic because it is a reliable global source for music credits, but there are plenty of other databases that list Michael's credits as a musician and music producer. You can check out Discogs, for example, if you're in doubt that his credits are valid^[3]. Also, he does fall under the music category as he is a musician/instrumentalist and music producer. Maralon1956 (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was asked to come here because I took the predecessor article to WP:AFD some time ago. I have inspected the article briefly. It reeks of WP:BOMBARD with a welter of pseudo-references which are not useful references. There may be useful references that meet our criteria, but they need to be validated. Detailed analysis will show that many of those in (e.g.) individual albums should become footnotes and are not references. I think it unlikely that the gentleman has acquired notability in the period since deletion, but have only come here only to comment, not to opt for retention nor deletion. The answer to the discussion is, as always, in the references. Fiddle Faddle 22:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that he "only co-produced" does not diminish his contribution to the work. Most if not all songs and albums nowadays are created by groups of people, not single composers, producers, arrangers, etc. All successful records only became successful thanks to the people who worked on them, no matter if it’s one person or a creative collective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 260xx 0:387:8:9:0:0:0:91 (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about being producer or co-producer. His only claim to notability is his affiliation as a producer with a comedy album that has been nominated for a grammy. However, the relevant criterion 8 of WP:MUSICBIO does not apply to producers (no matter whether co- or not), but only to musicians involved. Wikitigresito (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
VERY STRONG DELETE: I saw so many references that I thought the accusations of "personal dislike" to be possible. What I find is a very promotional, and likely COI created or edited BLP (certainly not contested) article that could be a poster for "what Wikipedia is not". I started looking at references, marking dead links and removing IMDb and Discogs", that a broad community consensus has determined is unreliable, and I got exhausted. Primary sources like ElectraStarMgmt.com (I counted 6), dead links, or inappropriate links not involving the subject or those considered connected to the subject, don't count towards the notability of a person, and further: Multiple references from the same source count as one if attempting to use for notability. It was stated above this article is "written in a non-promotional manner" and I assume this editor missed the New York Times (considered reliable) source titled THE POP LIFE; On the Rise And on Line. While a good article with lots of names mentioned it has a lot to do with $50 dollar a seat tickets, or even better, "two days of lectures" for 800 people at $1,300-1,400 bucks, and the subject is not listed at all (that I could find) and that is a problem with a majority of the references. The Allmusic references (I counted 47) are mostly "all about others" with other references "all about Ron White" (NOTE: I am a Ron White fan). Over 60 of the now showing 80 references do nothing for notability of the subject. I can dig farther on the remaing 20 that would have to be a big change in direction to help notability. Besides, there is so much junk the AFD would likely be over before I could finish. (See conclusion) Otr500 (talk)
Conclusion: Fails WP:BASIC, doesn't currently qualify for consideration under WP:NMUSIC (maybe a stretch of WP:CREATIVE), and fails WP:GNG. The subjuct, while likely notable to his family, fans, some editors, and the circle he and Ron White run in, does not rise to the level of acceptable notability for a BLP on Wikipedia (according to sources) as a "producer" or "co-producer". I think editors and admins are starting to catch on to the trick of recreating articles by simple word changes. I feel this is a way around provided alternatives for attempting inclusion that even sometimes circumvent salting. The sources provided boil down to a lot of refbombing to advance notability. The bombarding of improper sources and questions of COI editing give rise to serious concerns. I am impressed with the ability of new editors (44 and 57 edits) to jump into policies and guidelines like pros, but I also wonder why an established editor would boldly "restore" a previous version, that might be considered improper, just to present it to this AFD? I might have reverted but I don't think this version helps in the discussion and I had already made a lot of source edits that I might kill off before realizing this. Otr500 (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*VERY STRONG KEEP: Instead of simply deleting stuff from Wiki it's better to improve articles like this. I removed dead links (some of them were erroneously marked dead as the links contained audio interviews) and added a few Hollywood Reporter links to the article where the subject is mentioned as a celebrity manager for Jimmy Connors and Ron White. The same source also clarifies that Michael Blakey was an executive producer for Ron White's comedy album "Ron White's Salute To The Troops" (2011). Moreover I was able to find all the Electra Star links that were previously removed for being dead. Freethinker987 (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

— Freethinker987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Fiddle Faddle 16:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment inspection of the history of the article at this permalink timed after the contribution above by Freethinker987 shows that this editor has made no edits to the article at all, as does inspection of their user contributions. Assuming good faith, perhaps they forget to submit their edits. Fiddle Faddle 16:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably user forgot to save earlier. I clearly see edits by Freethinker987 in edit history now.69.75.187.164 (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have had the chance to assess this now. I'm surprised it wasn't speedily deleted as recreation of tosh deleted at AFD, but we're past that now. This is WP:ADMASQ backed by WP:BOMBARD. It is not salvageable because the subject fails WP:BIO and all other notability guidelines. Like the first incarnation it is a vanity piece. I'm sure he's a very fine chap, but he misses our criteria.

I love the use of big bold capital letters. They do not influence the closing admin one way or another. Since it is not a ballot this will be decided upon the arguments and on the article itself. Since this keeps arising from the ashes, may I suggest salting to seek to prevent yet another discussion over inherently similar re-creations? 16:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep Internet is a constantly changing space, no wonder a lot of references many times become outdated or expire. It is not a reason to delete the whole article. Let’s revisit some of the bad links. I’ve found a lot of evidence that the subject was a music producer on many charting records. He produced Margo Rey’s “Let The Rain” that was co-written with John Oates, Patsy Cline Duets album featuring legendary talent. Also as a producer he worked with Michelle Wright on the Greatest Hits Collection that became a gold record. I added those to the article, hopefully this will help keep it.69.75.187.164 (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

—69.75.187.164 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Otr500 (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Michael is a music producer known for his work with plenty of artists, I don’t understand why this is even being questioned. He is also known for breaking new artists, e.g. Brooke Allison, Ashley J, Christine Saade, Ashley Greene just to name a few. Christine Saade's record "Get Together" and Ashley J's "Dare Ya" charted on Billboard, not to mention very well-known acts like Ron White. Michael was an executive producer on his last comedy specials "Ron White's Salute To The Troops" years 2012, 2014, "A Little Unprofessional" that was nominated for Grammy's in 2013. It is all mentioned and referenced in the nominated article, as well as you can find plenty of sources online supporting this. Please do proper research before putting something up for deletion. 76.79.178.211 (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could any of the editors who have turned up here provide any example of independent reliable sources providing any significant coverage of Michael Blakey, rather than just a mention in the minor credits? If I was Blakey I would be very embarrassed by the actions of the people supporting the keeping of this article. It just makes him look like a narcissistic self-promoter. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I support keeping this article. Michael Blakey was a producer of Ron White's "A Little Unprofessional" CD and DVD. The album charted on Billboard with peak position *1, ^[4] was certified Platinum by RIAA^[5] and was nominated for a Grammy ^[6]. There are no sources more reliable than this. It's very hard work and it's so sad when it's criticized or doubted like this for no reason by the people who hide behind their nicknames. Definitely keep.

Michael, I avoided mentioning above that this is almost certainly you in a vain attempt to avoid your blushes, but don't you realise how ridiculous you are making yourself look here? Just give up your attempt to include yourself on Wikipedia to avoid making yourself a laughing stock, if it's not already too late. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To further elaborate my point of view: the article falls under WP:PEOPLE, and meets WP:basic, plus meets additional criteria for creative professionals WP:FILMMAKER. If the author failed to conform with Wiki's neutral point of view policy, WP:GD clearly states that the article is "usually remedied through editing for neutrality, but text that does not conform to any of the remaining three policies is usually removed from Wikipedia, either by removing a passage or section of an otherwise satisfactory article or by removing an entire article if nothing can be salvaged." In this case, WP:OR does not apply and most of the sources are verifiable. I see no grounds for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.196.200.150 (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

—173.196.200.150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Otr500 (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must note that every IP address associated with a "keep" above geolocates to Los Angeles. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny, that's where Blakey's management company is located. wikitigresito (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I had noticed that. It's very sad when someone who has had, and seemingly still has, a perfectly respectable career but nothing to indicate Wikipedia notability demeans himself by insisting on an article. If I behaved like that I would feel an enormous sense of shame, even humiliation, but it appears that Blakey has such a thick skin as to nearly be a rhinoceros. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while most music producers are not notable, this person appears to pass WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point out the independent reliable sources that have significant coverage of Blakey, as required for a pass of WP:GNG? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References cited inline by contributors to this discussion[edit]

References

^ https://www.allmusic.com/artist/michael-blakey-mn0000885336
^ https://www.allmusic.com/artist/michael-blakey-mn0000885336
^ https://www.discogs.com/artist/667406-Michael-Blakey
^ https://www.billboard.com/music/ron-white/chart-history/comedy-albums/song/784088
^ https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&ar=RON+WHITE&ti=A+LITTLE+UNPROFESSIONAL
^ https://www.grammy.com/grammys/artists/ron-white

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What is required here is more policy based discussion of the source material, and fewer vague assertions of signficance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find a single reliable third party source that would pass muster for WP:BIO or WP:NMUSIC. A lot of the things he has worked on are notable, there is no *significant* coverage of him independent of listing him as a contributor to other plausibly notable works, and notability is not inherited. Having said that, a LA Times Article about the sale of his house notes that Modern Drummer Magazine once sang his praises, but this seems to be regurgitated from trivia on his IMDB page. If that source really exists, I think that might change my mind, but I suspect the IMDB contributor is confusing him with Art Blakey. --Sykes83 (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can see, after wading through the 86 references in the article and searching outside that, there is no source that has significant coverage of Blakey to contribute towards the general notability guideline and nothing that says that he has played such a major role in any notable piece of music as to pass WP:NMUSIC. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was the first article I nominated for deletion, which is why initially I wasn't very familiar with how to properly check notability. After going through all references and all checking notability guidelines that were quoted by users who "voted keep", I cannot summarize my conclusion about the article better than Timtrent did: This is WP:ADMASQ backed by WP:BOMBARD. It is not salvageable because the subject fails WP:BIO and all other notability guidelines. - wikitigresito (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input by established editors and less input by SPAs and IPs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has apparently deleted the comments that @Otr500: had used to mark invalid references, can anybody help me restore these? It's really hard to keep an overview like this, especially with the other references recently added. Also, interestingly, 86.17.222.157 is an IP and an established editor. wikitigresito (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per my yalk page: "Thanks for the ping because I note that maintenance edits I made were "edited out". Two editors, one a SPA and one with two areas in five years (hitting this one hard now), seems to be steering the article. "If it stays it will need protections and over-site.".

NOTE: I can't at the present but will seek intervention and closing. We also have SPA's and "sleeper editors" (whatever those are referred to as) that has made nine edits since 2014 with five related to this subject. Removing good faith maintenance tags, especially covertly, can be considered disruptive and warrant sanctions. Not that sleeper editors would mind because they likely have more dormant accounts that can be used. This AFD has been inundated with these kinds of new editors and at best can hope for confusion and a "no consensus" decision but closing admins can see through this. If anyone would like to revert to a previous timeline and undo any either inadvertant or meant to happen edits that is against policy I will support it. Anyone else that would like to ask for adnib help please go for it. Otr500 (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question It seems that various contributors to the article and this discussion are blocked editors, at least some for confirmed or suspected sock puppetry. We have what might be judged by some to be a claque trying to preserve this at all costs, too. I think it is the right time to move from discussion to closure. I see two outcomes. Either it is determined that the gentleman is notable and the article, much pruned of any non cited/citable puffery, is retained, or it is deleted as failing the criteria for inclusion here. I understand why experienced editors have relisted it rather than closed the discussion. Even so I think it is time to bite the bullet of closure. Fiddle Faddle 19:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: It has one more day on the new listing. This is actually a good thing to make sure there was enough exposure. It is contentious and will require an in-depth look before closing and admins are volunteers like the rest of us. I normally would just not worry about it but there is too much stacked evidence that there is under-handed dealings going on and this needs looking at. Riding the coattails of Ron White is not a justifiable rationale for keep. The rebombing of sources and attempts to hide good faith maintenance edits are bad enough. I just randomly picked current reference #57 that is listed as "Engelbert Humperdinck - The Dance Album" that redirects to a totally, totally, totally junk (in other words plain old refbombing junk) reference (check it out and others like it) that has abosolutely zero to do with the subject or even Ron White. The article is full of these All music refs that are just for show to make the article appear to be well sourced. All references to the same source does not add to notability as they all count as one for this purpose. That is an issue I have; faking references to portray notability. Otr500 (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: strongly promotional article on a producer of questionable notability. Notability is not inherited from notable performers / recordings. Best deleted, due to COI / SPA concerns. It would be a time sink to try to maintain neutrality of this article. Since notability is marginal at best, deletion is the best course of action here. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enumclaw Regional Hospital[edit]

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

Article does not demonstrate notability. This is part of a group of articles created by a SPA on hospitals owned by CHI Franciscan Health. DocumentError (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY/PROMO Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph Medical Center (Tacoma, Washington)[edit]

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

Article does not demonstrate notability. This is part of a group of articles created by a SPA on hospitals owned by CHI Franciscan Health. DocumentError (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A major hospital in a major city, with plenty of coverage in The Seattle Times, a major newspaper. Please check for sources WP:BEFORE nominating. Sounder Bruce 03:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a long-established hospital, with scads of RS sourcing potential, and what it is right now is a stub. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete This was speedy-deletable as an advertisement. If somebody wants to try to write an actual WP article that would be great. This is disgusting industrial waste that been dumped into our beautiful project. "long standing" and "RS potential" are not valid deletion arguments but instead are hand-wavy, empty rhetoric. Local BOOSTERism is also not a reason to keep. Jytdog (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a hospital not a male performance enhancement drug. Think it's too promotional? Rewrite it. Jclemens (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sounder. There are plenty of sources, both about the quality (or lack thereof) of the hospital, significant changes and so on. It isn't blatant promo, and advertising is only cause for deletion when "without any relevant or encyclopedic content". There are sources to be gathered, and is fine to keep even as-is, though improvement is obviously possible. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vittorio De Angelis[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 21 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...) 18:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 19:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 19:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability and no refs in the article. Szzuk (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zen Chong[edit]

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

Article subject appears in only supporting, minor roles. Fails WP:NACTOR (since he does not have "significant roles in multiple notable films", neither does he have a "significant cult following", nor did he make a "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment", and does not meet any of the WP:ANYBIO criteria, since the "Star Awards" are an internal award to actors all working for the same media group, and addition they are not a "well-known and significant award or honor" (since they are not significant, nor are they well-known outside of Singaporean-media variety/entertainment reporting, unlike say the Academy Awards, which are well covered in independent, international media). And he hasn't won any anyway (2 nominations is not really that many...). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP. ansh 666 18:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable television shows." Significant? Lead role! in Priceless Wonder and if that isn't enough he also starred in Where the Heart Is (2008 TV series), My Kampong Days, Injustice (Malaysian TV series), Dark Sunset, Be Happy (TV series), The Quarters (2012 TV series), Eat Already? 4 and The Thin Line (Malaysian TV series). Multiple? appeared in over 40 different shows. Notable- most of these shows have ENGLISH wiki articles.... a few quotes about these shows: "The Vagrant was the second highest rated drama serial in 2002;" An Ode to Life-"The drama achieved the highest viewership rate in Year 2004." As if that isn't enough, he has Variety Show appearances and multiple nominations (not all listed in this article) Sethie (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting about the "significant roles" part. Appearing in a few episodes as a supporting character is not a significant role, no matter how notable the series is. WP:NACTOR states that at least one of the criteria must be passed, which is why all three must be proven to be false for the article not the pass that criterion. As I have commented above, the awards are not significant, he hasn't won them anyway, and he doesn't pass any of the NACTOR criteria, so there's no reason to keep the article? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Love interest" seems pretty much to fit the description of secondary, non-significant character. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Nominated for best actor" doesn't mean anything, unless it's as part of a significant award (ex. the Academy Awards. "Won" wouldn't have more impact unless it was some similarly important award, and the Star Awards fall short of this because they are not independently awarded but awarded by the parent company, so it does not make the awards significant, or even well-known outside of Singapore. "Lead role" in a variety show which ran for less than 1 month isn't significant. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article is deceptive in listing all his roles as supporting when in fact he has had main roles in a number of nationally broadcast TV series of at least twenty episodes each as shown in each article. His roles include a series second billing, another series second billing,a series third billing, two series with fourth billings, and another two series with fifth billings. So he passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR with multiple prominent roles in nationally broadcast television series. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Nationally broadcast' is not a criteria for notability. As for the series where he supposedly had main roles, there seems to be little coverage, for example, Priceless Wonder currently only cites one reliable source - and it's a broken link (the other wasn't reliable), and it's probably a passing mention. A google search does not reveal any coverage of the series either. There would need to be coverage (even in Chinese) which would meet the criteria of WP:SIGCOV (i.e., that it is not routine coverage, that it is not trivial mentions and that it is independent and reliable). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TVSERIES opines that nationally broadcast tv series are normally notable so if not online there should be offline sources. WP:GNG does not mention routine coverage as that qualification is too subjective Atlantic306 (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found the link you mentioned in the Priceless Wonder article and it seems significant coverage as the article is directly about him here. Please note that Zzen Zhang is his other name and redircts to Zen Chong, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to pass WP:NACTOR. This appears to me to be a content dispute that has escalated to an AfD. -- The Anome (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - hard to argue that his credits don't pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:07, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Guskind[edit]

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

Non-notable executive. I cannot find any coverage in RS. SmartSE (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article was created as part of an apparent walled garden around Payomatic. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hull University Union. Sandstein 06:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JamRadio[edit]

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

Non notable student radio station, tagged for citations since 2012 and hasn't improved. Suggest redirect to the university student union Aloneinthewild (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the student union. Just to be clear, student radio stations are not automatically deemed less notable than "general interest" radio stations, but rather are judged on the same inclusion criteria as any other radio station — so the problem here isn't the presence of the word "student", but the lack of reliable sourcing present to actually support that the notability criteria have been met. The only references here are its own website about itself and the website of the (directly affiliated) national Student Radio Association, not media coverage, so they're primary sources that cannot establish notability. For the purposes of getting a topic into Wikipedia, notability is not established by what an article says, but by how well it references what it says. Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keema naan[edit]

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

The contents of this sub-stub are already mentioned at the main article Naan, and there doesn't seem to be much to merit a standalone article. MT Train^Talk 18:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion as article offers no reliable sources, just recipe blogs. lovkal (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a dicdef. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Folklorni ansambl „Rožaje”[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, the only sources available in the article are links to social media. lovkal (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Szzuk (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Elenium and The Tamuli characters[edit]

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

Contains only plot summary from novels (WP:NOTPLOT). Such content belongs in fan wikis; Wikipedia treats fiction from a real-world perspective (WP:WAF). No indication that this particular topic (as opposed to the individual novels and the series) is notable per WP:GNG. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undead (Discworld) for a recently closed similar case. Sandstein 18:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:FANCRUFT that belongs to Wikia FANDOM! Acnetj (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this belongs on Wikia, not here. Reyk _YO! 10:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus to keep and questions about the status of the league have been discussed. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terence Linatoc[edit]

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

WFails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. FilFootyGuy (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable because he qualifies for playing in a recognized fully professional league the Philippines Football League, and the reference provided in the article clear states that he featured in a match. Shotgun pete (talk) 6:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Source in article states he has played in the Philippines Football League. R96Skinner (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's been discussed before at WP:FOOTY that the Philippines Football League, despite being labelled as a pro league, doesn't pass the criteria as a "fully professional league" (FPL). Therefore players who make an appearance in the league do not pass WP:NFOOTY. In this case, Linatoc also do not pass WP:GNG. FilFootyGuy (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues which is usually accepted. Further clarification needed perhaps. R96Skinner (talk) 12:53, 22 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. The Philippines leagues is not fully professional. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How come the Philippines Football League is listed at fully professional league then; which you mention in your reason for deletion? R96Skinner (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree why is the Philippines Football League listed at fully professional league then. When that list is used to determine which players qualify as being notable. Therefore in this case Linatoc does pass WP:GNG. Shotgun pete (talk) 6:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep The Philipines League is listed as an FPL. If it's not really an FPL, it should be removed from that list. But we normally go by that list, and an AfD is not the appropriate place to discuss modifications to it. Smartyllama (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Philippines Football League is listed at WP:FPL with multiple references as fully-pro. FYI @Fenix down:. Giant Snowman 08:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Melliza[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. FilFootyGuy (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't seem to show it in the article itself, but a quick Google search (here/here) shows he has played in the professional Philippines Football League. R96Skinner (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's been discussed before at WP:FOOTY that the Philippines Football League, despite being labelled as a pro league, doesn't pass the criteria as a "fully professional league" (FPL). Therefore players who make an appearance in the league do not pass WP:NFOOTY. In this case, Melliza also do not pass WP:GNG. FilFootyGuy (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues which is usually accepted. Further clarification needed perhaps. R96Skinner (talk) 12:53, 22 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) 17:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He actually has played in a fully professional league - the Philippines Football League, which is listed at WP:FPL. R96Skinner (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Philippines Football League is listed at WP:FPL with multiple references as fully-pro. FYI @Fenix down:. Giant Snowman 08:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't find anything which directly shows he played in the Phillipines league, but he was apparently the top scorer, which implies he played. Therefore passes WP:NFOOTY. SportingFlyer talk 04:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G4, G5 —SpacemanSpiff 02:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shyamal K. Mishra[edit]

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

Film director or producers 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. As per this article, the subject directed two films (both non-notable at least by WP standards) which means basically fails WP:AUTHOR..

The article further claim, the subject has worked as assistant director in a TV show and a film, but assistant directors are not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia, unless they meet GNG. Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person either which means fail basic GNG as well. Saqib (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My searches turned up nothing either. The three sources in the article are promotional interviews plugging the 2018 film Krina. They do not demonstrate notability either of that film or of its director. Fails WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4 and possible G5 as well please see Shyamal K Mishra. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gud catch. I endorse the suggestion of WP:G4. Narky Blert (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Cammarata[edit]

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the player meets the GNG, only sources either not independent or does not satisfy WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 18:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only routine coverage and fails to meet any criteria at WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 02:53, 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 redirect to List of San Diego Padres first-round draft picks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Schmidt[edit]

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

Afd in 2007 closed as "keep" under logic we would not accept now. Tagged for notability since 2013. Subject has not played professionally since 2014, so is unlikely to restart his career. Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage and WP:BASE/N as he did not make the major leagues or win any major awards that would qualify him. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of San Diego Padres first-round draft picks. I feel first round picks should at least have a re-direct to the associated page as there is always info on them there. But yes he doesnt need his own page at this point. Spanneraol (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - found sources, but sparse and just a passing mention. Redirect per above. Kees08 (Talk) 02:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisted per request
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NCOLLATH #3. As a two-time collegiate All-American, he "gained national media attention as an individual". He was also a member of USA Baseball national team[5] and winning pitcher in the International University Sports Federation gold medal game.[6]--TM 17:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the past college baseball all-american honors were not considered worthy of a keep on their own.. they don't get "national media attention" and he didnt play in any notable top level tournaments with the national team. Spanneraol (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that written into policy? I've definitely seen many articles kept because of their All-American status. Spanneraol, you voted to keep an article on a player with similar profile in a discussion in which we both participated.--TM 23:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you think selects the All-American teams? The national media. That obviously indicates attention from the national media. That seems to be very clearly the intent of the policy as well.--TM 14:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

here is the relevant discussion on the subject. The other article you mention was kept based on sources not on his all-american status. College baseball doesnt get much coverage from the national media in general and a list of all-americans is not indepth coverage.Spanneraol (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are pointing to a six year old discussion that did not come to a consensus and had fewer than 10 participants. That's not policy.--TM 16:26, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Tomkins[edit]

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes he does fail WP:NHOCKEY. SportingFlyer talk 18:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is not shown, and he fails WP:NHOCKEY. PK T(alk) 12:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amarjit Singh Kalra[edit]

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

Director of some non-notable companies ( at least by WP standards).. . Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. so Subject does not appear to meet GNG and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 06:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 06:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this source [7] was founed by me on Google, published on Bloomberg can help it to establish notabilityKamran Ali El-Batli (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? mention in passing. This is not enough to establish the WP:N. --Saqib (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said it can help to establish not establishKamran Ali El-Batli (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per Coffman.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hotshot (stock character)[edit]

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

Contains very large amounts of WP:SYNTH that uses example cruft to explain what is essentially just a WP:DICDEF. Action hero is sufficient to explain this information, this article's split from that is WP:OR. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources presented support the fundamental premise that this purported "stock character" is in any way distinguished from action hero. This is precisely why we describe novel synthesis as a form of original research. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Hnetinka[edit]

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

Chock full of press releases and general fluff, no real in-depth coverage. A search also shows much of the same: lots of PR. Fails GNG. The only non-interview and non-press release I can find is this and several like it. The move to mainspace reason "he will be the greatest speaker at SXSW" doesn't really hold weight here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except that coverage seems to have petered out before he actually went to trial (but a couple of sources^[1]^[2] do cover the guilty plea of an alleged associate and mention that he was out on bail), he seems to be almost as notable for the alleged shenanigans in Long Island as for anything else. Largoplazo (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Guilty plea in Hamptons prom party case". Retrieved 23 April 2018.
^ "Jennemann Pleads Guilty In Prom House Violations - Southampton". Retrieved 23 April 2018.

Speedy Delete Fails WP:GNG creator has repeatedly removed the speedy tag and is now blocked. Theroadislong (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, non-notable. Eagleash (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the companies he headed were notable, maybe. But they aren't. I could swear we had notability guidelines for company founders and executives, but I can't find any. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scant news about some minor criminal offence cannot establish notability. No reliable sources to pass WP:BIO. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rockhampton Brothers Australian Football Club[edit]

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

Page was originally proded, but was removed by the creator of the page with a message on my talk page saying they will add information to this page and others in the league when they have time. It has been over a month and nothing has been added to the article. Page does not seem to meet WP:GNG and google searches plus google news searches does not return independent results for Rockhampton Brothers Australian Football Club or Rockhampton Australian Football Club. I think redirecting this to AFL Capricornia#Current clubs is a way to go as this could be a plausible search term. Flickerd (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete never enjoy deleting a footy article, but there's not enough there to pass WP:GNG, especially after a before search (non-Google). I don't mind the redirect and it may be proper, but don't think it should be the full title as above. SportingFlyer talk 18:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Noorbhai[edit]

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

Possible CV/self-promotion. Academic with a few papers in a highly specific field, motivational speaker and winner of a (reportedly fake[8]) male beauty pageant, that is described as his "most notable achievement" in the article. Cited press release claims he has/had a TV show on a minor free-to-air satellite channel, but I couldn't verify this. Article creator has no edit history besides this article, and seems to be linked to pageant. The Mail and Guardian awards appear to allow self-nominations.[9]. Fails WP:Notability Park3r (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Management 360[edit]

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

I'm not sure that this meets WP:CORP. There was coverage in the LAT about it being formed, but the article discusses management companies in general, more than anything about this specific company. Other coverage is routine hiring information. SmartSE (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 11:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 11:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This might not be a usual deletion criterion, but please have a look at the "website" of the company. The linked www. subdomain does not exist, and removing the www. reveals a blue "Untitled Document" with Apple favicon. To me, this can never be a professional, notable company, based on the look of their website alone.

For the record, I have saved the page in the Internet Archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20180421124806/http://management360.com http://web.archive.org/web/20180421125305/http://management360.com/favicon.ico

Delete for not being notable. People trying to advertise this company via Wikipedia should take some time to setup a professional website instead. We're not your web host. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jobs in newspapers[edit]

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

There is already an article on Classifieds, which are standard in all countries and their newspapers. Also contains generic statements on classifieds of different publications and read like POV and OR. MT Train^Talk 10:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:No original research. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 13:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article's restriction to one country is either a ludicrously major failure of WP:UNDUE or else the article is misnamed. If the latter, the article needs to explain why job advertising in Pakistan is so notably different from the rest of the world that it needs a standalone article. SpinningSpark 15:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article reads too much like an advertisement to have a place in Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem like an encyclopedic entry with such title. I'll go with delete. M A A Z T A L K 04:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skycandle[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP. Yet another start up with coverage only in relation to funding. SmartSE (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, and like nominator I can only find passing mentions about them online. At present their site, hosted on Shopify, is unavailable, and they also appear to have misconfigured their SSL. Best of luck with that launch, guys. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NCORP and GNG. The company is struggling to have any significant online presence, nevermind in RS. Cesdeva (talk) 09:16, 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 keep. Sandstein 06:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ekti Tarar Khonje[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ekti Tarar Khonje

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

This article should be deleted because it fails WP:RS, WP:GNG and WP:N. I researched for it but couldn't find significant coverage on the subject to have a standalone article. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 10:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 10:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Notable as a film. Articles in The Telegraph, News18 apart from two reference in article. --G (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gbohoadgwwian: So you are saying that if a film got 2 or 3 news articles on the web then that makes the film notable. Can you please revise the policies I had cited above? For instance, take this 2017 Marathi film Aarti: The Unknown Love Story; It has got an article in Times of India. Does that make it notable? 😕 Harsh Rathod Poke me! 03:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a Bengali film, there may be more Bengali language sources. It returns sufficiently large number of results in English google search but mostly non-notable movie review. I presented the two full length article that I found in English at a glance. There were other passing mention like here [10]. I think there is no contention about WP:RS. WP:GNG is in question, that is why we are here. I gave my opinion, I may be wrong. --G (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gbohoadgwwian: Passing by mentions don't grant permission for a standalone article. For instance, take this celeb Banita Sandhu. Three times an article was created on her and she also has sufficient amount of news articles on web about her but it was deleted everytime simply because not major amount of info is published about her in reliable sources. Also, why don't you improve it? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 08:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion for ANYBIO and NFILMS vary by a mile and at any case, you ought to know that other stuff exists.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Passes NFILMS. All films which have garnered garnered two or more reviews in national dailies or reliable media-sources are consistently kept at AfDs.The sources are already there in the article and additional ones have been provided by Gboho.

A list of sources are:--

A full-length-review at one of India's most prominent media-unit.
Likely paid-interview stuff but the film exists none-the-less.I won't give this piece much prudence, though.
Another significant mention at a RS.
More significant coverage about the film shooting, theme and all.
More coverage about the film and director.
Additional full-length review is also located at Anandabazar Patrika, one of the most prominent Bengali dailies. but linking an archive, running entirely on java-script, is tremendously difficult.

~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see one editor here talking about mentions of the film in patrikas. But I don't understand why he isn't adding them to the article as references? How can I research and verify like this? I don't want to believe blindly.
Trust, but verify!
Harsh Rathod Poke me! 12:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the reliable sources including rs reviews identified above passes criteria 1 of WP:NFILM, only one criteria is needed. The nominator is also allowed to add the references to the article. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Parmar[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker, no reliable independent sources. Seems like a self-created vanity page. Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apart from the probable coi, he only seems to have a finished film credit as an assistant director so this article is WP:TOOSOON as he needs to be the main director on notable released films Atlantic306 (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet notable enough to merit an article. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:11, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mayes (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Vanity biography of a non-notable entrepreneur, added to Wikipedia on the same day as Quantum 9, the consulting firm he founded. Both would appear to be created by undeclared paid editors. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, Peacock piece with passing mentions as references. Simply not notable. London Hall (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject is not notable for Wikipedia, founder or ceo of non-notable company.Kamran Ali El-Batli (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not seeing the type of coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG. He is not the subject of any of the sources.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Given that there is substantial sourcing, there's not a policy-based mandate to delete, which leaves us with no consensus. Sandstein 08:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Cole (journalist)[edit]

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

Tagged for PROD by User:Reddogsix: "Non-notable journalist lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. The original article made a number of spurious unsupported statements which I removed." Nomination per PROD tagger's reasons. Calton | Talk 02:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well this is a humdinger of an article in The Guardian: Hollywood conservative unmasked as notorious Holocaust revisionist ] (read to the end, it only gets worse,) but it doesn't make him notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty sources to be found on this person: see Talk:David Cole for some of them. I wouldn't say all of them meet WP:RS, but I do not believe notability would be a problem here. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In sum and according to The Guardian, he is a self-promoting "Holocaust revisionist". A very minor one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Very minor" yet "notorious," according to The Guardian. That is rather confusing, I must say. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his views clearly fall under the guidelines of fringe, which requires care to make sure the subject is well covered in reliable sources, which is not at all the case here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, While he represents the fringe, he is certainly controversial enough, with substantial coverage, to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. I do agree with John Pack Lambert above, that the coverage needs to be improved with reliable sources, but there seems to be a lot of coverage out there on this guy, and his inclusion in Wikipedia seems to be justified just based on his coverage. Ann Coulter (who is known more for her viciousness) is on the fringe too but she gets enormous coverage on Wikipedia. Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 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. Can be userfied via WP:REFUND for improvement. Sandstein 06:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Rand[edit]

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

No third-party sources. Fails WP:NBIO. shoy (reactions) 19:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 19:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 19:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are a couple of refs in the article and I found a couple more [11] and [12]. Szzuk (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. on the basis of the sources--this is a truly niche catehory of authorship, and I'm willing to stretch our guidelines a little to include it. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sympathetic to DGG's vote, but after a thorough WP:BEFORE search, I have no idea how to flesh out this article based on the available sources. I've seen several different websites repeat the same one-liner about how his plays are the most produced in high schools across America. This could be true, but I can't verify it, and honestly I'm surprised how little is out there for someone with such a successful claim. There are a couple audio clips as well, but they are also promotional for his company. My delete vote is strong, but without prejudice. SportingFlyer talk 18:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although the current article does appear to fail the NBIO standard, given the few citations listed, there are sufficient reliable independent sources supporting the notability of this individual. I would like to do some work on this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhondaLH (talk • contribs) 20:35, 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. Can be redirected if desired. Sandstein 06:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Assiut University alumni[edit]

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

Unsourced duplication of Category:Assiut University alumni created by a sock puppet of globally locked cross-wiki SPA Eslam Ossama (talk · contribs) DrKay (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems like a pretty standard sort of list, and lists don't duplicate categories, but with such a short list it probably makes most sense to merge it into the university article. Not !voting at this time because I haven't checked that there are actually sources in the linked articles showing those people are alumni, and also because I'm not sure about the sock puppetry issue (which would be a reason for speedy, no?). I see a suspected sock tag, but no SPI, no block, etc. -- on what basis are you saying it's a sock puppet? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is cross-wiki, see for example [13]. It's known that Moustafa Nour (talk · contribs), Eslam Ossama (talk · contribs) and انتريا (talk · contribs) are identical because all three have uploaded the same image files depicting the same person[14][15][16] and the two most recent incarnations have edited the user/draft space of the previous two[17][18]. There is other evidence on other wikis (some now deleted): all the edits are based around the same person. DrKay (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. If it had any good references or were created in good faith (rather than by a promotion-only sock puppet), I would probably say delete or merge. Going through to revert some of the promotion in his contribs now. Should also add 41.233.173.182 to the list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for a short list, this is much better handled by Category:Assiut University alumni. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Notable Alumni section in the university article. There shouldn't be a size reason to split the article like that for now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the creator is a sock then recommend Delete first and then create redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No opinion on keep/delete, but please see WP:NOTDUP where it says "Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to James Bourne. Nom has since gone with Redirect so no need for this to continue, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pigs Can Fly (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I believe this don't deserve its own article since it clearly lacks independent sources. Therefore, it doesn't comply with WP:NSONG. So a redirect to the said band/artist would be better in my opinion. Romrom9 (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James Bourne – really just a limited edition, one-off single... no notability as a stand-alone single and fails WP:NSONG. Richard3120 (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 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 redirect to Joey Pigza Swallowed the Key. Sandstein 06:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Pigza[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character per WP:NCHAR. Character lacks coverage from reliable sources outside of the context of the plot of a book series. Article contains no information that isn't in the articles for the books themselves or the author article. Avg W (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jack Gantos. Plausible search term, and there's no article about the book series at present. --Killer Moff (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joey Pigza Swallowed the Key as there's currently no coverage of Pigza on Gantos' page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Ayyappan Temple Vennandur[edit]

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

Lack of any coverage in reliable sources to satisfy notability. MT Train^Talk 03:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn temple. Szzuk (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Shelter, Support & Housing Administration Division[edit]

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

Stub about a municipal government department, which barely goes any further than stating that its subject exists and "references" the fact only to its own self-published content about itself. As always, something like this could get an article if it could be properly referenced over WP:GNG, but is not entitled to keep a basically unreferenced and virtually substanceless article just because it exists. Bearcat (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Szzuk (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Employment and Social Services Division[edit]

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

Stub about a municipal government department, flagged as needing references since 2009 without improvement, which barely goes any further than stating that its subject exists and "references" the fact only to its own self-published website about itself. As always, something like this could get an article if it could be properly referenced over WP:GNG, but is not entitled to keep a virtually unreferenced and virtually substanceless article just because it exists. Bearcat (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Szzuk (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Support Services Division[edit]

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

Stub about a municipal government department, flagged as unreferenced since 2009 without improvement, which barely goes any further than stating that its subject exists. As always, something like this could get an article if it could be properly referenced over WP:GNG, but is not entitled to keep an unreferenced and virtually substanceless article just because it exists. Bearcat (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Szzuk (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Camila (album). Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never Be the Same Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article keeps getting recreated, but as far as I can see it still fails WP:NTOUR and still violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Softlavender (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants in the original AfDs for their current opinion: @Drmies, Richard3120, Narky Blert, BD2412, Cornerstonepicker, and Melodies1917:. Pinging closer Spartaz as well. Softlavender (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note from nominator: The two main contributors, Xanaxaddit (talk · contribs) and IonutBiLvS (talk · contribs), are SPAs and appear to be sockpuppets of each other (Courcelles already blocked one as a sock of IonutB56 (talk · contribs), who created the previous, now-deleted, version of the article -- see previous AfD) and possibly COI. May need to salt this title. Softlavender (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now I've got the other one, indeffed as likely sock. Courcelles (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concert tours are not inherently non-notable. The bigger issue with the previous versions of the article was that it was for a planned future tour, not one for which any dates had yet been played. A month into the tour, there are some reviews to look at - [19], [20], [21]. I would suggest that we ~~keep~~ merge and redirect to Camila (album), which has a section on the tour, and improve. bd2412 T 00:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BD2412. The first review is from a non-notable venue (a student newspaper) and it pans her performance; the second review is from a local weekly online "news site", and the Billboard article is just a short mention that Pharrell showed up at one performance. None of that remotely satisfies WP:NTOUR in my view, especially in this time where everyone has a blog-site masquerading as a music review site, and concerts also get reviewed by non-notable local "news sites". None of those things confer any kind of lasting notability. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a rule that only positive reviews count? A review panning a tour is as legitimate a consideration as one heaping praise on it. The fact that it is a student newspaper is not particularly relevant to me; student newspapers at large universities can have standards equal to the "real" newspapers in a small town. Neither do I have a problem with a local weekly. If not kept, it should probably me merged and redirected into the article on the performer or the album being supported by it. However, my vote stands. bd2412 T 01:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, and this is my last response, I personally suggest you re-read WP:NTOUR. A concert tour by a known artist is going to get reviewed somewhere, somehow. That does not make the tour itself encyclopedically notable enough for its own article. If that were the case, every still-performing singer and band who has a Wikipedia article would have an article on every single one of their tours post-2010, because at least two or three of the tour's performances will have been reviewed somewhere online. In my opinion, all this article serves as is a promotional directory of the performance dates and venues, so not only does it fail WP:NTOUR, it violates WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:NOTPROMO. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for my opinion. The entire relevant portion of WP:NTOUR is:

Concert tours are probably notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Tours that cannot be sufficiently referenced in secondary sources should be covered in a section on the artist's page rather than creating a dedicated article.

There are multiple sources available (I only did a very cursory search, I am sure there are more), and those that have been presented here are clearly independent, and I see no reason to question their reliability. These sources clearly go beyond merely establishing "that a tour happened". Per the stated policy, if this article is not kept, it "should be covered in a section on the artist's page", which would necessitate a merge and redirect. bd2412 T 01:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said I wouldn't reply again, but a local online weekly reviewing one concert, and a student newspaper reviewing another concert, does not constitute significant coverage of the tour itself. As I said, if it did, we'd have a Wikipedia article on every single still-performing singer or group's tours since as far back as 2010 or further. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412, this is why I keep saying sourced need to cover the tour as a tour. A concert review does not do that. It does not discuss "artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience", etc. You are welcome to think that a review or two is enough, but that is simply not true. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am persuaded by the above that the current content does not support support a separate article. I have changed my !vote to merge and Camila (album), which has a section on the tour. I think that this is a better target than the page on the artist, as the tour is specifically to support the album. bd2412 T 23:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tours are all-too frequently thought to be notable. They need coverage as a tour to be notable; reviews cannot easily discuss the tour as a tour. So no, if a review does nothing more than discuss the show, the one show, it can't be argued that it says anything about the tour. As is typical for such articles (setting aside the usual table porn including shows, setlists, etc.) is a. a set of announcements, two or three lines long, that person X is going on tour, and b. a review or two. Well, that's pretty much what we have here. Delete. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(I am so going to nick "table porn" for future use.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Narky Blert, go for it. If you ever look at K-pop articles, or those articles for those TV shows where stupid people vote for or against other stupid people, you know exactly what I mean. Maybe--because what I also mean is that such tables have a tendency to present a lot of information in a pretty way, and thereby more or less advertise the content, by making it seem more important than it is. It's the equivalent of Calvin handing in his useless and unfinished school project in a professional binder. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I don't seek such articles out, but as a DABfixer they keep finding me. I do know what you mean. It's a variant of WP:REFBOMB. Narky Blert (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt (or, redirect to Camila Cabello and salt). There is still no evidence that this tour is notable as a tour, and there is way too much sockpuppeteering going on (see the posts by User:Softlavender and User:Courcelles, above).

Wikipedia is not a gig guide. Narky Blert (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: Would you agree with my above assessment that Camila (album) is a better redirect target? the tour is in support of the album, and already has a section in that article. bd2412 T 23:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying !vote to redirect to Camila (album) and salt in the light of User:BD2412's suggestion of a better target than the one I had proposed. Narky Blert (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect with the Tour section of the Camila album article. (also, not sure what is meant by "delete and salt".) Melodies1917 (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Melodies1917: As an FYI - WP:SALT. Narky Blert (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the tour has its coverage, modest but it's there. The article for Camila (album) is long enough. It could have better wording tho. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.allmusic.com/artist/michael-blakey-mn0000885336

[2] ttps://www.allmusic.com/artist/michael-blakey-mn0000885336

[3] ttps://www.discogs.com/artist/667406-Michael-Blakey

[4] ttps://www.billboard.com/music/ron-white/chart-history/comedy-albums/song/784088

[5] ttps://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&ar=RON+WHITE&ti=A+LITTLE+UNPROFESSIONAL

[6] ttps://www.grammy.com/grammys/artists/ron-white

[7] "Guilty plea in Hamptons prom party case". Retrieved 23 April 2018.

[8] "Jennemann Pleads Guilty In Prom House Violations - Southampton". Retrieved 23 April 2018.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]