Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 April	23 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Czaplowski[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPOSER. The references provided are largely the subject's own works, associated with the subject, or programs. Czaplowski lacks significant, non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources to establish notability. ℯ xplicit 23:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Smerus (talk) 07:42, 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mogens (Monni) Fraemohs[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. The obituary at [1] is substantial, but there's nothing else of note. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, this non-notable. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a WP:MEMORIAL article on a nn individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:59, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) reddogsix (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Cockburn (U.S. politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable unelected politician lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" - should be "Speedy Deleted" as a duplicate of Leslie Cockburn. reddogsix (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are these really 2 different people? Leslie Cockburn. BubbleEngineer (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks like the same. reddogsix (talk) 23:31, 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Menke[edit]

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

A non-notable local comedian. Many of the refs are to his own clips/promo pieces on YouTube; [2] is the only one that's non-trivial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete aside from the linkedin and social media-type sources that are available, there appear to be at most a couple of RS references available. Does not meet GNG.104.163.159.237 (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable comedian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Pilot Plant[edit]

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

I can verify that Ford owns a building at the address listed, and one of the references shows it made a few pilot Mustangs there in the 1960s. I see no sign the building is commonly known as "Ford Pilot Plant" today, or that it's commonly discussed at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not sure what the nom's reasoning for deletion is. Can't verifying its current name isn't grounds for deletion. The book Car: A Drama of the American Workplace does have extensive coverage of this facility and has been a major part of Ford's history of development of its prototypes like the Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable, the ninth generation of the Lincoln Continental, the Ford Aerostar and the Ford F-Series.[3][4] The trade Munstang Monthly has extensive history of the plant's importance to the development of the Ford Mustang.[5]--Oakshade (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's being deleted because I happened to name the article wrong? Its historic significance is beside the point...wrong name on article...delete immediately!!(Regushee (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kids in the Way (EP)[edit]

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

Contested prod suggesting that it could be merged into an article. What's to merge? Nothing is sourced. Non-notable recording from a notable band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. Agree with nominator – there's nothing to merge here, the article consists of a track listing and nothing more. And a redirect isn't appropriate, because this article has the same name as the suggested target, the band's article. Richard3120 (talk) 12:54, 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 merge to Djibouti at the 2012 Summer Paralympics. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Houssein Omar Hassan[edit]

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

Article merely repeats material in Djibouti at the 2012 Summer Paralympics. Eric Corbett 20:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect into Djibouti at the 2012 Summer Paralympics. Not suitable for an independent biography, it'll only be about that one race forever. Courcelles (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - added a paragraph on an award he won two years after the Paralympics, would be awkward in the Djibouti at the 2012 Summer Paralympics article. (note: I expanded the article originally and had nominated it for GA, in case I need to disclose that). Kees08 (Talk) 02:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand, meets both WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG by having multiple reliable sources, spanning multiple events. Clear notability is established. Kees08 (Talk) 21:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect - He doesn't have much outside of the 2012 Paralympics, and it is unlikely he will be in another significant sporting event.Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as extensive coverage in 2012, and the award in 2014, he was mentioned in the press again in 2014 and 2016. He might be a lowly Paralympian, but he is as notable as Eric the Eel. Hoh2012 (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kees08' comment. Even if it is unlikely for Hassan to be in another sporting event, there's significant coverage of his previous endeavors that wouldn't fit in the general article Djibouti at the 2012 Summer Paralympics. Nanophosis (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But there's nothing else in that Djibouti article except for Hassan. Eric Corbett 19:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per WP:ATD (which, like WP:PRESERVE, and unlike anything quoted by the !keep votes, is grounded in policy). The sources fail to meet the fundamental guidelines—per WP:ANYBIO—regarding the depth or persistence of coverage to warrant a stand-alone article, particularly one which is merely duplication, and there's nothing undue about the weight given to it in the parent article. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obscure doesn't mean non-notable. As per above follows notability guidelines (which granted aren't policy but still matter in this context). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (if possible): per the above mentioned ATD OR Delete. Non-notable individual that fails GNG A pseudo biographical --- single event (BLP1E). "IF" an 80,000-strong stadium crowd cheered for the subject to win then there is notability for inclusion in the Djibouti at the 2012 Summer Paralympics article. It might be newsworthy if the miricle of what is listed in the article happened. The article refers to the subject as a "right arm paraplegic". This last word is indicative of someone suffering from paraplegia that affects the lower extremities. I suppose that a person suffering from paralysis of a single limb could be referred to as having monoplegia but I think that does not count when the limb is totally missing. In a picture of the event the one armed subject is shown running (not in a wheel chair) so there is confusion with this. Note: NSPORTS cannot be used in arguments for "Keep" concerning a BLP involving a single event. When a policy and guideline conflicts (until resolution): "if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence.". If we want to keep an article against multiple policies and guidelines we are suppose to seek consensus for "ignoring the rules" meaning the article improves Wikipedia regardless of the rules. It is not a given that a mistaken (or false) rationale for "keep" automatically means to ignore the "rules". Come on people!! A "heartwarming story" also does not give a minor participant in one single major event a greenlight for an article because it made the news. Wikipedia is not the place for a collection of indiscriminate information.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexual lighting[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Alls ources are media reports of internet hubbub. All sources avoid giving any solid facts, which accounts for the vague nature of the article, which also fails to report any facts. Kleuske (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator) - "Fails to report any facts" - except its use in ~~three~~ numerous movies, an award-winning episode of a series, and a two music videos. Perhaps if you gave it more than 24 minutes after its creation it might have more content? violet/riga _^[talk] 20:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly @Kleuske: - not impressed by giving less than 30 minutes before shipping something to AfD. Putting that aside, there is certainly sufficient notability - even the sources given satisfy, let alone the wider coverage given. WP:LASTING might have been a more workable justification, but I wouldn't say that applies either, as there is isn't some immediate flash in the pan method. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nosebagbear: Ah... 30 minutes does not suffice? How log should an article be live before nominating? A week? A month? A year? Also strongly disagree with the notability claim: WP:NOTNEWS. This is good for a few articles, then the hubbub dies down and we'll never hear of it again. The sources mentioned excel in vagueness and basically only summarize reddit and twitter conversations, which are notoriously fickle. Kleuske (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Kleuske: "Ah... 30 minutes does not suffice? How log should an article be live before nominating? A week? A month? A year?" - top quality hyperbolic strawman argument there. One or two hours would have sufficed well enough. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: That abuse of the term "strawman argument" is what the Good Dr. Randomercam dubbed a straw crow^[1]. I did not make an argument, I asked a question on preferred timelines (not even using hyperbole) and ipso facto, it's not a strawman argument, let alone a "top quality" one. But, basically, you're complaining about one and a half hour? Also, how am I bound to your personal preferences? Inquiring minds want to know. Kleuske (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"[Y]ou're complaining about one and a half hour". Or 300%, depending on how you want to represent it. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I hadn't heard of this term till I read this article about it today. To me it would seem notable enough for inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia – if not on its own then perhaps at something like Mood lighting. This is Paul (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: though some of the sources' inclusion of tweets devalues them a little bit, Vulture and Cosmopolitan in particular are good, and coverage is over a couple of months so WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. (To use Kleuske's argument against them, how long does coverage need to be sustained for before it's not considered temporary hubbub? A year? A decade? 50 years?) Also, I can't actually see the source using reddit comments – which one is this? — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 00:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Straw Men and Straw Crows: A Field Guide

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:38, 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona List[edit]

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

No secondary sourcing and does not appear to meet WP:ORG. Marquardtika (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some trivial mentions. Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that it meets WP:GNG, and doesn't come close to passing WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found it listed in a few database that contain info about all PACs, but nothing else. Concur with above. MB 13:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources: fails notability.– Lionel^(talk) 09:32, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PolymerUpdate[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable company. MER-C 20:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Should have been speedy deleted as spam years ago. Also fails WP:NCORP, WP:WEB, and WP:GNG, as I can find only passing mentions of them online in WP:RS. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:37, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kichesippi Beer Co.[edit]

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. The only thing about this company that I can find reliable 3rd party coverage of is that it has a delivery service. All other coverage appears to be routine, trivial coverage that doesn't indicate notability. Air.light (talk) 18:49, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. News coverage includes company's growth, role in increasingly popular craft beer industry, delivery, purchase of various brands etc. Doesn't seem routine to me. One source says "Kichesippi has become one of the most popular and recognizable craft beers in the city. " FloridaArmy (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references are to blogs, dead links and another wikipedia article. There are no reliable sources and nothing indicates notability even if they were reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Taylor-Foster[edit]

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

I have added a couple of references, but am not seeing the amount of coverage needed to make this architectural writer notable. Tacyarg (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep it's not overwhelming but I'm seeing some coverage of his talks and scholarship such as "James+Taylor-Foster"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjso6qs4c7aAhUKwlkKHV5aCyIQ6AEIRjAG#v=onepage&q="James%20Taylor-Foster"&f=false here. Alternatively merging to ArchDaily would be a reasonable outcome. Is he the one who wrote the the 2011 book on Monet color and impressionism? FloridaArmy (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he wrote a book. He has a job. There is no indication of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory.--Rpclod (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^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. Personally I don't think this school is notable (yet), but the close is supposed to gauge the consensus, so keep it is. Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Southside High School (Louisiana)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Because this school is not even a year old, the only news coverage is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL stories about the new school. (de-PROD'd by John from Idegon with the rationale "Thats enough.") Chris Troutman (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage of this new public high school, the first in the area for decades. Strange nom. See "Southside+High+School"+youngsville&oq="Southside+High+School"+youngsville&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2047.11202.0.11441.26.26.0.0.0.0.153.3034.0j25.25.0....0...1c.1j4.64.psy-ab..1.4.538...0.0.VUBxlyMjofo here. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw all those: Local news talking about new school. Wikipedia doesn't write about stuff just because it exists. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a verified high school; here's some coverage:

Southside High School Ribbon Cutting | FOX 15-Feb 2, 2018 | Southside High School had their ribbon cutting on Friday. Jeremy Hidalgo, District 9 School Board Member said, “We knew that the desire was here but to see it happening takes it to a different level. Its a beautiful facility but more importantly state of the art for the students.” Dr. Donald Auguillard, LPSS ...
Southside High: By the Numbers | The Daily Advertiser-Aug 9, 2017 | Southside High welcomed about 650 freshmen and sophomores on the first day of class Wednesday. The brand-new, three-story school in Youngsville has a budget of $78 million. It could eventually accommodate up to 1,450 students in ninth through 12th grades. Southside principal strives for connections ...

The entity is of sufficient public interest. High schools are generally kept. An acceptable stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Please see WP:OUTCOMESBASED. Your argument is invalid. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's my iVote & I'm sticking with it :-). I find the coverage that I listed to be sufficient to meet GNG in this case for a suitable stub. More is available. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ribbon cutting article [6], By the Numbers article is [7] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per the February 2017 RFC, schools are not notable merely because they exist. Per GNG, schools are notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.--Rpclod (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the notability guidelines. Proving existence is not enough any more. The Banner talk 09:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep school has opened and the ribbon cutting was done. Multiple articles from the The Daily Advertiser (Lafayette) have surfaced to provide significant coverage of the school, including how it was named, how mascots/colors were chosen, hiring of a sports coach, and detailed building and campus construction [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] KATC [13] [14] [15] KLFY [16] [17] Advocate [18] The articles supplied should serve as an example of how to cover the launching of a new high school, and should be written into the wikipedia article here. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the sources found here, it's almost as if Schooloutcomes was written for a reason.Egaoblai (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss Exotic World Pageant participants and winners[edit]

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

Failed to meet WP:GNG. The topic did not receive significant coverage in reliable sources. Richie Campbell (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ive just added some significant citations. I donot think this article needs to be deleted now. 27.60.143.161 (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't appear to be a notable pageant. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a WP:SPINOUT of Miss Exotic World Pageant, which has also been nominated for deletion. I agree that, if the "parent" article is deleted, then there is little justification for having the instant article. But the deletion discussion there seems to be headed for a "keep", and so WP:SPINOUT is sufficient justification for keeping this list article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that one is kept, I don't think a list of participants and winners is automatically notable. WP:NOTINHERITED. Ajf773 (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the rules of WP:SPINOUT do not require that the list be independently notable. They require only that the material be too large to fit within the parent article, and that the spinout be done in some logical fashion. Spinning out a list of winners is both logical and acceptable (e.g. List of Pulitzer Prize winners). NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listcruft. This doesn't even belong in the article on the parent. None of the people listed is notable beyond participating in this obscure pageant. --Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Exotic World Pageant[edit]

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

Failed to meet WP:GNG. The topic did not receive significant coverage from independent reliable third party sources. Richie Campbell (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Disagree it fails to meet WP:GNG John B123 (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject has received very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such as those already cited in the entry. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not only the references currently in the article, but coverage in the San Bernadino Sun, New York Daily News, The Daily Telegraph, Slate, CBS News would indicate it clearly passes WP:GNG. Not to mention discussion in quite a few books, such as Burlesque In a Nutshell - Girls, Gimmicks & Gags, The League of Exotic Dancers: Legends from American Burlesque, Burlesque and the New Bump-n-grind, and Strip City: A Stripper's Farewell Journey Across America, to name a few. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since subject comfortably meets notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 12:58, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zener Prize[edit]

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

All the references I followed up in this article are faked. I could not even find proof of existence for this award. For instance, ref #5 supposedly verifies Köster's medal but goes to the German Wikipedia bio where there is no ref for the award. Ref #6 supposedly verifies Mason's medal. It is a deadlink at the ASA site, but wayback machine shows that it failed verification for "Zener" when it was live. Ref #7 also for Mason fails verification. Ref #14 for Zener (and isn't it strange that Zener should get the medal himself?) is the listing for a completely different award. I tried looking for refs in some of the recipients articles with no joy. Nowick's article for instance just references to the Commons gold medals category. So did some of the others I looked at. On top of that all the images appear to be copyvios. I stopped trying to salvage the page at this point. Even if this award really does exist, this construction is so tainted that we need to WP:blow it up and start over. SpinningSpark 18:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC) SpinningSpark 18:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support WP:TNT~~ Delete even though I'm inclined to believe the thing exists, for example this one seems pretty legit. (Was the medal called something else in the early years?) But the second reference I checked (the NYTimes one) is a trick, the reference does not actually make any mention of any specific prize at all. So many false references!! If we delete the references that do not actually support the relevant claims, then it starts being ~~unclear whether the prize is even notable~~ clear that the prize is not notable. --Steve (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted above, this article is rather a mess regardless of other concerns. But I'd advocate deletion on the merits. There are sources, but they aren't sufficient: mostly name-drops of the prize in a discussion of one or another laureate (for example, Andrew Granato's article-length obituary in Archives of Metallurgy and Materials). But that's the only sort of mention it ever receives. Web hits are thin at best. Google Books returns nothing substantial. And the only mentions of this prize in a Google Scholar search are a small handful of obituaries listing the prize among the awards held by the deceased. Even the relevant conference proceedings seem to treat the award (and its ICIFUAS Prize predecessor) merely in passing; from the proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Internal Friction and Ultrasonic Attenuation in Solids, for example: "Also, a prize was awarded to Clarence Zener, and his after-dinner remakrs are also given here." So it's not a hoax, but as far as I can tell, doesn't remotely approach the threshold of notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, User:Andrew3789 has left a response on my talk page. They are no longer able to post here due to being blocked for sockpuppetry. SpinningSpark 16:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the other editors above. Looking through sources, they either don't mention it, or just give passing mention. Nothing that really satisfies WP:GNG. For awards, we usually want more than just a list of people who received in sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: On the one hand, it appears that the medal is a respected honor in the (presumably relatively small) "internal friction and mechanical spectroscopy" community[19][20], and its award should contribute to assessment of recipients' notability. On the other hand, for the medal to be notable, a precondition would almost certainly be that ICIFUAS itself were notable (with the obvious middle way a merge to a section there), but this does not appear to be the case. Nor given the sockpuppetry is draftification/userfication appropriate. Nor can I see another suitable redirect target. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gravity Falls (season 1). Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carpet Diem[edit]

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

Fails the GNG, almost entirely copy pasted from Wikia. XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 18:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main page for the series. Fails WP:EPISODE the sources do not show that this episode is independently notable from the series. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:45, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wassim Ayach[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSPORT in my opinion. I checked out the two sources provided on the article (both simply plain links by the way), and they do not convince me of notability. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 17:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 17:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. R96Skinner (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:21, 23 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) 17:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 04:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as all the other votes mention the subject fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG, and as the subject is only 16 this is almost certainly WP:TOOSOON. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Hamasaki[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions. Being voted in 26th place in a fan poll is not a valid claim of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 16:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 16:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 16:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 14:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Petrov (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 16:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 16:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- NHOCKEY is too confusing for my liking, but it appears Petrov's world championship play does not qualify. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like he has only 99 games played under NHOCKEY #2 (04-05 Mestis, 01-02 Vysshaya Liga). Never played in the top pool at the Worlds. So would say that yes, he indeed fails NHOCKEY. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and doesn't meet any criteria listed at WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet hockey notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashutosh Malve[edit]

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

No indication that this individual meets criteria of WP:GNG / WP:BIO. Google search for name comes up with about 60 "unique" results, none of which discuss the subject significantly. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 15:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find good sources that give the subject "significant coverage" either. "He is also known for his work on HTTP/2." Whom by, I wonder? Anyone outside his office? Ravenswing 16:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"known for his work on HTTP/2." is a claim of significance. The presence of a fair number of Google Scholar listed publications is also probably enough of a claim of significance to avoid an A7. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also did a Google search, and found no significant independent sources. None at all. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:19, 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Hendrix[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The award categories listed - "Best New Starlet" and "Superslut" - are not significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 16:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 16:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I consider that "AVN Award for Best New Starlet" satisfies WP: PORNBIO. Has this issue been discussed by the community? Of the 35 actresses who received the award, 33 are considered notable. This is a young article. If best referenced, i vote to be keep.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since we've reached the point that even a GayVN "Performer of the Year" can be deleted under similar circumstances,[21] the community seems to have reached the point that the PORNBIO award criterion is virtually a dead letter, perhaps used only where coverage borders on the sufficient level. This isn't such a case. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the general notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... If only we could keep based on looks!, Unfortunately delete as nothing's coming up on Google. –Davey2010^Talk 22:43, 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Majid AlShamsi[edit]

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

The BLP claims the subject hold or has held several positions+office but none of them confer automatic WP:N.

Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person as well so can't see any significance, which means fails to meet basic GNG. Saqib (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most content and media coverage about this business personality is in Arabic language. General Search using his Arabic name will produce hundreds of impressions and citations from recognized Arabic media outlets as well as social media platforms. Moreover, the citations provided are from the official websites of the entities in which this person holds board-level positions. --Mohammed.s.saleh (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: User:Mohammed.s.saleh is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

There's no point in saying coverage exists. If there are specific references you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability, please post them here. --Saqib (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 16:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 16:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/Mohammed.s.saleh with no other contributions outside this topic, which is a strong indicator of COI-based editing. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:48, 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wyomissing station[edit]

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

Declined PROD. The Wyomissing station was not a station on the Pottsville Line that closed in 1981. Rather, it was a proposed but never built station on an extension of service from Norristown to Reading. Since the station was never built, there is no need for an article to exist. Dough4872 15:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have access to a Reading Company timetable for Philadelphia–Pottsville service from 1958. It does not list Wyomissing; the next station beyond Reading is Leesport. Old Official Guides list a Wyomissing station, but on the Lebanon Valley Branch to Harrisburg. This would be unrelated to any service on the Pottsville Line, and probably closed ages ago. There could be a valid article at this title, but this isn't it. Mackensen (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the proposed station was never built. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. Septrillion (talk) 05:25, 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Devojko[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matroesjka (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, finished 10th in a qualifier for the eurovision song contest, refs are 404 or youtube, nothing on google i can see, although it is hard to search because the article is called 'girl' in macedonian. Szzuk (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Gorgeous[edit]

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

Non-notable show, no coverage and everything that turns up is completely unrelated. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep that was a very fast search in about 5 minutes just like your last two nominations. This is a BBC and ABC co-production from the leading TV channels in their country that was shown on their main national channels and would certainly have been reviewed in multiple reliable sources if not online then offline and almost certainly passes WP:NTV Atlantic306 (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Care to share them then? I searched newspapers as well, got nothing. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - a 2010 series is not internet friendly and older newspapers are behind paywalls so a couple of minute search is not enough Atlantic306 (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you're basing this on the idea that there may be sources that you can't actually cite? I have a paid account to search newspapers.com as well as several others and much like my google search, it comes up empty. 2010 isn't exactly the e-stone age. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- well I was on newspapers.com and did not find it very helpful, when I do a full search it takes me at least an hour so I haven't got time now but will do one but many sources from 2010 are paywalled in factia, proquest etc. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Different styles, I guess. I can say that it doesn't take me an hour to determine that there is no coverage and all the hits are TV guide type listings. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep. The Sydney Morning Herald had at least one piece on the show. Although not mentioned in our article on the awards, Poppy Lee Friar did receive an 2010 AFI Award nomination for Best Lead Actress in a Television Drama for her role in this series. Is this rather marginal coverage? Yes, but I am generally willing to err on the side of inclusion for major productions (such as this BBC/ABC co-produced show), because invariably, additional sources do exist in non-online-searchable formats. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, additional sources there are. This news aggregator archive is not a reliable source in and of itself, but the sources it indexes are, and that includes at two more review/commentary articles (in The Age and Encore Magazine) in addition to the (syndicated) article I already mentioned above. The original sources would ideally need to be dug up and cited properly for editorial purposes, but demonstration of their existence is sufficient to clear the bar at AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominated for the AACTA Award for Best Children’s Television Series in 2010, that should be enough in itself. Boneymau (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quick search finds articles in WA Today, Two in the Sydney Morning Herald, the age, sun herald, encore magazine, looks like text on the series on pages 104-109 of

Creativity, Culture and Commerce:: Producing Australian Children’s Television with Public Value by Anna Potter when she is writing about Burberry productions. I think there's ample for a well referenced article - Peripitus (Talk) 11:29, 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Coppinger[edit]

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

No coverage, no truly notable roles. Being a main character in a single season show that isn't notable doesn't meet any WP inclusion criteria. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep a BBC produced series is always notable as it is reviewed in reliable sources, but only one notable role so only a weak keep Atlantic306 (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to the guideline or policy that states "BBC produced series is always notable." Plenty of shows on notable networks fail and aren't notable. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TVSERIES suggests that nationally networked television shows are normally notable Atlantic306 (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Normally /= always. Also appearing or even starring in a non-notable series and one episode of another doesn't automatically meet NACTOR. WP:NOTINHERITED covers it well. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. I have found no significant coverage -- as typical of a one-time child actor who appeared in a single short-lived series. There are only mentions about her character in the brief coverage about the show (which might even be argued as failing WP:BLP1E). Note that notability of a television show does not automatically transfer notability to the performers. At best, after deletion, the name could be redirected to Dead Gorgeous. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The issue is not is the TV series that she appeared in notable. I am less than convinced it is, but for the time being I will grant for discussion purposes that this was a significant role in a notable production. The guideline says "multiple" significant roles that were in notable productions. A one-episode role does not rise to the level of significant, with very rare exceptions, so we lack the multiple significant roles, so she fails under that guideline and is not notable under any other guideline we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Griffiths (statistician)[edit]

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

No evidence this person meets any notability criteria. Can't find any coverage in RS or otherwise. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep searching with "Peter Griffiths" statistician gives more results such as this here , also he founded a very popular website so sources should exist offline and online. Haven't had time for a full search yet. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. A search finds no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. His statistician award from a minor organization is non-notable -- the organization's own magazine (Issue 147, pg5) itself makes only a few passing comments about it. I would suggest a redirect to CricketArchive might be appropriate but that page was deleted by AFD in December. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:16, 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 delete. czar 18:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shirin Shila[edit]

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

No in depth coverage, fails GNG and most N criteria. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep: she seems to have significant coverage in Bengali media (see: here, here, here + other sources that come up when searching her native name), but I vote to keep only tentatively because it is still questionable if sources from Bengali entertainment news channels warrant in inclusion on EN Wiki. In any case, more sources can be translated and included in the article by a fluent speaker of Bengali (AKA not me, otherwise I would've done so myself). Nanophosis (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Delete per Mar11s' findings. Thank you! Nanophosis (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After checking the Bengali sources I think this article should be deleted.

Link 2 is a press release as written at the bottom of the article (এনই/এইচএন/পিআর = NE/HN/PR).

Link 1 is a featured article on entertainment section of a news site. This article copies around 40% of texts of Link 2 PR.

Link 3 seems independent but no significant work is described in this article. It says she will work with another actor named Emon in a film. - Mar11 (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. thanks Mar11 for validating my impression.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:09, 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. czar 18:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AbFad[edit]

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

Yet another promotion of non notable singer. Sourced with vanity unreliable and self-managed blogs and fasites. No decent source, neither in the article nor in search –Ammarpad (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sierra Leone-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find substantial coverage in reliable independent sources despite a strong hype game. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why on earth would you delete an article of a subject who is on his way to popularity? AbFad is a popular Siera Leonean singer. Just because you don't know him doesn't mean you represent the entire world. There are 2 magazine references, African Muzik and the Lit Magazine. http://www.thelitmagazine.net/i-rep-salone/profiling-a-sierra-leonean-super-star-abu- ..... And by the way, the page was long ago reviewed by the admin IVORK and he didn't say anything. There was an initial issue which IVORK pointed out but then it was solved. Musiczaworld (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia don't help people on their way to popularity it only host meaningful article about those who have already achieved it, and have reliable sources on that. It is irrelevant who ever reviewed it, even more irrelevant whether he is admin or not. That are insufficient references from arranged interview which can be sought for by anybody including the so-called musician, that's not how notability is established. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said Wikipedia is going to help him in becoming popular. I said that singer is already on his way to popularity. Besides, he's a notable singer in the African continent. Besides, there are notable magazine references and his songs are all around the internet. What are you trying to prove that he is not popular?. I'm certain I don't need to become Bill Gates to get my Wikipedia page. In this case, this is not even about me and besides, Wikipedia is open for everyone. It's not restricted to celebrities only. Musiczaworld (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Musiczaworld: I'm not an admin, just a new page reviewer. Whether or not I took further issue with the article can't really give weight to either side of the argument — IVORK _Discuss 23:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You need to respect African celebrities that are actually know is their countries, he has one of the top played songs in Sierra Leone called Sugar Banana. Abfad is known amongst Sierra Leonenean folks and US as well. he is based in Atlanta and his music actually plays in clubs like ACE AND XS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C9:4000:95B1:F48B:6467:F735:78D7 (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Log in to your account first, and say so. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Keep voters above need to provide evidence that AbFad has been covered in the media beyond proof of his actual existence. He may well be growing in popularity but that is not enough for a Wikipedia article. Routine coverage is also a problem because he has a lot of song listings and minor media mentions about a song or video being released, but I can find none that get beyond basic hype that was probably written by a publicist, such as this: [22] ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not particularly notable, and bad sourcing. Cæsey^{(Talk•Email)} 08:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Non-notable. hiàn 18:41, 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. czar 18:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjadul Islam Sayeem[edit]

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

Promotional article of on notable person, made up of unreliable sources and vanity blogs. So called "Publicity designer" one of the lowest level jobs in film production. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable person. --আফতাব (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear promotion of a non notable subject. - Mar11 (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Arman ^(Talk) 04:56, 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 Nomination withdrawn so page can be draftified. (non-admin closure) Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Gustin[edit]

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

Bio of a non-notable chiropractor. The article was created, references, formating, infobox and all, in one single edit. The list of references looks impressive at first glance, but as a matter of fact there is not one single secondary source that provides more than very trivial coverage (such as this one which is doubtfully reliable but at least it is probably secondary - just a passing mention of Gustin, however.) The absolute majority of the refs are primary sources, including press releases, various directory listings, and adverts. There is no actual claim to notability in the article - “Best Chiropractor in the Bay Area” is not such a claim, and that's the closest thing the article offers. bonadea contributions talk 10:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 10:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete badly sourced, obvious PROMO. I stripped all the spam and interviews and other SPS refs and was left with this. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bonadea, the creator has now disclosed that she works for Gustin, and understands that she should have created this as a draft and put it through AfC. Would you please consent to closing this AfD and having the article moved to draft space so she can rework it and submit it through AfC? If you will agree to withdraw this, I will take care of the close and moving. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Thank you for communicating with the user and trying to clean up the article. I have no objections to closing the AfD and draftifying the page. --bonadea contributions talk 18:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutanese passport (meme)[edit]

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

Obscure self-referential meme; the sources are weak and insufficient to establish notability. eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Severe problems with sourcing - disregarding the wikipedia references, youtube references, and wikipediocracy references (!), we have a blog post from 'jameslileks', a one paragraph unattribute article from 'The News Minute', and a reference in a listicle on what was at the time Fusion and is now Splinter News. I don't think this passes WP:GNG. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete navel-gazing cruft about the hijinks of a banned user, with no sign of it meeting GNG. Weak oppose moving this to project space. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:29, 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. Mz7 (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lu Ann Homza[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, and reads rather non neutral. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable author and historian. Her books have been reviewed in reliable independent sources and there is very substantial coverage of her academic programs including study abroad in Pamplona reviewing hand-written documents with her students. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if some of these sources were in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just added citations to nine reviews of two of her books to the article. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR. The biographical details given are of the pedestrian sort which can be sourced to references affiliated with the subject. XOR'easter (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thanks to the recently added citations, I'd agree that she passes muster as WP:AUTHOR. -Kenirwin/(talk) 15:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, adding to the pile of snow, meets WP:NAUTHOR, books have been reviewed in a large number of publications. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, makes sense given the additions and citations. Kaylea Champion (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per book reviews added by User:David Eppstein.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- Her output is modest, but the post of Dean is more senior than head of department (which would be held by a professor in the British sense of the term. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 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. Note: Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudanovsky Foundation. SALT protected at proper capitalization. czar 16:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rudanovsky foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation that fails to meet WP:NORG. SmartSE (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per g4 and g11. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, suspect it'll be back. Szzuk (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Some of the keep votes reflect a view of notability that does not mirror actual practice. Having discarded them, the delete side had better arguments Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Arif Butt[edit]

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

As per WP:PROF, chancellor or vice-chancellor are usually given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO but acting chancellor or acting Vice-chancellors are not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia, unless they meet GNG. (as per a brief discussion here). The subject was acting (or temporary) VC of the University of the Punjab as per Pakistani newspapers ( ref here, and here). I don't see him meeting other WP:PROF criterion.

Search doesn't produce any significant coverage and information in the independent RS about the person which help meet GNG, therefore I can't see any good reason to have this BLP on a low profile individual. Most of the cited sources in this BLP is either namechecking (mention in passing) or non-independent of the subject.

For what it's worth, an article of similar nature is being discussed at AfD is Dr . Ikram Ullah Khan. Saqib (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the article passes WP:GNG anyways, So many dawn references, brecorder, thenews,etc. [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] [30], and all these references are not just namechecks, they describe him as a holder of a post. As for acting VC issue, i think he was acting VC before September 2007, as desribed by the nom, after Sep 2007 he was simply referred as VC or former VC as by these University site(s) [31], [32] and these dawn references [33], [34] also brecorder simply referred to him as VC after Sep 2007 [35]. Also criteria 5 of WP:NPROF reads The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). He is also Professor emeritus a(Distinguised_Professor) per these sources [36], [37]. So many reasons to keep the article. M A A Z T A L K 09:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: User:Ma'az is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

None of the provided press stories discuss the subject directly and in detail as required by GNG. It is namechecking and mention in passing which is not enough to establish WP:N. He became chancellor of the versity in September 2007 as per this news story and quit in January 2008 as per this news story - which means he held the position for around 4 months. This news story dated March 2008 clearly mentions Prof Dr Muhammad Arif Butt worked as acting vice-chancellor of PU from September 24, 2007 to January 2, 2008 So it is clear he was acting and temporary VC. It appears you misinterpreting criteria 5. There is a difference between professor emeritus (basically just means "retired professor") and a full professorship the way a distinguished or named chair are. In US academic usage, professor emeritus does not denote any special distinction. --Saqib (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies NP:Academic. Professor emeritus. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being Professor emeritus is not notable. It is a special status but it is not proof of notability. There must be thousands of emeritus professors in Pakistan alone at this moment. --Saqib (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While it's certainly not the only basis for his notability it does seem to satisfy criteria 5 "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." FloridaArmy (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm still not convinced whether Professor emeritus = distinguished professor appointment. Don't confuse professor distinguished with retired professor distinguished. Please do not consider it canvassing but I would like to hear what professor @David Eppstein: have to say about whether being "Professor emeritus" confers automatic notability. --Saqib (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point that emerotus is not always an honorary title, but he was also dean, vice chancellor and such. I don't think there's any question that he has is distinguished. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for whether acting VC meet PROF#5, please see the discussion here. Dean is a lesser administrative post and is are generally not sufficient to qualify under any criteria list on WP:PROF. --Saqib (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Professor emeritus means, more or less, the same thing as "retired professor in good standing". It is not a special honor of a type that would confer notability. And while actual VC would pass C6, I don't think acting or temporary positions are enough for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Professor David Eppstein for your 2¢. @FloridaArmy: As you read on David's bio, he is a Chancellor's Professor himself and an admin here so I believe he has sound understanding of academic related AfDs. --Saqib (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't any sources or even recall specific examples but I think that there are some institutions that are somewhat restrictive with the awarding of emeritus status so I am wary of that generalization. ElKevbo (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject appears to have the requisite experience and sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Further, the article as it currently stands doesn't say that the subject was an acting VC and at least the couple of sources I glanced at don't say that, either. ElKevbo (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo: See this news story.--Saqib (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look at the heading, it simply suggests ex-VC. And there's a problem with the source, as the word former is never written for acting posts but only for held posts. And what about all the majority of sources simply referring him as VC or former VC [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]. At best, its a case of Wikipedia:Conflicting sources and WP:DUE suggests that majority sources should prevail. M A A Z T A L K 05:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this dated January 2008, this and this dated Dec 2007. There're several more news stories which verifies he was acting VC but it just does not make sense to list of all of them here. --Saqib (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think, that's just a political way of saying it, while WP:DUE is not in your favor. Another uninvolved editor also agrees on this [45]. M A A Z T A L K 13:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ma'az: That editor removed the term because there was no RS cited at that time but now we've plenty of RS to support the acting VC claim. --Saqib (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just found out that the subject is also quite notable for his research. He was awarded the Dr.A.Q Khan award per this source [46] for his works in research and is also a chief editor per [47]. And just a word for the VC thing, I think he was newly appointed Vice-chancellor after Sep, 2007 to a significant period. I think if somebody is newly appointed for significant period, he should be simply referred by his post, otherwise this will open a new pandora box as to why should we stop here, for example, in this List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, are people like Spencer Compton, 1st Earl of Wilmington, John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute, Alec Douglas-Home referred to as temporary or simply as served as prime minister like in the article. Another example of the List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi has been appointed prime minister after nawaz sharif for a brief time, should he be simply referred to as PM or temporary PM, as there is no completion of term of 5 years. So, I think the orthodox standards should apply and common sense should prevail. If a chancellor/vice-chancellor is newly appointed for a significant period, he should be simply referred to as VC or go by the sources or consensus/majority of sources per WP:DUE. The subject was newly appointed after Sep 2007 for a significant period and the sources simply referred to him as VC or former VC.[48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] (Dawn & Tribune are considered most reliable sources). M A A Z T A L K 03:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ma'az: The award you mentioned is not notable, by any sense. Discussion on acting or interim prime ministeris irrelevant here. We're talking about academics, not politicians or public office holders. He was VC and I'm not denying it, but he was temporary or acting, whatever you like to call. --Saqib (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But this is inconsistent then. If its insignificant for Prime-ministers or higher posts, then common sense suggests that its absolutely insignificant for lower posts. And the sources simply refer to him as VC. M A A Z T A L K 05:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean this news story dated May 2008 is not true? See this dated January 2008, this and this dated Dec 2007. There're several more which verifies he was acting VC. --Saqib (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nation's reference simply mentioned him as ex-VC in heading. And thenews also simply referred to him as VCin another source [55]. Like I said, at best its a case of Conflicting sources in which majority of sources should prevail. Dawn is most reliable source and they know the difference between acting and non-acting best. They consider newly appointed VCs for significant period simply as VCs. Before Sep 2007, Dawn referred to him as acting VC per [56], however after Sep 2007, when he was newly appointed, they never referred to him as acting but simply referred to him as VC [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]. In addition University also calls him simply as former VC. M A A Z T A L K 06:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy your argument. The News and The Nation are as reliable as Dawn. --Saqib (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as supported by WP:GNG--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NadirAli: Supported by what? GNG? And how? --Saqib (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Saqib: since you wish the article to be deleted, the burden is on you to demonstrate it's reason for being excluded instead of me trying to explain it. I'm not implying it can't improve, but it can still be kept.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you what made you say "supported by WP:GNG"? Because the bio clearly fails to meet GNG. --Saqib (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely non-notable individual with unreliable sources only showing that he has worked a lot to promote himself but none of these sources pass even the borderline standard of WP:RS. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Not even one source is capable of establishing notability. Capitals00 (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 14:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject fails notability and trivial mentions of the subject are clearly relying upon the notability of University of the Punjab. That's not notable. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Canoe. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian canoe[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:DICDEF, flagged for both neutrality and sourcing issues since 2013 without any actual improvement since, of a variant term for the exact same thing we're already covering in much more depth in canoe. It's true that there are some dialects of English in which "canoe" is used to mean "kayak", so the term "Canadian canoe" is used to distinguish this form of canoe from the other usage, but that's not the way we're using "canoe" as a page title here: we're not using it as a disambiguation page to differentiate "Canadian canoes" from kayaks, but as the main article about "Canadian canoes" — so under those circumstances, the "Canadian canoe" title doesn't actually need its own standalone article as a separate concept from itself. Just to be clear, I fully support the recreation of a redirect from this title back to canoe afterward — but this, as written, should still be deleted first to minimize the possibility of future edit-warring over the "redirect vs. standalone article" issue. Bearcat (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My findings concur with nom. A lack lf notability is also a problem. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support or at any rate I don't oppose the deletion - as long as, as mentioned above, those readers looking for "Canadian canoe" quickly find themselves at Canoe. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect per nom - this is a disambiguation page that has had a makeover and gone to the ball. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per nom. Szzuk (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Richard Enriquez[edit]

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

Not a notable person. There is a lack of coverage in reliable sources. Does not pass the GNG. KingAndGod 13:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:39, 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) 07:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single-market radio personalities are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist — they need to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage, in media other than their own employer's self-published content about itself and its own staff, to clear WP:GNG. But this is completely unreferenced, and claims nothing whatsoever about him that's "inherently" notable enough to give him the "keep and flag for reference improvement" treatment. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced BLP. Anah Mikhayhu Leonard (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - radio DJs in the Philippines are run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lostkeyz[edit]

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

Not notable enough for a Wikipedia page Doronlosky97 (talk) 06:38, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per G7's previously and WP:NBAND. Mdann52 (talk) 16:57, 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. czar 16:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Rao[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person so Can't see any significance. Saqib (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't pass WP:GNG, so i'll also say delete. M A A Z T A L K 17:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Assertions != Producing sources. Waving at google and vague waves that there must be notability are not strong keep arguments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Nick[edit]

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

Promotional article about non notable so-called rapper made with bunch of unreliable and vanity sources. No decent sources about this person, neither in search nor the article. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article needs some work but theres an abundance of coverage from hip hop focused publications as well as more mainstream news media such as SF Weekly and Miami New Times. He's also features in the Sound Cloud mini documentary Degenerate Generation. Big on the sizzurp circuit according to reports. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't say there are sources. Bring them and let's see their content. After I removed more YouTube and Wikipedia sources, and now remaining Soundcloud self-published profile, this should have been speedily deleted as a7/g11. But better knock it here, in case it resurfaces. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources can be seen by clicking the News link above. That's why it's there. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, too many mentions after clicking news for none of them to be RS. Szzuk (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lyra Evans[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- a person has to win the election and thereby hold the seat, not just be a candidate, to be considered notable as a politician. But the only grounds for claiming her candidacy to be more notable than everybody else's candidacy in the same election is that she's the first transgender candidate to be nominated by one of the three dominant political parties in Ontario -- as opposed to the first transgender candidate to be nominated by any political party in Ontario, a distinction which Christin Milloy beat her to by seven years. But if you have to start adding a string of extra qualifiers to actually make her the first of something, because other people have already beaten her to unequivocated firstness for that same something, then she doesn't really have a genuine notability claim. And the referencing shown doesn't make her a special case, either, because every candidate in the upcoming election, regardless of their gender identity, could always show as much local media coverage as this. No prejudice against recreation on or after June 7 if she wins her seat, but nothing here is enough to already deem her notable just for being a candidate as of April. Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't previously commented on an AfD page, so I will format this like I would a Talk Page entry; apologies if that's not the correct format. I think that yours is a perfectly reasonable position, and I will once again disclose my COI as I did on the article's talk page: I know the candidate and I created her article, so I invite you to approach what I say as skeptically as you wish on that basis. However, I think it is still worth voicing the two reasons that I honestly believe that the article's subject passes the notability guidelines. First, two of the sources are CBC articles, not articles in Ottawa outlets, and seem to me exactly the "national or international press coverage" mentioned in WP:POLOUTCOMES. A quick search for the other candidates in this race shows no similar coverage beyond Ottawa, except of course for the sitting MPP Nathalie Des Rosiers (who is clearly notable). This is the central claim you made that I would challenge: she has received non-local coverage, and I don't think it's true that the other candidates (except the incumbent) have received similar non-local coverage. Second, I completely agree with you that her gender identity and the accompanying coverage is the only grounds for claiming her notability. What I believe in contrast is that it's categorically different to be nominated by a party which regularly elects MPPs and even forms the government than to be nominated by a party which has never won a seat. There's even a legal basis for the distinction between what we're colloquially calling "major" and "minor" parties. I don't see what other qualifiers could as reasonably be appended to justify future "firsts". -- Astrophobe (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, both of the CBC sources are from the CBC's local Ottawa bureaux (English and French), not from the national news divisions — so they represent local coverage, not nationalized coverage, for the purposes of determining whether a candidate clears the "special case over and above most other candidates" bar or not. And secondly, being nominated as a candidate by one of the NDP/Liberal/PC troika is not automatically more notable than being nominated as a candidate by one of the smaller parties — how many MPPs who aren't Lyra Evans the party has or hasn't elected prior to Lyra Evans is entirely irrelevant to whether Lyra Evans is notable just for being a candidate or not. And finally, if you know her personally then you have a conflict of interest. Bearcat (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to imply that it would be news to me that I have a conflict of interest, so I will point out that I repeatedly disclosed that conflict of interest exactly as the guidelines require, including at the very start of the message you were ostensibly replying to. -- Astrophobe (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is not that as long as you disclose a COI you're free to just do whatever you want with impunity. The reason COI has to be disclosed is because COI articles require a special level of heightened scrutiny to ensure that they're actually following our rules, not because COI editing is somehow OK as long as you admit it. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, so it's certainly a good thing that I absolutely never implied that I thought any of those things! Astrophobe (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suggest this should be kept as draft until the Ontario election results are announced around 8 June. It could otherwise be interpreted as publicity.--Ipigott (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:POLOUTCOMES indicates, we have an established consensus not to retain deleted articles about unelected candidates in draftspace pending the election results, because draftspace isn't meant to be a repository of campaign brochures either. If she wins the seat, then an administrator can restore the article with one click of a button, so there's no compelling need to hang onto premature candidate articles as pending drafts. Bearcat (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable just by being candidate. Acnetj (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ontario general election, 2018 candidate section where she can be mentioned if she isn't there already. Some mainstream news coverage and historical significance. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added additional citations and info. Now appears to pass WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Lonehexagon (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of the new sources you added are still local coverage in a campaign-specific context, and there isn't even an unusually large volume of that. Routine campaign coverage in the subject's local media is not enough in and of itself to get a candidate over GNG just for being a candidate, and thus exempt her from having to clear NPOL by winning the election first — if it were, then every candidate in every election anywhere would always be exempted from having to pass NPOL, so our established consensus that candidates are not notable just for being candidates would be inherently disembowelled. There are only two ways to make a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article without winning the election first: (a) she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides being a candidate, or (b) the coverage of her explodes so far beyond the ordinary and routine (e.g. her candidacy started getting covered in the United States and Europe) that she has a credible claim to being a special case over and above most other candidates. But neither of those has been demonstrated here at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She has received nationwide coverage, and I disagree that she's only getting routine coverage. There is a great deal of the coverage with significant discussion about her an an individual including her past, and what her nomination means for the party. Another idea is to merge the information on the party page and/or the election page. Lonehexagon (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If she's received nationwide coverage, this article as written is failing to cite any of it — there's not a single source in the article that escapes the local. (Even the sources I'm pretty sure you think you're talking about by claiming "national", the CBC and Radio-Canada, are not to those organizations' national news divisions, but to their local news bureaux in Ottawa — so they are not "nationalized" coverage for the purposes of making an unelected candidate special. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability as first trans candidate (from major party) is minimal, but would certainly be notable as first trans MPP. I wish her luck in the upcoming election. FUNgus guy (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates are almost never notable as such, no exception here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing Wife[edit]

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

NN, few sources. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three references that devote significant coverage to the topic is adequate, and should not be called "few". This is an upcoming drama on the Korean TV network that broadcasts the majority of hit TV dramas in that country. I do not read Korean but Google translate verifies that the coverage is detailed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage found by Cullen. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:52, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Hills, Oklahoma City[edit]

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

After removing all the poorly sourced promotional copy, what you see here in it's totally unreferenced form is all that's left. Prod to WP:TNT delete so perhaps someone other than the neighborhood association or a realtor can write an accurate neutral article. John from Idegon (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Gut the article so there's nothing there and then call for deletion. This is an UGLY nom. Subject is clearly notable and covered in reliable independent sources such as here. Article contents should be restored and sourcing improved if that's an issue. Obvious Keep. This nom seems like a bad joke. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I can't fathom why the nom would gut the article and then nominate it for deletion, the user above added new refs. Szzuk (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes geographic notability requirements. Also, for phrasing, half of OKC is "near downtown". L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - past precedent is that churches and other historic sites/areas over 100 years old are presumed, but are not automatically, notable. The neighborhood includes at least one registered historic landmark over 100 years old. Bearian (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Koimoi[edit]

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

No independent coverage in reliable source.Fails subject notability guidelines.It may be noted that WP:USEBYOTHERS is not a criterion of encyclopedic inclusion. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confused: Elaborate your nomination. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 01:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep another article about a source that is used in at least 500 articles so the public would expect at least a brief explanation of what it is so they can judge whether it is reliable for themselves. Fixed the dead link ref in the article here but unfortunately its pr. Haven't done a major rs search yet so only a weak keep Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 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 delete. Mz7 (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Jacobs[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON, opponent of Mike Levin, no indication that she's more notable Elassint ^Hi 05:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable just by being a candidate. Acnetj (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won yet — and people doubly do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in primaries which they haven't even won to become general election candidates yet. If you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason prior to being a candidate, then she has to win the general election in November to become notable as a politician. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are routine coverage of her political campaign. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:07, 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 speedy deletion criteria A7, G11. (non-admin closure) FITINDIA 12:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorsha Morava[edit]

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

YouTubers are not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless they meet GNG. Search doesn't produce any substantial coverage and information about the person in independent RS so Can't see any significance. Saqib (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete moved out of AfC without allowing a review. One of the features of mainspace is AfD. Legacypac (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I didn't know about Draft:Sorsha Morava. --Saqib (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tapan Bose[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person so Can't see any significance. Saqib (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 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 keep. Withdrawn after rewrite. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by financial assets per capita[edit]

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

I prodded this article two years ago, giving the explanation "The source of the figures is unclear. The ref gives Household net financial wealth but [not] per capita, and does not give debt figures. This appears to constitute original research." The prod was removed by an anon without explanation or improvement. The article creator (who copied the content from another article per below) then tagged it as needing citations, and it has remained unimproved since. The article seems to have a complicated history having been moved from List of countries by wealth per adult and back to that title, then recreated with an older version of that article. gadfium 04:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw this AfD, given the almost total rewrite of the article by LuigiPortaro29 (talk · contribs) with an appropriate source.-gadfium 04:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Various Forms of Iffy - so yes, this article is clearly listing various ways to have issues.

Incorrect naming/titling - it really should be renamed as "List of OECD countries by financial assets per household", which would at least make the list relevant to the article
Incorrect Citation (not included) - very correct, the citation doesn't back up the figures. I reckon [this] is probably the link wanted
Incorrect Citation OR - assuming correct data actually being used, OR becomes an issue. Hoards of links (a quick google brings up a dozen at least) of articles about specific or small numbers of the countries. There are also plenty of books which use the figures, usually in an analysed format rather than something that could be used here (and obviously more out of date than the base figures), e.g. [OECD Factbook]. Trying to find untouched figures given in a secondary source proved difficult.
Further Out of Date - the link I gave has multiple figures, including 2011 if selected. the link here is 2011. Seems a bit random to just have these figures, but if so, another tweak to the name will be needed to clarify that.
Establishing Notability - not actually a functional reason to delete - there certainly is sufficient consideration of these figures as a group (if nothing else, the individual country consideration is dependent on its ranking within this group), but some links could be added.

Nosebagbear (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solar artwork[edit]

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

Non-notable supposed art movement (described as "a new type of art") that is really just original research and a list of art that the article author is labeling "solar artwork": in other words, not work that is created by artists as "solar artwork" or described by scholars as such. The references are all primary sources. The further reading is unrelated articles and books that happen to be about art that uses solar power. Again, this is attributing a movement to something unaffiliated, after the fact. Google searches come up with generic uses of the terms "solar" and "artwork" (i.e. not specifically this "movement") and how-to books on using solar power. Again, not what this article is claiming other than in the most general sense. No relevant hits in google scholar, and zero hits in google news. Fails WP:GNG. freshacconci (✉) 01:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci (✉) 01:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no WP:RS — this is WP:OR. Theredproject (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even I find the tag "solar artwork" cheesy, but the fact is that it has been around long enough to be a thing. Information Arts by Stephen Wilson has four pages on it (pp 246-250), for example. I also see the term in numerous google book searches. Normally I agree with the esteemed above editors, but not today. The article does contain OR and needs a serious trim.104.163.159.237 (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added about a dozen sources. I'm sad to say it's a popular thing, especially among those who make a connection between sustainability/sustainable cities and solar public artworks. it's all bogus IMHO, but it's very notable.104.163.159.237 (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be perhaps renamed to List of solar artworks or Solar art.104.163.159.237 (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence that this is a commonly used term that has any discernible meaning. Not listed at http://www.getty.edu/vow/AATHierarchy?find=sound+art&logic=AND&note=&page=1&subjectid=300191091 for example, unlike video art and sound art. Vexations (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Getty index is accurate up to about 1980 or 1990, as it omits Bio art, Automatic art, Robotic art, space art, site-specific art, video mapping, computer art, interventionist art... and graffiti art!! 104.163.159.237 (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Art & Architecture Thesaurus' entry about site-specific work is [62], graffiti art is here, robotics is here, automata here, computer art here. I find the Art & Architecture Thesaurus helpful because it allows to distinguish between terms that are in actual use and neologisms or amalgams. Space art is an almost perfect example of the mess that comes from conflating everything to do with space and art into one term that includes "realism, impressionism, hardware art, sculpture, abstract imagery, even zoological art" (per the article's lead). Vexations (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the 24 sources in the article that deal with solar art beat your external thesauri (thesauruses?). We go by sources, and there are plenty.104.163.159.237 (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Vexation's analysis, because very few of the artists listed are themselves notable, and because (forgot I already voted!!) the SPA creator Nachozamora also happens to have a massive COI as "Nacho Zamora is the founder and the manager of Solar Artworks, an initiative that promotes the integration of solar power solutions within public art and urban landscape projects. This website is a place of promotion of works of solar art as a clever alternative to the present urban furniture. Solar Artworks represents some of the top international solar designers, and also collaborates with cultural institutions to develop educative workshops combining art, solar power, and environmental awareness for new generations." from [63]. --Theredproject (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAre we really going to delete an article with 24 good sources? I suggest renaming it to Solar art, which more closely matches content. As I said, lots and lots of mentions in books and magazines. It may not satisfy a 1960s definition of fine art, but it does satisfy a contemporary one.104.163.159.237 (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solar powered artwork would also be ok, and exceedingly accurate.104.163.159.237 (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foyr.com[edit]

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

Non-notable company, founded in 2014. Cannot see how it can pass the revised WP:NCORP. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability estabkished by very substantial coverage in reliavle independent sources such as those cited already. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - online references are trivial and seem to be mostly recycled press released. I note that the article was already deleted once. Shritwod (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a dearth of good quality independent sources. For a firm existing since 2014, I would expect much more coverage of a notable service or product. I am finding a lot of press releases and announcements of funding. I agree with the previous comment that some media seems to be reprinting or creating feeds based on these; such articles cannot be considered independent articles written by journalists. --DreamLinker (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tema Central Mall[edit]

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

WP:MILL shopping center. PROD removed with suggestion to merge with Tema, but there is really no significant content. One primary source shows it exists, other source is just a blog. MB 19:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated on the grounds that it is not notable, I fear that maybe wrong as this mall serves the people of Tema and its environs (Dawhenya, Mataheko, Afienya, etc.). Tema alone has approximately 170,000 indigens, considering the number of people who live in the environs of Tema the numbers will be raking between 400,000 to 500,000, before even considering people from the larger Greater Accra region that know and use it. Unfortunately in a country like Ghana if you use publications to determine notability you may be wrong as you don't live and know much about the country. Africans have the issue/culture of not publishing or documenting stuff, however i don't think that should be detrimental to knowledge about our countries and continent, we should be allowed to document with hopes that more publications are made on the subject. I have seen articles with tags indicating just one source, deleting articles on these basis i don't think helps but just deepens the level of inadequate documentation that exist about our countries and continent. --Flixtey (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with a number of Flixtey's comments. I also suspect that this establishment is large enough to have received press coverage when it opened in 2008 that we can't find online. I'm doing some looking as well, but Africa is the toughest area for us.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Its a mall. There is one independent reference to a non-event. Otherwise, the references are not independent.--Rpclod (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - A shopping center of this size is not considered notable in developed countries without other factors. Just a brief coverage of it being opened is not enough. Acnetj (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a small, 25-store mall. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Thomas More Catholic High School (Louisiana)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. (de-PROD'd by Egaoblai for no reason.) Chris Troutman (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why you're targeting this page when there are school pages with an equal amount of information or even less. An example being the page St. Thomas More High School (South Dakota), a school with the same name and even less content. Going to recommend that one for deletion too? The original page for this entry existed for years with no proposal for deletion, I just redirected to a new page to reflect the school's official name. Sovietmessiah (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sovietmessiah: Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Your argument would send us on a race to the bottom. For content quality to improve, we have to insist on standards. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: Regardless, I just showed you an article that definitely misses the standards you listed if the one I created did, with far less content and less sources. Are you going to nominate that one too? Because as it stands, it seems like you have some sort of vendetta or obsession targeted at me. Sovietmessiah (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't nominate articles on a dare. If you think I have a vendetta, take it to WP:ANI. I noticed that you do a poor job at editing and I nominated this article for deletion because of it. I'm not trying to mass-nominate articles about schools. If you want to nominate that article for deletion, be my guest. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very notable Catholic high school with plenty of coverage of it to pass GNG. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FloridaArmy: Which sources make you think this article passes GNG? Chris Troutman (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ones covering its enrollment, test scores, campus expansion plans, teams compwting with success, a staff member being sentenced for child sex abuse etc. Google News isn't perfect but can be useful. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide URLs? I don't see the sources you're talking about. I've dismissed the ROUTINE coverage; perhaps that what you meant. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This came up for the CSA case if it's any use to you and this came up for expansion and it only took a quick google. LibrePrincess (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LibrePrincess: I don't think that's enough for GNG. Others may disagree. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sovietmessiah (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is currently under-sourced but this is something that can be fixed with time and effort; one problem I see arising however is the similarity in naming compared to other schools which might lead to confusion in what sources reference which school. LibrePrincess (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wiki would not be sufficiently improved by deleting this article. An acceptable start-class article and a significant community institution. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Daily Advertiser news articles: [64] [65] [66] [67] "St. Thomas More Catholic High School has the highest private school enrollment this year, with 1,076 students." [68] [69] Advocate [70] Athletic Business [71] mentions on cheerleading [72] Advocate article on AIA Rose Award for the school's media building. [73] Guardian article for Kevin Castille, who is listed in List of masters world records in road running is a coach at St. Thomas More [74] Runner's World article [75] Unfortunately I can't dig up too many articles as I exceeded the limit for Daily Advertiser. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to Chris troutman improving the article with all these sources.Egaoblai (talk) 09:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Egaoblai: Why would I? I don't think this meets GNG. If I did, I wouldn't have nominated the article for deletion. Brief mentions in contemporaneous sources fails WP:SIGCOV. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rusf10 (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Shambroom[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ARTIST, the only source in the article is his own book. Does not meet any of the four parts of WP:ARTIST. Rusf10 (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In MoMA collection, au Mois de la Photo à Montréal, in Walker Art Center collection, long article about his work at MinnPost, long write-up for an exhibition at MoCP. Well, finding these took me all of two minutes or so with the world's best known (and, recently, most-feared) search engine. I could then have continued, but perhaps it's instead Rusf10's turn to do a little searching. If the claim were that the article was feeble, I'd agree; but it seems instead to be that the biographee doesn't amount to much, which puzzles me. -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and also WP:BEFORE!! Theredproject (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry that Rusf10 hasn't taken up my invitation. Meanwhile, in SFMoMA collection, show at the Tang museum, eight-minute video on PBS, in Madison MoCA collection, written up at ArtForum, in the Getty collection ... oh and finally (for now) a short and uninteresting paragraph that's both bilingual and ALL IN CAPITALS and therefore must be important, amirite? ¶ Sorry, I have trouble taking this AfD seriously. The nomination asserts: "Does not meet any of the four parts of WP:ARTIST". Let's just look at the fourth of these: "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Not entirely sure about (a), but he seems to me to meet (b), (c) and (d); an achievement that I think is enough for us to be able to ignore the first three "parts". -- Hoary (talk) 04:15, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rikin Pethani[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With a quick google search, Rikin Pethani easily meets gng, nominator has nominated numerous Indian basketball articles for deletion with an obvious failure to perform WP:BEFORE. Geographical and demographic WP:BIAS is to be avoided; just because Indian Basketball isn't on ESPN or in Sports Illustrated, doesn't make it non-notable, but in this case it was easy to find English language sources, so it is very doubtful the nominator made a significant effort to find sources.Jacona (talk) 15:35, 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 01:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep top scorer or the national championship team? Member of the national team. C'mon. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with quick Google search. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes GNG. Enough with the mass AfD's without doing any WP:BEFORE. Smartyllama (talk) 20:10, 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 06:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kokomi Sakura[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability Fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 17:26, 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 06:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ran Asakawa[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability Fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 17:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 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 redirect to December murders#Victims. Sandstein 06:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jozef Slagveer[edit]

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

While part of a tragic incident, that is the only thing he is notable for. Delete as per WP:BIO1E. Part of a sequence of articles written about the victims of this event. Will nominate the others who I feel also fall under WP:BIO1E, but others, like Eddy Hoost, appear to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they also all fall under the WP:BIO1E category:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all I checked several foreign language wikis to see what they do with these people and they all redirect to the December murders, I haven't checked refs, redirects are cheap so if any of these turn out to be independently notable the redirect can be undone. Szzuk (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agree Szzuk - There were several more which had not been reviewed, which I redirected to the December murders article, and a couple of others which appear to have notability independent of this tragedy. But since these had been reviewed through the NPP process by another editor, I didn't feel comfortable simply redirecting, so wanted to establish consensus in the community. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:21, 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 06:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Römer[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:SOLDIER and significant RS coverage not found: link, in either German or English. Article is largely sourced to primary documents. Bibliography includes a source from questionable publisher J.J. Fedorowicz. No de.wiki article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Possible selective merge to 653rd Heavy Panzerjäger Battalion. Note there is an unrelated submarine officer with same name.[76]. I'm not as sure of the RSness of [77][78] (that K.e.coffman is calling out a questionable - hence I'm cagey on the merge) - however coverage of this individual seems to be quite limited (so - I do not see him passing GNG even if this were a RS). Whether to selectively merge some of this would depend on the RSness.Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The Germans were too profligate in awarding knights' crosses at the end of WWII for this alone to constitute notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marie C. Couvent Elementary School[edit]

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

While it gained some notoriety for the name change, I couldn't find any in-depth sourcing for this elementary school. Not even that many trivial mentions, like the two already in the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article is deleted it will have the unfortunate affect of directing readers searching "Couvent School" or "Couvent Elementary School" to the other elementary school in New Orleans that went by this name. That gets very confusing. So a merge or keep would be a better option, especially since the school has some historic sognificance. If it's not kept perhaps at least a few key bits can be merge to the Education section of Faubourg Marigny. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the confusion is notable, as well as a bit on Faubourg Marigny, there could be a hatnote indicating that. This is of course only something to do if the article isn't retained Nosebagbear (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added hatnote. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant and historic Elementary School that was in the news for a variety of reasons over many decades. If it is not to be kept independently a selective merge to the community where it was located, Faubourg Marigny, would be the appropriate outcome. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a historic school. There's also been some controversy when the school closed. Coverage is sufficient for a referenced stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is historically significant. SSSB (talk) 10:39, 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.

[1] Straw Men and Straw Crows: A Field Guide

[1]