Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 April	30 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 keep. Although some of the "keep" !votes are rather weak, there definitely is no consensus to delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr DisRespect[edit]

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

A Twitch.tv streamer and internet personality. But is he notable in the real world? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, he's not notable in "the real world", but he's notable in his field. I consider articles specifically about the subject from ESPN, Rolling Stone, Forbes, Polygon, and PC Gamer to constitute notability. Vermont (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It ain't a big article, but there are definitely sources available that make him pas notability.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 14:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft So it can be worked on in greater detail. -- Alex^TW 14:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's a notable, award-winning gaming personality. AndreyKva (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. I agree with you that this isn't anyone that is obviously notable, but taking a look at the references I come to the conclusion that there are enough sources in the article to meet our standards. wikitigresito (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dr DisRespect is definitely notable. He (probably) had the highest Twitch stream viewing ever (although this is disputed by Tyler1 & co.). Many suitable references are already included in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject meets general notability standards with substantial secondary reliable sources, as noted above in comment by Vermont. While the discussion about actual internet fame and notability is one to be had, they meet Wikipedia standards even if they aren't notable in other realms. But why would we apply said standard only to people known to the masses via the Internet? Why would physical people get a pass? In my view, digitally popular people can be viewed in the minds of far more people than any other physical realm. (IE: a baseball stadium seats 85 thousand people, and more than 4x that DrDisrespect had on a live stream.) It seems utterly dismissive. Combine that with charity drives that these people often do, and sometimes they can have more impact physically than one would expect. Tutelary (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see enough coverage and sources to justify his inclusion. Husounde (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles-Henri Sabet[edit]

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

Delete Fails WP:BASIC. It appears that this page is being used to promote Charles as an entrepreneur. While he has some sporting achievements and was World Champion of Backgammon in 1979, the article mentions these achievements in passing (and there's a lot of World Champion Backgammon players that don't have articles). As a businessman, Charles appears to be a run-of-the-bill banker and it is difficult to understand the claim to notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place for self promotion, as I had to explain to one of my friends who wanted to create a Wikipedia article on me to help me get a job. That was just a not workable plan period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ANYBIO failure, and no claims to significance made.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bhargav Gajjar[edit]

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

Delete Fails the criteria for notability, fails WP:BASIC. Some articles mention him but nothing in-depth. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. also, I just did this search, and he does not appear in that search as MIT faculty, staff, or student. A little more poking, and i found this lab website, that lists him in the "alumni" section, where it says "Bhargav Gajjar, Research Affiliate, 2014". He does have this page in the "MIT drupal cloud" ... The content in our article seems to oversell his affiliation with MIT. Marginally notable and way way too much promotional pressure. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dubious at best connection to MIT. Strike that connection from the debate, and the article subject is just a non-notable business man who owns a fairly small company. The company has some coverage surrounding it, but that which directly concerns Gajjar is trivial.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as not notable Wolfson5 (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Preaky (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TNT esp given the probable inflation of MIT creds ☆ Bri (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural keep with no prejudice against renomination. What I see in this discussion was a 3-0 count in favor of "delete", followed by a pile-on of "keep" voters who were canvassed to this discussion by the first keep voter. From what I can see, only "keep" voters were notified. This project is governed by consensus, and WP:CANVASS is a serious aspect of this as it prohibits users from artificially fabricating consensus via biased notification. It appears very obvious to me that that is what happened here, and there is no way I can interpret this as a genuinely-formed consensus. In other words, even if the community would have reached the same consensus without the canvassing, there is no way to judge that, given how severely the participation was apparently skewed by canvassing. There is no assumption of bad faith on the part of any notified participants, and their arguments, as well as past discussions, should be genuinely considered when considering whether to renominate. However, this discussion should not preclude such a renomination, as there is no way for the community to judge whether the apparent overwhelming "keep" consensus would have been reached if the discussion had taken place normally. Swarm ♠ 01:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of YouTubers[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN (set as a whole is not notable), WP:CLT (no advantages of a list) and WP:LISTPURP (no good for information, or navigation, or development). ~~Duplicate of Category:YouTubers.~~ wumbolo ^^^ 20:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I don’t see many unlinked/redlinked entries, but the list is very long and addition of non-notable YouTubers seems likely. Neither of the previous nominations mentioned WP:LISTN or the category. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't really add anything past what the category does, per nom — IVORK _Discuss 23:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as this shouldn't even be a thing. The criteria for inclusion has been discussed. The argument of "duplicate of YouTuber category" is not valid because there are lots of lists that could be considered duplicates of categories. It was mentioned in a previous deletion debate that being a YouTuber is a profession like a lot of other professions. Why should YouTube be exempt from having a notable YouTuber list? There are lots of notable lists of artists and whatnot. Just because you think it should be deleted doesn't make it correct. Further more, if an article on a YouTuber is deleted, it gets removed from the list. That's in step with what a list is for. Finally, it meets all requirements for a list. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fishhead2100: It was mentioned in a previous deletion debate that being a YouTuber is a profession like a lot of other professions. Why should YouTube be exempt from having a notable YouTuber list? That would be an WP:OSE argument. wumbolo ^^^ 12:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. Easily passes NLIST. No list "duplicates" a category (WP:NOTDUP). No new arguments given beyond those offered when it's been kept five times in the past (including a snow keep last time). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No actual reason given for deletion. You can't say it fails WP:X without citing the actual rule and showing how that rule has been broken. It is just pointing to the Bible and telling people their answer is inside. And of course every category can have a list, they serve different purposes. --RAN (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated before and in WP:NOTDUP, the fact that this list is closely tied to the category is perfectly fine and not a valid deletion reason. WP:LISTN is obviously satisfied; regardless of whether sources are present displaying notability of the set as a whole, they can easily be found with a search. The majority of entries on this list are for notable people who have engaged in this occupation and like any other occupation that this many notable people are employed in, a list is justified. Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 01:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Criteria for inclusion is established here, so seems ok to me. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that they have to have an article in Wikipedia already? --RAN (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't I'v changed my vote, all I was concerned about was the criterai for inclusion, and that's been satisfied. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: per WP:REDACT please remember to strike your comments in order to change, rather than refactor them if someone has replied (otherwise it removes the context for that reply). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. We had a discussion last year, which is linked at the top of the talk page and in the edit notice, that determined that only persons who alread have a Wikipedia article should be included, so this argument really doesn’t hold water. If there are any redlinked entries currently they can and shoud be removed without any need fo discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having participated in and/or started several of these discussions over the past ~5 years, it's disappointing to see this assumption when any casual look through the talk page archives or the edit notice would turn it up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note, as this is something of a pet peeve of mine, that To avoid confusing newcomers, the reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms so a nomination that is nothing but a list of said acronyms with no explanation whatsoever of what specific parts of thse pages this list supposedly violates really is not ok. LISTPURP in particular really isn’t a reason for deletion as that is an MOS page, and the MOS is just style advice and is not binding. Also WP:CLT says quite clearly It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator must not fully understand LISTPURP. It's straightfoward. Lists and categories are complimentary of each other at it's very basic. This article does not fail LISTPURP at all. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can not delete a list because you prefer a category. There is a specific rule about that. All entries have their own Wikipedia article and have references showing reliable sources giving significant coverage for being YouTubers. Dream Focus 03:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but consider a bit more cleanup and removal of people that are well notable before/outside of Youtube. For example, Psy need not be on the list; he's a musician first and foremost. Of those that should be kept, I would suggest possibly breaking the table into broad categories, such as musicians, comedians, technology-related, arts and crafts, and the like. But as long as we start with a requirement of a blue link/notable person, that helps to keep the cruft out. --Masem (t) 05:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Likewise Justin Bieber — IVORK _Discuss 05:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CLT is an editing guideline, so it doesn't count for notability. LISTPURP is under Manual of Style, so it isn't applicable, either. LISTN is the only applicable notability guidance. It says "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". I searched and I found a couple RS mentioning YouTubers as a group of people. Here's the thing: none of those are present in the article. You know why? Because the editors who contribute here are only interested in listing their favorite YouTubers. No one is concerned with describing the cohort. I could do what Vanstrat is doing and claim that sources exist so it passes, but I'm not. I'm not going to trust my anecdotal check as a pass on notability. It makes more sense to delete this list, anger some fans, and force a change whereas this list would actually pass LISTN. Let's have a conversation about notability when the sources are all presented. Just seeing that some sources exist is no reason to keep an article. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct me if I'm wrong but you basically are saying this is a notable topic for a list and you have found RS that prove it but you think the list should be deleted anyway because they are not in the article? Why don't you just add those sources you found to the article instead? Regards So Why 06:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: SoWhy has you there. Plus it's not about adding your favourite YouTuber. That's not how it works. Instead of complaining the sources you found are not in article, add it. That's the common sense thing to do. Your argument/comments are full of holes that your vote doesn't line up with what you said. Sources you found not being in articles is a terrible reason to vote delete. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 07:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: I see you've cited some sources below. I'm not denying they exist, but I do think deletion ought to be a method of cleanup, per WP:REALPROBLEM. I'm not being dishonest about it; let an admin discount my rationale. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC) @Fishhead2100: I'm not fixing this article because there's zero utility in it for me. It's illogical to waste one's time cleaning up others' messes unless you enjoy it. I don't. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: You're complaining about stuff being wrong with this and that. As long as it is not addressed and fixed, are you're going to keep complaining about it? Don't tell me you are one of those people will only complain and not actually do something about it. That's a bad attitude to have. I don't know if it is bad faith, but not stepping to help address and fix what you perceive as an issue, it does seem like it. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 14:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fishhead2100: "Don't tell me you are one of those people will only complain and not actually do something about it." Sorry, but yeah. I'm not so arrogant that I'm going to charge forward and impose my will. I recognize Wikipedia suffers from adverse selection due to a broken payoff structure. "...but not stepping to help address and fix what you perceive as an issue..." Per WP:VOLUNTEER. You've been here 13 years and you're going to lecture me that if I don't like Wikipedia it's because I'm not doing enough? Anyone that contributes to Wikipedia for free is a sucker, me included. Jimbo is laughing his way to the bank. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: That's the point of Wikipedia. I edit Wikipedia because I like to. Would you volunteer at a place you don't like? No. You edit here because you like to. Plus we have the power to possibly change things. Not figuring out potential solutions to things that are perceived as an issue is being passive. It doesn't fix itself. That's why taking the initiative is a good thing. WP:IDGAF doesn't work. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You talk about CLT as though you're rebutting it coming up here. When part of the deletion rationale is about that guideline, it's relevant. Perhaps you are rebutting the nominator, though. The subject is so obviously, painfully notable, that it's bizarre to see an experienced editor admit a cursory search, admit it's probably notable, but go with what is either a straight up WP:JDLI or a punitive assumption of bad faith. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: I think the nomination should have only mentioned NLIST; maybe the nominator was trying to be thorough and accidentally confused the issue. As I explain above, maybe deletion is not allowed to be a form of cleanup but it probably should be. The insufficient article we have is the result of adverse selection. There are incentives to add YouTubers to the list but there's little incentive to demonstrate that the article passes NLIST. Wikipedia:WikiCup can only incentivize improvement if someone could take this to featured list, and I doubt there's material enough to meet that goal. Unless an editor likes talking about YouTubers as a cohort, this mess will never get fixed, which is probably why it keeps getting nominated. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The List ( List of YouTubers ) should be deleted because there are many YouTuber who deserve in the list. If I have to say Mo Vlogs should also deserve the list. I mean there are many youtuber and they have there own speciality about their channel. Some of them has more views on their channel whereas some of them has subscribers. What I think is We should make the listing of youtuber with certain limitation. If I have to say I am youtuber too. But I don't think I should be listed. We make listing but with some limitation for example, List of YouTuber over 10 billion views, somethings like that. Personally, I think the listing List of YouTubers should be deleted. LuckyRacerNP (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LuckyRacerNP: You only want it deleted because you want stricter guidelines for inclusion on the list. You could easily start another discussion on guidelines. Not every YouTuber has at least ten billion views. They may have a million subscribers, but not the views. Yes, a lot of channels don't necessarily get the views. It's not about deserving. It's about notability and having an article. If you find sources this channel or YouTuber or that channel or YouTuber, great. But as it stands, no article than they can't be added to the list. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 07:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LuckyRacerNP: We are adding those Youtubers, who had Wikipedia article page. Wikipedia articles mean the Notable person. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 07:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is about YouTube personalities. After reviewing this article, I think all the youtuber are notable. All the reliable sources are enough significant coverage for Wikipedia article. More then 500 reliable sources available. But don't add singers, musician and label etc. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 07:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address the deletion rationale at all. There's no dispute that at least some of these people are notable, the question is whether a long and perennially incomplete list is the best way of collating them. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Category:YouTubers. When YouTube "celebrities" were rare this list had some purpose but it's now common, the list is unmanageably long and the job is better done by a category, in the orthodox way for large collections of articles. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have a lot of long lists. Some of them are broken up into different pages alphabetically, some by subtopic... If a list on a valid topic grows too long, it doesn't suddenly become deleteworthy. That means it's time to either make the inclusion criteria stricter or spin off part of it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's analyze the reasons for deletion the nominator mentioned:
- "Fails WP:LISTN" - as Chris points out (despite !voting delete), the concept of "YouTuber" as a group is quite notable. Sure, the list might need some more references regarding this but as Chris also mentions, those references exist aplenty ("YouTuber" has been the subject of many books, scientific papers and newspaper articles).
- WP:CLT - This guideline explicitly says "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others.". So just saying "Fails [...] WP:CLT" is not a convincing reason for deletion.
- WP:LISTPURP - I'm drawing a blank here. This list meets all the purposes listed in the style guideline cited and style guidelines are, as Chris points out, not a reason for deletion anyway.
- "Duplicate of Category:YouTubers" - See above, per WP:NOTDUP arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided.

As for the other !votes, the list has criteria of inclusion and addition of entries not in line with those criteria can and should be handled by removing those entries, not the whole list. Regards So Why 08:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral – I am not fond of long lists of notable things that fall in the same category. I'm mostly staying neutral here because of an other-stuff-exists-like argument: This well-sourced list of notable Youtubers is much shorter and higher quality than many, many other lists we have on Wikipedia. I would love to see a bit more prose about "youtuber" as a profession/practice, but even without it I see encyclopedic value in this list. The navigational value listed in WP:LISTPURP is at least there, as I can search for terms like "vlog" or "journalist. ~Mable (chat) 08:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I usually find lists quite useful and adding informative value to entries which could not have their own article on Wikipedia. --Nattes à chat (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list that only has notable entrys and is a useful index page. It has brief descriptions of what genre of youtuber each entry is which thereby provides useful information that is not in the category. Also, is referenced, not seeing any valid reason to delete it. Atlantic306 (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move – to something like "List of notable YouTubers" or "List of YouTube celebrities" — something like that. Considering this is the article's third delete nomination, it's obviously begging for notability selection criteria of some kind(s). --GeeTeeBee (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "List of YouTube celebrities" was the name it had before it was moved (thus it's the article's 7th nomination). The list has inclusion criteria already. I see no rule though that requires for those criteria (i.e. notability) to be included in the article's title. Regards So Why 11:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, but... Fishhead2100 should probably be warned about WP:CANVAS if they haven't already. Even if these 129 identical messages were sent indiscriminately to all commenters on both sides of the previous AFDs (many of which are very old and date to a time when canvassing was for some reason considered acceptable as long as it was in favour of keeping articles that were at AFD, so they aren't a reliable precedent anyway), the wording of the message was blatantly non-neutral. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list has a criteria of inclusion that ensures all the YouTubers featured on it are notable. So, I don't see any reason to delete it.--Manbemel (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not for any and all YouTubers, only notable ones. (notified of discussion on my TP) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I updated my deletion rationale. wumbolo ^^^ 12:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment responding to profession notability. Aren't fishermen notable as a whole? Why do we have the article Fisherman but not List of fishers or List of fishermen? wumbolo ^^^ 12:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is a blue link for a reason. Regards SoWhy 13:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @SoWhy: actually, I was responding precisely to OSE arguments, explaining why they are wrong. wumbolo ^^^ 15:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Wumbolo: By pointing out other stuff does not exist? How is that better? Also, who made an OSE argument anyway? Regards SoWhy 15:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - @SoWhy:
        Fishhead2100: It was mentioned in a previous deletion debate that being a YouTuber is a profession like a lot of other professions. Why should YouTube be exempt from having a notable YouTuber list?
        Vanstrat: The majority of entries on this list are for notable people who have engaged in this occupation and like any other occupation that this many notable people are employed in, a list is justified.
        wumbolo ^^^ 15:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I stand corrected. Those are of course not valid reasons to keep the article. Fortunately, there are sufficient others. Regards So Why 15:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        List of American fishers is linked to in the article Fisherman. Obviously since some are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, they'd be in a list article somewhere. Dream Focus 15:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        @Dream Focus: actually that list (List of American fishers) is a bit different, per WP:LISTN: There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") ..., although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. wumbolo ^^^ 17:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wumbolo: I said a lot more than that in my vote, but let's ignore that and pick what we only want because that's mark of a good debater. *Head shake* Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 14:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename per GeeTeeBee. I would prefer something like List of people who became celebrities through YouTube. bd2412 T 13:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not redundant with the category, per WP:CLN and fulfills criteria for notability. I think the profession is also probably notable if you started an article for it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources abound that not only discuss what a "YouTuber" is, but who various YouTubers are. WP:LISTN is met. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates contain redundancies by design. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is usable as a list, and no new arguments for deletion are really of any weight. Collect (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rename it if you want, set strict criteria if you want, split it into various subject specific articles if you want, extended confirmed protect it if you want. Right or wrong, there are notable people on YouTube, and people who are notable for their work on YouTube, there is no reason to not list them. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Regarding WP:LISTN, zero reliable sources have been provided so far. Regarding WP:LISTPURP, it can be used as an argument against deletion (according to LISTN), and that is why I mention it in my rationale. wumbolo ^^^ 15:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked for some per WP:BEFORE and if so, how? Regards So Why 15:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- [Insert expression of cockeyed WP:BEFORE-related incredulity here] — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has 597 references already. Dream Focus 16:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be fair, those are about the individual entries, not about the concept of a YouTuber in general. However, as Chris indicated, just googling the term "YouTuber" yields thousands of sources that discuss the group in general (see OZOO's link below for an example), so I'm genuinely interested in what Wumbolo did in their WP:BEFORE not to find them (we did have users claiming in the past that certain country-specific filters hid sources from them, so I won't rule out that they really did not find any). Regards SoWhy 16:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @SoWhy: I only found articles about "top 10 YouTubers" or about a select few YouTubers. Probably should've dug deeper to find sources like the one below. wumbolo ^^^ 17:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Above 46,500 monthly views. That means people/readers/editors are looking at it. How can it be of no use here? Rename it, modify it, do whatever can be done but don't delete it, I would suggest. Dial911 (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Advantages of a list over a category - annotations (i.e. listing of channels, mini summary) . Thus provides more Information than a category. And here is a reliable source discussing YouTubers as a whole. OZOO (t) (c) 16:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @OZOO: thank you! wumbolo ^^^ 17:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's some more sources, courtesy of Google Scholar (citations created using Citoid):
    - Jerslev, Anne (2016-10-14). "Media Times - In The Time of the Microcelebrity: Celebrification and the YouTuber Zoella". International Journal of Communication. 10 (0): 19. ISSN 1932-8036.
    - Holmbom, Mattias. "The YouTuber: A Qualitative Study of Popular Content Creators". DIVA. Retrieved 2018-04-30.
    - Riley, Megan Nicole (2014-05-01). The YouTube Celebrity: Common Factors of Successful YouTuber Channels. Academic Year 2013-2014 – via repository.asu.edu.
    - HIDALGO-MARÍ, Tatiana; SEGARRA-SAAVEDRA, Jesús (2017-12-01). "El fenómeno youtuber y su expansión transmedia. Análisis del empoderamiento juvenil en redes sociales". Fonseca, Journal of Communication. 15 (15): 43. doi:10.14201/fjc2017154356. ISSN 2172-9077.
    - Eun Lee, Jung; Watkins, Brandi (2016-12-01). "YouTube vloggers' influence on consumer luxury brand perceptions and intentions". Journal of Business Research. 69 (12): 5753–5760. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.171. ISSN 0148-2963.

Regards So Why 18:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this a list without a clear criteria of inclusion. Vague lists such as these should be avoided. There are thousands of "Youtubers" and even the list doesn't really make it clear who should be considered an youtuber. Apparently Psy (who is actually a mainstream Korean singer) is listed as a youtuber. Randy Pausch is also an youtuber apparently. Yet Adam Saleh doesn't seem to qualify. Anita Sarkeesian is a youtuber but Lauren Southern is not. Not to mention the fact that somehow there very little representation of youtubers outside Europe/America. Lists such as these are not useful for an encyclopaedia. More importantly, these lists can become way too long. I don't see any value in this list.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Problems with inclusion criteria can and should be addressed by editing, not deletion. "I don't see any value in this list" basically means "I don't like it" and is thus not a valid reason for deletion. Regards So Why 17:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: Some people would rather complain than address the issue and fix it. DreamLinker, Lauren Southern didn't start on YouTube. She gained notoriety before launching her own channel. She was a candidate in the 2015 Canadian federal election, she worked for The Rebel Media and had her own show there as well as a reporter. She is a YouTuber now, but she didn't get her start on YouTube nor become notable because of it. That's the point of this list. It's people who became notable because of YouTube. That's how the list works. You don't just add people who have channels as they may have gotten their start elsewhere. Justin Bieber is a mainstream pop singer, but you are not complaining he is listed yet you're complaining Psy is listed. I would hazard a guess that you didn't know who Psy was before YouTube. Psy became notable because of YouTube. If you have an issue with Adam Saleh not being on the list, than fix it. Not hard. As SoWhy stated, WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason for deletion. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fishhead2100: I believe you did not understand my comment. Let's look at some of your rebuttals

Some people would rather complain than address the issue and fix it. - I see. Nice ad hominem with no explanation about why this article should be kept.
That's the point of this list. It's people who became notable because of YouTube. - That point isn't obvious anywhere. Youtuber =/= someone who became notable because of Youtube. Randy Pausch clearly didn't become notable because of Youtube. If the aim of this article is to only show people who became notable because of youtube, it should clearly state it. It doesn't.
Justin Bieber is a mainstream pop singer, but you are not complaining he is listed yet you're complaining Psy is listed. - I picked out a bunch of inconsistent examples, not all examples. Yes, Justin Beiber would also be someone who is not exactly an youtuber.
but you are not complaining he is listed yet you're complaining Psy is listed. I would hazard a guess that you didn't know who Psy was before YouTube. PSY became notable because of YouTube. - Wrong. I have been listening to Korean Music since the days when SES was popular. PSY was a mainstream singer and was notable in South Korea long before Gangnam style blew up.}}
If you have an issue with Adam Saleh not being on the list, than fix it. Not hard. - I am already doing that, but I can guarantee you that if I start adding people, the list will go into thousands. This list is about as useful as a "List of Scientists". Too much information and hard to maintain.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DreamLinker: Chris Crocker is no longer a YouTuber, but he is listed. He became notable because of YouTube. If it wasn't for YouTube, Justin Bieber would have not have gotten signed because he wouldn't have been noticed. He at one time was a YouTuber. I can say for certain that you wouldn't have known who Psy was if it wasn't for YouTube. There are lots of YouTubers, but they are not notable. You wouldn't add them. Therefore, it is obvious that notability is necessary. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fishhead2100 Again, I don't think you even cared to read my comment. Particularly when you say "I can say for certain that you wouldn't have known who Psy was if it wasn't for YouTube.". I already told you that I knew who PSY was years before Gangnam Style blew up. What I am saying is that this list is about as useful as a "List of Scientists" or "List of Journalists". These lists can become infinitely long and ultimately doesn't serve the purpose of an encyclopaedia. Please at least read my comment properly.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, undisputedly passes WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC
Snow Keep. The source provided by OZOO and the sources provided by SoWhy demonstrate notability of "YouTuber", and therefore, "List of YouTubers". wumbolo ^^^ 19:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes the list is long, but everyone here is notable, and the list is very notable, as all these people have broken records or have beccome significant in culture. Still, you wouldn't delete List of U.S. Presidents or List of Suicides just because it's "long," would you?-K-popguardian (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Being a YouTube personality has become a noteworthy form of entertainment at this point, and the subject certainly warrants having a dedicated list. Granted, the article has a boatload of issues- for instance, organization is all jacked up- personalities should be sorted by their Net personas/channel names as opposed to their actual names, as there are some channels which are run by more than one person and that makes it confusing as to which person's name their alphabetically sorted by. And as people said above, the guidelines as to who is and isn't a "YouTuber" haven't really been defined in any sort of way. Still, these certainly don't disavow the list's existence, and can be fixed easily. Just because it's a long list doesn't mean it should be deleted- it means that there are a lot of YouTubers on Wikipedia. This seems like a very unwarranted nomination in my opinion. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 19:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable, however the list needs to have a requirement of a blue link already so it doesn't link to anyone that has ever make a YouYube video. Also, people that have videos on YouTube like Psy but doesn't produce unique YouTube videos does not belong. He was already famous in South Korea before his billion+ viewed video. --Frmorrison (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Frmorrison: When you edit the page, you'll see the page notice that says only add people with an article. Those that don't are removed. Saying blue links only is redundant. Saying Psy doesn't produce videos is irrelevant. Justin Bieber doesn't produce videos anymore. Nothing has been uploaded to his channel in two years. It's not about producing content regularly. If that was the case than this list would be way bigger and longer than it is. This list is people who became notable because of YouTube. That's what it comes down too. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep per reasons above (WP:NOTDUP, WP:NLIST). Also, everyone on this list has an article page, and are notable enough to have one (or else their page would be deleted). Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even per delete voters such as Chris Troutman, the list meets our notability guidelines, and I see no valid rationale given to delete it. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per above - No evidence of notability - Meets NLIST as well as GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable entries, but possibly not as a group, but may be case of IAR as can search by pseudonym. What's changed from previous AfDs? Widefox; talk 09:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is evidence of notability and passes the guidelines mentioned by the nominator. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, problems suggested seem primarily theoretical. This is the kind of list that could easily become terrible with poor inclusion criteria, but by restricting it to people with actual Wikipedia articles the notability question is conveniently passed off to the various individual pages. I fundamentally disagree with all aspects of the nomination: the concept of a YouTuber is clearly notable as a whole based on links provided, and the ability to provide brief summaries as to the nature of individual YouTubers makes this superior to a category in that it allows levels of in-page browser searching for keywords. Providing it is adequately maintained, this clearly provides a useful navigation tool even if it is a little unwieldy. ~ mazca ^talk 20:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was my vote over eight years ago on the 4th AFD. Here were are on the 7th AFD. I am generally not a fan of YouTube performers but I found SoWhy's points in 2009 to be compelling and SoWhy's points raised here have me thinking some people really hate YouTube performers. The nominator was two fortnights late in this April Fools' Day joke. If the timing is right perhaps I will nominate it in 2019 for its 10th AFD. Seriously, it looks like people are testing to see how many AFD nominations this article can withstand. I asked google to tell me about "youtubers" and it gave me almost 40 million results. I am pretty sure a referenced introduction could be crafted if one really is arguing that the group as a whole lacks notability. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 11:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The last point is important here, since YouTuber redirects to the list, it should definitely contain some general overview of the group as a whole. I will attempt to draft some text but it's probably for people more skilled than me to create a good intro. Regards So Why 12:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no reason to delete it due to the reasons said above. DatGuyonYouTube (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep I'm not active a AfD, so I don't know which way the wind blows these days, but I never have agreed with the rationale of "duplicates a Cat". Cats and lists serve different functions and lists can contain more comprehensive than cats. Any list has the potential to attract NN and spam. They just require upfront inclusion criteria and judicious weeding.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
admin note to closer The issue of canvassing has been raised at AN/I-- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Opinion_about_AfD_notification. Will try to update the perma link if needed.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the fact that I scrolled down the list and immediately saw some garbled info that has been sitting here for over two years suggests that maintenance of this list is going to be problematic. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Jemiola[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet NBASE or GNG. Following release from the Rockies no obvious place to redirect or storehouse the information Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 01:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBASEBALL. SportingFlyer talk 02:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBASEBALL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Re-signed with Rockies organization and added to Colorado Rockies minor league players.--Pozzi.c 11:21, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yannick Helbling[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on an unsourced claim that the Swiss second division is fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: The article says he's in the Swiss Challenge League and our article on that says that it's a professional league. So what is the problem here? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While there is undoubtedly some degree of professionalism in the Swiss Challenge League, WP:NFOOTY requires footballer to have played in a fully professional league. The WikiProject Football maintains a list of leagues confirmed to be fully pro at WP:FPL. You'll note the Swiss Challenge League isn't on it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: Waitaminute... we're using a user-generated wikiproject page as a definitive source to determine inclusion criteria? What is the distinction between "professional" and "fully professional"? Honestly, it sounds to me like "almost pregnant", which is nonsensical. You either are, or you aren't. Apologies for asking here... this might be a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). ~Anachronist (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: No, we're using reliable sources to determine the inclusion criteria and gathering them in one place for ease of access. Having used this list ten years now, the absence of a league from the list isn't due to lack of interest, but rather because it either ins't fully pro or there aren't good sources on the matter. As for what a fully professional league is, professionalism of leagues is not a binary state, but a sliding scale. The adverb fully is used to distinguish from semi-professional leagues, where some but not all players are unpaid amateurs or part timers who have to hold down other jobs outside of football to earn a living. Leagues like this are regularly described as professional, as is the case with our article on the Swiss Challenge League, but are not covered by WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the explanation. I often run across football-related disagreements about inclusion and I usually move on to something else because (a) I don't follow the sport, and (b) I never fully understood the basis for inclusion. You have helped clear things up. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I myself was surprised to see the Swiss Challenge League was not considered fully professional. As per this source, Swiss football does not distinguish between professional and semi-professional clubs, and Challenge League players frequently have to take on additional work, showing it's not fully professional: [1] Therefore, he fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 03:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources too weak to pass GNG and doesn't meet NFOOTY. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:34, 30 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) 16:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 19:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Adrienne, Duchess of Blekinge[edit]

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

BLP1E - subject of article is only known for, and been covered in regard to, one event: being born last month. Being tenth in line to the throne of Sweden does not pass WP:POLOUTCOMES as inherently notable. In fact, it would take a disaster of unimaginable proportions - one that has not occurred in the 200+ year history of the House of Bernadotte - for a 10er (or even a 5er or 4er) to actually ascend to the throne. (Ultimately, every living human is in the line of succession to the Swedish throne - how far down the list do we go?) No prejudice for future recreation of the article when Adrienne qualifies under the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable per WP:GNG, multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. Like it or not, but a new prince or princess in the Swedish royal family will be the subject of several articles and news reports. I don't think that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE properly as I have no problems finding sufficient news coverage to meet WP:GNG. 19:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjö (talk • contribs) 19:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From BEFORE, it appears 100% of the references in RS are in relation to the subject's birth 29 days ago. Is this not the case of a person notable for WP:ONEEVENT? I can find no sources which report on the subject's activities, appearances, events, or achievements before or after 9 March 2018. Chetsford (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're misinterpreting WP:ONEEVENT. It says "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." So it talks about whether the article should be about the person or the event, or both. In this case, the person outweighs the event (the birth). WP:ONEEVENT doesn't say that a person is not notable just because he/she has only been involved in one event. --Marbe166 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as she is not a politician, I would argue that your references to WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:NPOL are moot. --Marbe166 (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable per WP:GNG, multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. If we're only going to look at number in line to the Swedish throne, well, there are many further than tenth (the King's sisters, for example) who have pages (and which should not be deleted either). As one of the king and queen's grandchildren, Adrienne being less likely to ascend than Oscar or Estelle doesn't make her any less well known. As the daughter of Princess Madeleine, who has always been the center of much media attention, Adrienne has been notable since before her birth to a large population, like it or not. Perhaps her children will be the ones who don't count as inherently notable, as they will no longer be direct descendants of the crown, but Adrienne is still plenty notable. 19:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangyanzixuan (talk • contribs)

Yes, however, those other people qualify under the GNG as they have been covered in RS for more than WP:ONEEVENT. Adrienne has only received coverage for an event in which she was involved in on March 9. "Perhaps her children will be the ones who don't count as inherently notable, as they will no longer be direct descendants of the crown" - Here you make the argument that direct descent from the Crown of Sweden counts as inherent notability that trumps our policies on GNG/ONEEVENT. I've checked WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES and can't find where direct descent from the Crown of Sweden has been set as a case of inherent notability - for my edification, can you point out where we've established that? Chetsford (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per previous comments. Also, "every living human is in the line of succession to the Swedish throne" is completely false. The line ends with Adrienne, see Succession to the Swedish throne. --Marbe166 (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Also, "every living human is in the line of succession to the Swedish throne" is completely false. The line ends with Adrienne, see Succession to the Swedish throne." In general, and in this case specifically, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If all direct descendants of Carl Gustaf died in a huge accident, Parliament has the authority to expand the line of succession to descendants of Karl XIV. Sweden doesn't just come to an end. Chetsford (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The law (Sucessionsordningen) states that only descendants of Carl XVI Gustaf may inherit the throne. It says nothing about what happens should there be no such descendants. That means that should all 10 of them die, it would give the opportunity for the parliament to give the throne to someone else - anyone - not restricted to descendants of Karl XIV Johan, or to abolish the monarchy. --Marbe166 (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Parliament would have the authority to expand the line of succession to descendants of Karl XIV. Chetsford (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or to anyone else. It is not limited to descendants of Karl XIV Johan. However, any such change is a constitutional change, which would require two parliamentary decisions, with an election inbetween. --Marbe166 (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Every human being is in line to the throne only in the same way that every human being is eligible to be president of the US, i.e. only after a (rather unlikely) constitutional change. Sjö (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sounds like we're all agreed! Chetsford (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both per Marbe166 and the fact that WP:ONEEVENT and WP:LASTING are slowly breaking down, as more coverage has come since the birth (hardly the most "weighty" but no different in type than, say, Prince George was, and of equivalent notability). This will continue to happen, to at least a low degree. It doesn't need masses and masses of coverage to get in, so I think the article is fine. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question for clarification - do you mean the WP policies are breaking down or there has been coverage about her activities beyond her birth? If the latter, could you provide some examples so I could consider withdrawing the AfD, if appropriate? Chetsford (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Marbe166 and Nosebagbear. /Julle (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and withdraw as nom. Per Nosebagbear, there has been coverage of Adrienne that has broken [2] [3] today (specifically, reporting about activity on her Instagram account). While ONEEVENT may have applied yesterday or a few days ago, we're now in WP:BLP2E territory and the rationale for the nom is no longer relevant. Chetsford (talk) 18:04, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Allofs[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a photographer, whose notability claim is the winning of unspecified awards and the submission of his work to many unspecified publications. Neither of these is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to clear WP:GNG, but the only references here are primary sources, not reliable or notability-supporting ones. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If his claim to fame is photographing "A lot of" endangered species and the article doesn't provide how many is "a lot" and what specific animals he photographed, then why is it an article in the first place?💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 14:19, 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. Enigma^msg 03:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lorna Boschman[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an artist, whose claims of notability per WP:CREATIVE are referenced almost entirely to primary sources rather than reliable or notability-assisting ones. The only reference here that isn't a complete non-starter in terms of properly referencing a person as notable is her biographical blurb in the MediaQueer directory -- but that's not enough to pass WP:GNG all by itself as an article's only valid source. A person's eligibility for a Wikipedia article is not determined by what they did, but by how much media coverage they did or didn't receive for doing what they did. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep two works in the permanent collection of the National Gallery of Canada [4]. Her work also screened at MoMA. --Theredproject (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the permanent collections, there are extensive book mentions in good publications. She is well-known in the Canadian art world. Very extensive sources exist, even though they may not yet be in the article.104.163.159.237 (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources added. I think it is also fair to argue that has has made a substantial contribution to queer media art and is recognized as having done so by her peers.104.163.159.237 (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite a bit of sourcing improvement lately. I do think it was sufficiently well referenced even before, and notability wasn't really in question. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tamel de Pablos[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG WP:PROF WP:NAUTHOR Dom from Paris (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The cited sources lack independence or are passing mentions. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Factiva, HighBeam, JSTOR, LexisNexis, Project MUSE, ProQuest, and Questia found a smattering of citations and quotes, but neither significant coverage in independent reliable sources, nor anything to pass subject-specific notability guidelines. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Boulton[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a screenwriter, film producer and sessional university lecturer. The apparent notability claim here is that a film she wrote won an award, but the article fails to specify or reliably source what award is involved. There's only one reference here, and it's to an article in her hometown newspaper -- so that is not enough coverage in and of itself to get her over WP:GNG, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to get over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Writer of an "award winning" short film, that doesn't have an article of its own. Not enough to show notability. Park3r (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Savage Tales of Frank MacGuffin[edit]

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

Poorly written and poorly sourced article about a film, whose only claim of notability is that it received one screening at the local film festival in the filmmaker's own hometown. There's no evidence that it's screened anywhere else or gotten any significant volume of media coverage for the purposes of clearing WP:GNG -- the only references here are purely local coverage in the city's own local media. At a top-tier festival like Cannes or Berlin or Sundance or Toronto, a premiere is a presumption of notability in and of itself, because major newspapers and widely-read film industry publications like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter actually send film critics to review the films -- but Cinéfest is not in that rarefied class of festivals, so a locally produced film screening there is not an automatic Wikipedia inclusion freebie in the absence of any wider distribution or coverage. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing much in the way of media coverage/reviews. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not enough coverage to meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 03:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scorn (video game)[edit]

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

The coverage is not enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:NVIDEOGAMES. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll try to come back to this soon but a quick note, of sources in the article, only PCGamer is a reliable secondary source. -- ferret (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of mentions in reliable outlets that aren't merely regurgitating press releases. For example, this and the ones here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In-depth coverage at EuroGamer, PC Gamer, RPS, Gamespot, IGN and Hardcoregamer. Also GamesRadar+ and a Kotaku mention, and Videogamer. wumbolo ^^^ 21:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As shown above, RS coverage is downright abundant for this game. Phediuk (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG Chetsford (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. (non-admin closure) ‐‐1997kB (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drvivekbindal[edit]

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

Notability issue. None of the sources are in-depth and reliable. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually do it speedy delete as it is copyvio of this. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:22, 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. Ignoring the socks, which didn't have convincing arguments anyway. Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Fry (actor)[edit]

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

WP:BLP, referenced only to IMDb and his own self-published website about himself with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him shown at all, of an actor whose only apparent claim of notability is that he exists. Actors do not, however, get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because roles are listed in the article -- if you're shooting for "notable because he's had roles", rather than "notable because he was nominated for an Oscar, Emmy or Canadian Screen Award for one or more of his performances", then the notability clinch is not in the list of roles but in the depth of reliable source referencing that can be shown to get him over WP:GNG for the having of roles. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article of discussion can easily be kept with additional sources. When I created the article, I searched for everything and anything I could find about Pat Fry. Yes, he is not an actor with Oscars for every role he has appeared in. But, he has been confused for many years now with a Formula 1 engineer with the same name. As I did mention, he does play a significant role on Caillou, and if it wasn’t for this, then I wouldn’t have waisted my time creating this page. I think that others can contribute to this page and address the issues being discussed, rather than it being waisted just a few days after it was created. KSportMGNT (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having a role, no matter how "significant" you assert it to be, does not automatically exempt an actor from having to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG, and people do not get exempted from having to clear GNG just because they've been confused in the past with other people of the same name either. It is not our responsibility to keep it just because other people might help fix it in the future, because they also might not — if you want the article to be kept, then you're the one whose responsibility it is to demonstrate that enough real notability-supporting media coverage about him exists to make it keepable in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With that said though, if this page does end up being deleted, would you try to help me clear up the confusion about Pat Fry the actor versus Pat Fry the racing engineer? KSportMGNT (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the person who created this page said, this actor had a major role on Caillou. My interpretation of the WP:NACTOR rules make me believe that this article should be kept, because the creator has proven that this actor has appeared in multiple films and TV shows of note. Also, the actor has clips of his work on his website, so trying to make believe that the actor's work is nonexistent is a sham. While I agree that more sources need to be found about this person, I believe that there is enough here to keep this article on Wikipedia. Overthemoonandback (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC) — Overthemoonandback (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of KSportMGNT (talk • contribs). [reply]

— Overthemoonandback (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Nobody said that the actor's work is "nonexistent" — that's a strawman you invented in your own head, not a thing anybody in this discussion said or implied at all. But appearing in multiple films and TV shows is not the inclusion test for an actor in and of itself — the inclusion test is not "has been in stuff", but "has received enough reliable source coverage about him in media, independent of his own self-published web presence, to clear WP:GNG for being in stuff". An actor can be in millions of stuffs, and still not get an article if media haven't written about his performances in stuff. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat Well that's what you made it sound like when you said that this actor's, "only apparent claim of notability is that he exists." You're the one who made it sound like there was no evidence of his work whatsoever, so don't tell me that that is a strawman that I created because you were the one who made that statement when you nominated this article for deletion. Overthemoonandback (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overthemoonandback: since "has had roles" is not an automatic inclusion freebie for an actor in and of itself, "he exists" is an entirely accurate summary of what the notability claim here actually is. An actor's notability claim does not jump from "notable because he and his work exist" to "has a strong claim of notability for specific reasons" until one of two things happens: (a) he gets nominated for or wins a major (Oscar/Emmy/CSA) award for his acting, or (b) the media start writing content about his acting. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I saw that the issue here is about sources, and as of this morning, I saw more sources than it sounds like at the top of the page. The creator of this page has proven that they can find multiple sources for this article to survive on Wikipedia. Plus, I did go into the page history to see the issues that were address about citations, and the person who created this page was able to find proof of this actor's roles on sources other than IMDb. So there is proof that there is more out there about this actor that is not on his website or on IMDb. TVmovieHunter (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC) — Overthemoonandback (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of KSportMGNT (talk • contribs). [reply]

— TVmovieHunter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The only new sources that have been added at all are Rotten Tomatoes and TV.com, which are still IMDb-type directories that still do not constitute evidence of notability. Notability for an actor is newspapers and magazines and books writing editorial content about him, not WP:ROUTINE verification of his roles in directory lists. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat To this person's defense, though, take a look at this actress who also appears on Caillou and tell me if this belongs on Wikipedia since she hasn't had any media coverage on her since the early 1990's. Plus, rotten tomatoes is used on many other movie, TV show, and actor/actress pages on Wikipedia, so I'm having a hard time understanding how it is not a reliable source. KSportMGNT (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a time limit on how recent a person's media coverage has to be — the rule is that media coverage has to exist, not that the datestamp on any of it has to be within the past few years. (Frex, George Washington isn't exactly getting into the papers a whole lot these days, what with having been dead for 200 years and all, but he's still notable.) And you're misunderstanding what's being said about IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes: as long as stronger notability-assisting sources are present to cover off the basic question of notability, you can use IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes as supplementary sources to ensure that the list of roles in his article is complete —even the most famous actors in the world have had some roles (e.g. supporting or minor parts before they got famous) that are hard to source elsewhere, so it's perfectly valid to use IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes to help fill in the gaps. The thing you can't do is say that having IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes profiles makes the actor notable in and of itself, if those are the only sources on offer and there's no GNG-eligible media coverage being shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The (voice-acting) role on Caillou may be substantial, but one role won't meet WP:ENT, there's no sourcing that suggests GNG is met in the article, and I can't find anything else. I advise the closer to look for WP:DUCK votes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Overthemoonandback.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck !votes from blocked socks per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Mz7 (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Muktibahini ParaCommando landing at Tangail[edit]

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

Unverified WP:CFORK of Tangail Airdrop. The article has no standing of it's own, no references and seems to be based on the article mentioned above. I was able to find one self published reference([5]). At best in can be merged into Tangail Airdrop if a WP:RS was found to back this up. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CFORK, no evidence of notability to support a stand alone article. Ajf773 (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Thegooduser Let's Chat 01:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A10 - poor POVish duplicate/fork (omitting Indian forces - turning this to a Bangladesh platoon against a Pakistani Brigade) of Tangail Airdrop. If verifiable - the "crack platoon" could be mentioned there.Icewhiz (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not something that passes for a stand-alone article. So, I'll also go with delete. M A A Z T A L K 05:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CFORK.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please, I had bad things going because of Content Fork dispute claims. Apollo C. Quiboloy fans (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Armin Ulrich[edit]

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

No WP:RS to establish notability. Only a "Unit Manager and First Assistant Director." Golden Camera was unverifiable. Theredproject (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOSOON perhaps. The links to his films from the Wikipedia page all seem to be dead links. IMDB doesn't sufficiently support notability. I'd be happy to change my vote if evidence of notability (e.g. from the German language press) is posted. If so, please ping me. Ross-c (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:10, 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) 14:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giulio Romano Vercelli[edit]

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

Very very very close paraphrase of [6] which is the only source extant, and is not independent or RS. I Speedy'd all three for COPYVIO, but only Gemma Vercelli was accepted as such. So putting both Giulio Romano Vercelli and Renato Vercelli up for AfD. The museum collections are unverifiable, and seem likely to be inflated, as I can't find anything legit about them online or in databases. BTW not this painter by a similar name [7] Theredproject (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am usually quite reluctant to agree with deletion of artists from pre-internet era, but for Giulio Vercelli I didn't find even any passing references in google books or any other mentions at all. What convinced me at the end is the price of his works at Invaluable. It's quite hardly to believe that works of notable artist can be sold at couple of hundered of pounds. I will be happily convinced otherwise if someone finds sources. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:51, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Puss (Swedish music duo)[edit]

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

googling a bit does not reveal any obvious notability. The article also has no WP:RS reliable sources required to WP:V verify neither its WP:GNG general notability nor WP:BAND. This music duo may therefore be a subject unsuitable for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC) AadaamS (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment: the group were nominated in the Best Dance/Club Artist category at the 2003 Swedish Grammis, the country's leading annual music award ceremony [8]. But that's about all I can find online, and it depends whether you consider a simple nomination enough for notability – there may be sources in the Swedish music press of the early 2000s. It should be noted that although the group is still active and playing live gigs, their recorded output seems to consist of one self-released album in 2001, and a 2003 downloadable EP of one song and its remixes... nothing else in the last 15 years. Richard3120 (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard3120 It's not about whether I consider them notable, WP guidelines are the yardstick. How are the critieria of WP:BAND satisfied? AadaamS (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AadaamS: apologies, the "you" wasn't directed at you personally, it was meant for any editor reading this AfD in general... perhaps I should have said "it depends if one considers a simple nomination enough", but it just sounds too formal.

Anyway, in answer to your question, they meet criterion 8 of WP:BAND - they have been nominated for a major music award. But personally I would like to find some more verifiable information to establish notability than just this. Richard3120 (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I may be guilty of overreacted there to the you, it's a misinterpretation on my part since English is not my mother tongue. I may even have a preference for one which translates straight from my mother tongue in meaning and usage. AadaamS (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that WP:BAND states that a mere nomination appears to endow notability. Also the WP:GNG must be satisfied ... which means about 3 articles or sections in a book which describes the group. Being mentioned in a list of nominees amounts to WP:TRIVIALMENTION. AadaamS (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mainly because of the Grammis Award nomination. I've brifely gone through a Swedish media archive and added a couple of references to cover the most basic facts. /Julle (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In order to satisfy WP:GNG, source coverage must go beyond WP:TRIVIALMENTION. A WP:RS source is an article or section in a book which describes the group itself, not briefly mentions the name as part of a list of nominees. AadaamS (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the nomination for the Grammis award. This automatically makes the band notable as per WP:MUSICBIO. 'Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.'. Ross-c (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG. The two "keep" votes argue a keep per WP:MUSICBIO #7 because the duo was nominated for an award, but MUSICBIO is a SSG that states that an ensemble "may be notable", and SSGs do not overrule GNG. The duo's single album is up for discusssion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Are Puss. Sam Sailor 18:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MUSICBIO states that they have won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award, but the the Grammis award for which they were nominated—club/dance—is not a major category. The nomination and their music has not garnered enough interest to make they notable yet. Hopefully a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:59, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Penguins of Doom[edit]

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

Can't find any evidence of notability. Found only Goodreads, e-commerce listings, and tons of unrelated results like The Penguins of Madagascar episodes. Does not even attempt to prove notability, consisting only of plot summary and literary analysis. All sources, none of which are inline, are primary. I haven't checked the publisher or the author, but Blooming Tree Press does not have an article and Greg R. Fishbone is also tagged for notability, listing exactly one other book on his article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Perfect example of WP:SYNTH. Contains blogs and official website as references which are not considered as reliable sources per WP:GNG. Crafting a well-written and structured article on WP won't make the subject notable. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 13:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mere PROMO created back when book was published. Searches produce nothing, fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it looks to me like his other book and his bio page would also fail WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, hasnt made much of an impression with only a few library holdings, and a gsearch has brought up nothing useable. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Notability seems borderline at best. Both "keep" and "delete" !votes have good, policy-based arguments. However, I cannot discern any consensus here either way. No prejudice against re-nominating if she doesn't get elected. Randykitty (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Pike[edit]

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

This article fails on grounds of notability. It fails WP:PERSON: the notability requirements for a politician state that simply running for office is not enough to warrant an article. It also fails WP:ACADEMIC: Dr Pike is not editor of a prestigious academic journal, has not held the highest elected position at a university, has not received a prestigious academic award and has not made a significant impact in the area of higher education. Delete on grounds of a lack of notability. FirefoxLSD (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The full text for WP:PERSON reads: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Both Keighley News and the Telegraph and Argus covered Pike's selection by the Labour Party and Philip Davies MP (who she will run against) is a controversial figure who has attracted a great deal of coverage for his views. At the 2017 UK general election, Davies won with 51.3% of the vote (27,417 votes) while Labour were second with 42.6% of the vote (22,736 votes). So who Labour chooses to run against a contentious figure for next time (and there could be an early general election) is notable. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, so a candidate for political office does not get an inclusion freebie just because the incumbent she's running against happens to be a "controversial" figure. And every person who gets selected as a candidate for any party in any election is always going to be able to show a few pieces of evidence of local coverage of that fact itself, so that coverage cannot be used to get a candidate over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL either — because if that were all it took, then every candidate everywhere would always get to claim that detour around having to pass NPOL. To make a candidate notable enough for an article on the grounds of being a candidate per se, what needs to be shown is not "some local campaign coverage exists", but "she got so much more campaign coverage than everybody else in the election also got that she can credibly claim to be a special case". And the only other path that exists at all is "was already notable for other reasons besides her candidacy". Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She's not inheriting anything. Labour is the UK's opposition party and the nearest rival to Davies at Shipley. Pike is Labour's candidate not a minority party's candidate or an independent. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant whether the party is a major or a minor one. Regardless of what party a person is a candidate for, being a candidate is not a notability claim in and of itself — a person has to win the election and hold the office to be notable as a politician, not just be a candidate, and is not handed a notability freebie just because the incumbent MP she happens to be running against is "controversial". Either she defeats him on election day and becomes the new MP, or she's not notable as a politician at all and qualifies for an article only if you can demonstrate that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The depth of sourcing here is not enough to make her candidacy a special case over and above everybody else's candidacy — every candidate in every election always gets some campaign coverage, because that's what local media is for, so the existence of a handful of local campaign coverage is not in and of itself enough to exempt her from having to actually pass WP:NPOL. But there's no strong evidence here of preexisting notability for other reasons that would get her over any other inclusion criterion. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the deletion of the Jo Pike this article. Fred (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frederika Eilers I don't know how many AfD's you have commented on before but comments are usually preceeded by Delete or Keep or Comment. Delete or Keep is then followed by your reasoning. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pro-tip! My reasons are the same as previously discussed, WP:N, namely.Fred (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject's book "The Moral Geographies of Children,...." received an article-length review in the journal Food, Culture and Society. If there is second long-form review, I'd argue that met WP:AUTHOR crit. 3, I don't see that, however. --joe decker ^talk 06:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added Cairn's review. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet those criteria - a review must be "in addition to" the book being notable, something that it isn't.FirefoxLSD (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for discussion of the source found by Joe Decker
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow up to Joe Decker's discovery of the book, I'm fairly certain that the book does not meet the requirements of criteria 3. Criteria 3 specifies that it must be "significant or well known" in order to meet this requirement. This book isn't well known or significant. I realise that as an academic text, exposure to a reading public will naturally be much smaller, but a quick search of Google Scholar, Google books and JStor fails to reveal many if any citings of the book - it clearly isn't that significant even in the academic world. The fact that the book has a full length review does not cancel out my point: the guidelines specify that this must be "in addition" to the book being significant of its own accord. Just having academic reviews does not make a book significant, as nearly every book has a review in some journal.FirefoxLSD (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think you have it wrong. If the book has two academic reviews that book is notable under our guidelines, which is a higher bar than "significant". So AUTHOR 3 would apply. Generally, in my long experience closing AfDs, two signficant academic reviews would be considered sufficient. Still, if nothing else, the notability of the book (and its eligibility for an article) has been demonstrated, assuming those two reviews are independent, long form, and reputable. --joe decker ^talk 22:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, where are you seeing that. I do a lot of these, and 3 reviews of a single book is the consensus bare minimum.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that I haven't looked at the second review, and y'all can hash out the specifics as to that. --joe decker ^talk 22:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second book review added by Zofia Boni in the journal Children's Geographies. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Author. The academic reviews appear to show the subject meets criteria 3 ("work must have been the primary subject" ... "of multiple independent periodical articles"). The article should be rewritten to stress why the subject is notable. --Enos733 (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination mostly. This is very likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Criteria 3 of WP:AUTHOR requires that the work in question "significant or well-known work or collective body of work", and that book isn't that by a long shot. Can be recreated one elected, or once WP:PROF is met. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage. https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/opinion/jo-pike-where-s-the-political-appetite-to-tackle-food-poverty-1-9017366 http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/local/airelocal/15712847.Labour_choose_lecturer_to_try_and_unseat_Shipley_MP_Philip_Davies/ https://labourlist.org/2017/12/labour-picks-child-poverty-expert-to-unseat-tory-brexiteer-philip-davies/ http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/NEWS/15776241.Books_donated_to_primary_school_by_Parliamentary_candidate/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/24/momentum-labour-selection-defeats-seats-control-party http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/16081738.Plans_to_take_free_school_meals_from_children_not_true__says_Shipley_MP/ http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/local/keighleynews/16118925.Anti_incinerator_campaigners_confirm_plans_for_new_appeal_against_proposals/ http://www.keighleynews.co.uk/news/16116543.Keighley_s_anti_waste_to_energy_plant_campaigners_confirm_plans_for_new_appeal_against_the_proposals/ Her 'Foucault, space and primary school dining rooms' also has quite a few citations. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:GNG due to coverage as listed above. Ross-c (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Headbomb said. Fails WP:AUTHOR since the book isn't particularly significant or well known. WP:PROF hasn't been met - yet - either. Notability isn't inherited, and as has been gone over beforehand, simply running to become an MP - no matter how notable the incumbent may or may not be - doesn't in and of itself deserve an article. Local coverage of her nomination isn't enough either - local papers will always cover such things, but that doesn't mean proper notability. Should she win whenever the next election is called, then obviously an article should be created. However, as things stand she fails both the notability criteria of both politicians and academics.TeddyBiffles (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In looking through WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, the discussion of literature is "published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. The question, in my mind, then, is if the reviews found by Joe Decker and the Village Feminist are significant academic reviews. If so, then the subject meets WP:Author. --Enos733 (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The journal articles are published in Food, Culture & Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (here) and Children's Geographies (here), both by Routledge. I've changed the infobox from scholar to writer with The Moral Geographies of Children, Young People and Food: Beyond Jamie's School Dinners as her most notable work. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is discussing literature. Academic books/articles, which are what Jo Pike has written, are not covered under the literature guidelines, as they aren't literature. Wikipedia's guidelines for the notability of academics stress that simply having reviews is not enough, since almost every academic article will have them. The guidelines suggest the academic must be the author of "highly cited academic work", something none of Pike's articles are. None of the other guidelines for "significant impact" are relevant to her.TeddyBiffles (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACADEMIC states: Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. The reviews named are not for an article, they are for her book. Pike is providing evidence to the All-Nation Children's Future Food Inquiry Parliamentary Inquiry and has been named as Labour's candidate for Shipley. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ACADEMIC, fails WP:NPOL, fails WP:GNG, fails WP:AUTHOR (one book, that got only 2 book reviews, no evidence that book had impact.) - perhaps it is merely WP:TOOSOON for this academic who is now a politician running for office.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Phono-semantic matching. Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expressive loan[edit]

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

Per WP:DEL6 and 7: Term either does not exist, is a mistranslation from some valid linguistics expression in another language, or is a hoax. Note the lack of results from {{Find sources}}. Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a handful of sources in Finnish, but since I don't read Finnish they might not be on point. If the concept has been written about in Finnish, it is odd that there doesn't seem to be a related article at Finnish Wikipedia. Google scholar only shows me one result (Volkova 2007, "Internationalism as an integral part of contemporary language") apparently written in English, but it's only cited by papers written in Russian. That paper doesn't seem to be available anywhere I can find it. I'm leaning toward delete, unless someone knows of sourcing in another language. Cnilep (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a related article. Phono-semantic matching seems close, but not quite the same phenomenon; maybe Folk etymology is better, or simply Loanword. Aikio does write about this phenomenon in his PhD thesis (2009) (p. 33ff.), without using the term "expressive loan". This is a real phenomenon researched by scholars, so Wikipedia should cover it in some form. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, it looks like Phono-semantic matching is related to the point that having two different articles is excessive. Also, I've seen terms like "expressive or onomatopoetic origin" (e.g. [9]) or similar used for this phenomenon, which makes finding sources difficult. --vuo (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chervang Kong Vang[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The main claim of notability appears to be inventing the Nyiakeng Puachue Hmong script; that is also a newly created page of questionable notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does citation from the Unicode Consortium of the Nyiakeng Puachue Hmong script with regards to Chervang Kong Vang be considered a reliable source for notability? I do believe Unicode Consortium is a worldwide organzational establishment that has taken notice of the Nyiakeng Puachue Hmong script with regards to its creator. Txawjteeb^talk 09:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching and unable to find secondary sources Chervang Kong Vang.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anil K Reji[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NACTOR. PROD contested by SPA who appears to have a close connection with the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple roles in significant films. Combined with Times of India article, that's enough in my opinion even without checking the Malayam language press. Ross-c (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c: That 5 hours old TOI article came two days after I proposed this article for deletion and that clearly show how paid media works in India (this worth reading Paid news in India) and there are no evidence that the subject played a major role in films listed in the article and the first one Idukki Gold is not even verifiable. Am open to withdraw my nomination if you can provide just one more source that talk about the subject directly and in details. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: In response to your comment, I've read several sources on paid media in India, and like many countries there does appear to be a problem. However, I don't think we can reject that source unless, for example, there is a larger pattern of seeming abuse in relation to Wikipedia articles, leading to a rejection of The Times of India as a reliable source. I don't believe it's up to us when discussing an individual nomination to reject sources based on suppositions. I'm prepared to look at this again if there is more evidence or if decisions are made about the sources themselves. Ross-c (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious why there is no corresponding entry on local language WP, if coverage exists in Malayam language sources. --Saqib (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: because a Google news search for "അനിൽ കെ റെജി" returns with a grand total of one hit and that is not even reliable. I don't understand on what basis TOI claimed Remember the Malayali boy, Anil K Reji, who made news after acting in a soft drink ad with Virat Kohli and MS Dhoni? made news? when? where? I looked everywhere can't even find a single source that talk about it. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. This TOI piece can be used inside the article to support claims, but cannot be used to establish WP:N because it is promotional. --Saqib (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: Just because the news came 2 days after your nomination of deletion doesn't mean that it was paid. The lady who wrote the article was the same person who had put up a small write up of Anil in Deccan Chronicle 3 years ago just after the pepsi advertisement. Apparently she wanted to do one more article when she moved to TOI based on the recent works he did. Thus the article in Times of India. And in all the movies he worked for the character length was more than half of the movie and that too important ones. His facebook profile has also been verified. Just putting it out there. An actor who acted along with him in Idukki gold has a wikipedia page which has been verified. So Kindly requesting you to consider withdrawing the nomination. Thank you guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imakr.official (talk • contribs) — Note to closing admin: Imakr.official (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.

@Imakr.official: Seriously? can you provide that "Deccan Chronicle" source? FYI verified social media page/profiles has nothing to do with notability and none of the source claimed he played a major role in films listed in the article so for me this is simply a case of WP:TOOSOON for playing minor roles in some major films. Finaly do you mind disclosing your connection with the subject per the COI guideline? Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 06:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: Hello GSS, My name is Ijaaz, Anil's friend/page manager for his Facebook page. Currently logged in to his profile iamkr.official. I am the one who started writing his wiki page along with another user named Hisham. We both mage his Facebook page. Yes, I can Understand that verified social media profiles has nothing to do with this, but I was just putting it out there. He has done an international advertisement and many national advertisements with well known names and production companies. He wasn't a big fan of self promotion, exactly why there weren't many articles on him back then. The movies he did had him playing lead roles. The movie Puthiya Niyamam had him playing the negative character opposite Mammootty. the latest one named KALY had him playing the role of one of the heroes with Shebin Benson. In Idukki Gold, he played the childhood role of a lead character, just like Shebin Benson. The Deccan Chronicle article was 3 years ago and was a newspaper article. I cannot manage to find the article on the internet from the archives. I still have an image of the newspaper clipping from when the e-paper link was still up back then. I started writing this page for him since this could give him a lot of notability in the industry. I understand all the points you've put across GSS. I would still like you to Kindly consider letting this page live based on what I have just written. Thank you.

Delete Film actors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:ACOTRBIO. Apparently, this actor has had no significant role in any of the film which means clearly fails to meet WP:ACTORBIO. Actors with minor roles is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia, unless they've large fan base or has some unique acting. Search doesn't produce any coverage and significant information in the independent reliable sources about the person so basically fails to meet GNG as well. This story is not enough to pass GNG. I can't see any significance as of now therefore NotJustYet. For what its worth, the page was created by a SPA and cites many dubious sources, so I suppose there is some COI issue. --Saqib (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, has not done any significant work to warrant a standalone article. FITINDIA 17:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created by an undisclosed paid editor it appears. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Fails NACTOR by a mile.This is a much significant AfD, in the sense that the sequence of the events in this AfD is a clear-cut evidence of paid-for-news in Indian circles, (esp. entertainment and biographical stuff) and the ever decreasing editorial independence, reliability and integrity of TOI.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Forsyth County, Georgia. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Springs, Georgia[edit]

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

This was a proposed city in Georgia. Comprising of a region ~50,000 people, it would certainly be notable. However, the proposal was withdrawn, and on April 06, 2018, it was announced the proposal would move no farther. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update and merge to Forsyth County, Georgia article. Has received substantial coverage and probably best covered in county article with a targeted redirect for now. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 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 keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot Baba[edit]

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

Fails GNG and basic English. Also deleted once before, unanimously. Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, e.g. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/hc-send-notice-to-pilot-babas-ashram-for-illegal-construction-near-ganga/articleshow/60770443.cms https://www.firstpost.com/living/the-colours-of-kumbh-at-30000-feet-up-in-the-sky-this-pilot-met-god-2819900.html http://www.indialegallive.com/top-news-of-the-day/breaking-news-articles/sc-wants-know-pilot-baba-criminal-antecedent-42056 https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/indiascope/story/19840215-pilot-baba-from-air-force-wing-commander-to-sanyasi-802756-1984-02-15 http://mnsvmag.com/news/2017-10-09/pilot-baba-ashram-travel-nepal-hiking etc. etc. etc. Ross-c (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even a superficial web search reveals a lot of information and news commentary, he is clearly a guru of some small notability and there is much that can be added about that. I have improved the quality of English in the article a little. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. FITINDIA 17:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--As much as my heart wants to keep the subject out of WP, there have been too much coverage in indian media (coverage in hindi sources are more abundant...... ) to deny an article about the subject.~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject (perhaps, inexplicably) passes the GNG Chetsford (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil C. Lowe[edit]

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

Fails WP:JUDGE Not notable local judge. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every local circuit judge is notable, and nothing suggests that Lowe is notable with a higher standard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run of the mill circuit judge. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 02:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yulem[edit]

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

Seems made up. Insubstantial sourcing. Bus stop (talk) 08:46, 29 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 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no trace of this word in WP:RS online, and article is mainly sourced by blog posts with author name matching the account of the creator of this article. So it's either a joke, a hoax, a failed meme experiment, or a non-notable neologism per WP:NEO. Either way, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Mighty Glen. There appears to be a COI issue as well. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 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 per WP:WITHDRAW. (non-admin closure) Dom from Paris (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A.A. Taste Awards[edit]

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

Non notable award ceremony. Almost All sources are affiliated (winners venues judges) Dom from Paris (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the parent organization notable? FloridaArmy (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on WP that I could see but as notability is not inherited I don't see if it is really important. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks somewhat promotional; certainly needs a cleanup. Deb (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you for all the kind comment and suggestion. This is the event I was invited to be there as the media representative first time. The topic, especially the judging criteria is very special, also is the reason why I would to lead it to more discussion. Being honest, all the reference I found are not strong enough, thus I put the notice about the topic may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline by myself. It will be great to invite everyone to join the discussion, rather than the speed deletion. According to other references I found to support the notability of the parent organization most is in Chinese(I need more time to summary) and Thai language which I am totally unable to read it, rather than English. Is there any way I can try to keep this topic for more time and try to make it right?Any suggestion is welcome. Minyuhuang (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2018 (GMT+8)

If you like I can withdraw the nomination draftify it and let you go through the WP:AFC process if you think that with time you can find enough sources to show notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dom from Paris for helping withdraw the speedy nomination. Sure this will be ideal for me to find enough sources and even may can finishing the summarizing the Chinese one to show notability. You're always welcome to give some advise or re-write the too promotional paragraph. Minyuhuang (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2018(GMT+8)

Draftify Dom from Paris (talk) 14:58, 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) 00:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anusha Gunasekera[edit]

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

Politicians are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:POLITICIAN. The subject has served as Municipal Councillor and never elected to a state or national level legislature thus fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails GNG as well. Saqib (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep This is a very notable article about a famous politician in sri lanka who has held office in the local government which meets the notability guidelines for WP:POLITICIAN and being a member of the municipal council is one of the greatest posts in the government of SRI LANKA. 2nd Innings (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it meets the guidelines as it has sources and it is notable. an important article to sri lankans BOLLYWOOD IS MY LIFE (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this has a great notability since he is related to provincial government administration and he is special as he is the first member of the new municipal council and this notable article has many reliable sources 175.157.139.148 (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the shenanigans of this IP user. --Saqib (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An opposition leader of a local authority and failed provincial candidate do not have inherent notability under WP:NPOL. Not enough coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC.--Obi2canibe (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, essentially he is a local councilor not a provincial or national politician. He is not a notable lawyer - fails WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not claim that he's ever held any office that constitutes an automatic WP:NPOL pass as an "inherently" notable role — that attaches to state and national legislatures, not municipal councils — but the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Further, it's written far too much like a campaign brochure, but even an NPOL-passing national legislator still doesn't get to have their article written in that kind of tone. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reynold Macpherson[edit]

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

Unsuccessful politician that fails WP:NPOL. The coverage is routine local news political reporting. Fails GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and not enough for WP:GNG NZFC^(talk) 08:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet requirements for WP:NPOL. Ajf773 (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates for election to municipal governments — but there's no credible claim of preexisting notability for other reasons here, and the depth of referencing being cited here is nowhere close to enough to make his candidacy a special case over and above every other candidate who didn't get an article for that. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dr Macpherson is notable for a number of reasons, the most recent being his failed candidacy for Mayor, he has been featured in local, along with national media, due to the controversy's he has brought up. He is also an author, a retired education sector leader, and has heavily shaped the face of local body politics in Rotorua. I note John Palino, failed Auckland Mayoral candidate has a page up for similar reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrewnJohn (talk • contribs) 23:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A failed candidacy for mayor is not a notability claim in and of itself — every single person who was ever a candidate in any election anywhere has always been "featured" in media to some extent in that context, so that coverage does not count as support for notability unless it explodes way outside the bounds of what's merely expected to exist for all candidates. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in an AFD discussion, either — we have no way to prevent anybody from trying to create an article about absolutely anything or anyone that exists at all, so the existence of any article is not in and of itself grounds for the creation of an article about any other apparently similar topic. Raising an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument actually backfires, as a rule — it's more likely to cause the other article to get put up for deletion, if it's not properly demonstrating an includable notability claim either, than it is to cause the salvation of this one. Wanna take a wild guess what just happened to John Palino's article? Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Caldwell Harris[edit]

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

Poorly referenced biography of a municipal bureaucrat. While he might qualify to have a Wikipedia article if he could be properly sourced over WP:GNG for this, the only properly footnoted references here are to a Blogspot blog, not a reliable source. And while there's one additional reference contextlessly listed under a separate "sources" header after the references header, it names the newspaper and the date but fails to provide the title of the content being referenced, so I had to run a ProQuest search to determine that it's just his WP:ROUTINE obituary, which means that it doesn't singlehandedly vault him over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-blogspot source on offer. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do much better than this, but the fact of having a piece of municipal infrastructure named after him is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel like this subject might have warranted a page in the 1930s or 40s if Wikipedia was around. As it stands, there just aren't enough reliable sources out there. There are a few, but they seem less concerned with the man and more focused on the water treatment plant that bears his name. I couldn't find a source that referenced anything other than his time as Commissioner of Public Works in Toronto, and even that information was limited. Gargleafg (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is this: http://www.beachesliving.ca/pages/index.php?act=landmark&id=36 and https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/meet-the-man-who-shaped-20th-century-toronto/article4186743/ and http://spacing.ca/toronto/tag/roland-caldwell-harris/ All articles about RC Harris mention the water plant, but that does mean that his notability is solely due to the water plant. Ross-c (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beaches Living is not a reliable source at all — it's a neighbourhood web business directory, not a real media outlet, so that link counts for all of exactly nothing. The Spacing link does not list any articles that are substantively about R. C. Harris at all — it just lists a few short blurbs about the plant, not anything about Harris as a person that would help him get over WP:GNG. So the only one of those links that counts for anything at all is The Globe and Mail — but that's one piece of coverage toward an inclusion criterion that requires a hell of a lot more than just one piece of coverage. Bearcat (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. References do not support stand-alone article. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' Harris was a person of no little significance in Toronto's past --- whatever the shortcomings of the article, it is better than nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.55.239.172 (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, a badly sourced article is not better than nothing — our basic credibility as a source of information depends on sourcing our articles properly so that people can't just make up random unsourced bullshit about him. Deletion of this would not prevent somebody from trying again in the future if they can actually locate better sourcing than we've been able to find so far, so we don't keep badly sourced articles just because they're "better than nothing". If somebody can do better than this in the future, they're absolutely more than welcome to do that — but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to require us to keep it in this state of sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Boomker[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP1E WP is not the Guinness book of records. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Thanks for telling me that WP is not Guiness Book of World Records. So when are we gonna delete all the articles on world record holders then? Dial911 (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't make this person notable. Before having beaten the record she was unknown and when someone else beats her record it is unlikely that she will be known for anything else. The articles all treat her beating the record this is a classic BLP1E article. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, see category:world record holders. What about the person who is the current tallest in the world? He was preceded by someone else (who also has an article). This man might be succeeded by someone just as Amelia was preceded and might be succeeded in the future. What about that person who has an article just because he is completely covered in tattoo? There are many more like that. Amelia atleast has an impact on the community. She helped many kids who needed breast milk. Anyways, let the community decide. I respect your judgement as an individual. Dial911 (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for information on these types of discussions I would request all participating editors to look at the 2 Afd nominations for Xie Qiuping here and here. For the exact same reasons and arguments listed on these 2 AfDs, I think this Article should be kept without any question. Dial911 (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are discussions from 10 years ago. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Do you have anything more recent? Dom from Paris (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is indeed a work in progress. And so is Guiness World Record. There is so much of competition that only utmost calibre gets to come in the Book of records. Moreover, the rationale in this case remains the same. And having a guiness world record is obviously notable. Amelia donated 4000 bottles of milk in a duration of time same as that lady grew her hair in a continuous manner. I just don’t see a point as to why a World Record Holder is not eligible for an encyclopedic entry. Dial911 (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion as to what constitutes a BLP1E may have changed. Here is a more recent one. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishna Pandey. But as per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I think it better to allow other editors to !vote. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s funny how Afds become a battle of ‘I am right and you are wrong’. And this keeps encyclopedia from getting rich in reliable content. It indeed is better to allow others to voice their opinion. Dial911 (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWS (on a slow news day at that, apparently). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantial sustained coverage to show notability. I have to agree that we have lots of articles on Guiness Book of World Records holders that ought to be deleted, but we look at articles in most cases one at a time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment consensus can change. 10 years ago there was a view that Wikipedia should try to have a very large number of biographies. We have since come to realize this leads to lots of low quality biographies and a failure to actually maintain them at a reasonable level. There is no reason we should have deletion discussions of 10 or more years ago used as millstones around our necks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, Current policy states: "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met...and the third point is 'If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Setting up a world record is definitely a significant event. And Amelia's role is substantial and well documented for obvious reasons. This policy was applicable if I had created an article on the 'nurse who helped Amelia donating milk in the hospital.' Her role would have been not substantial as she didn't set the record. But Amelia's role is substantial (as she set the record) and setting up a world record is significant event in the world. It's a pretty straightforward policy. Why so much fuss around it? Dial911 (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is WP:ONEEVENT relevant here? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This policy has “If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.“ Again, setting up a WORLD RECORD is a highly significant event and her role is obviously large one. If this is being discussed here then Why do we even have category:world record holders then? Dial911 (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Guinness world records holds a data base of over 40,000 different records some of which are far from being significant such as the largest.number of facial masks applied simultaneously. If we follow your logic then every single record would have a WP page if there were a couple of articles in RS. There are notable people that are record holders hence the category but not every record holder is notable. Even if BLP1E may not apply (even if I think it.does) what is lacking here is WP:SUSTAINED notability. All the sources date from 1 week in March 2014. To show that this is not just a news article reporting the fact that she broke the record are there any more recent sources that talk about her? Dom from Paris (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if there are RS on world record holders then WP should have them all. That is what WP is, an open-source referenced encyclopedia of reliable information. I am sure there will not be significant coverage of all 40,000+ world record holders in reliable secondary source so sadly, even if you follow my logic, not all world record holders will have entry on WP. Dial911 (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just checked the Guinness records page and she was the previous world record holder. But her record was broke just a few days after the reports i the article. The actual record.holder donated more than 3 times what she did. I suggest that the article creator requests deletion themself. [[10]]. Before creating an article a bit of fact checking might be useful. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Though~~ I still think an article about former World Record holder should get an entry here as there are other entries for the past record holders. ~~yet I have marked it for CSD.~~ Dial911 (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Kösen is the current world record holder for being tallest man. However, Bao Xishun, Radhouane Charbib and all others have an article even after their record was broken years ago. Because their notability has been established. Same as Amelia's. Dial911 (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tall people get noticed. Lesser record setters, such as Amelia and flagpole sitters don't. H. David Werder was up there for over 439 days, but nobody at Wikipedia saluted. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly and Boomker only held the record for a few months and in actual fact had probably never really been the record holder as the other woman had donated much more than her over a similar period. Have you found any more recent sources?Dom from Paris (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:BLP1E and is not otherwise notable. This is a local odd news feature article masquerading as a Wikipedia topic. SportingFlyer talk 01:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments were made to delete the article outside of the nominator's. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don Smith (author)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, with no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR and no strong reliable sourcing to carry an article. The notability claim as a writer is that he and his work exist, which is enough if the person can be sourced over WP:GNG for it but not enough in and of itself to exempt him from having to pass GNG — but five of the seven references are to unreliable sources, like Blogspot blogs or the sales pages of his own books on the website of their own publisher, which cannot support notability. And of the two citations that are actually to published books by other writers, one book just contains a glancing namecheck of Smith's existence on one page without being in any way about him — and although I admit that I'm unable to verify whether or not the other says enough about him to start getting him over GNG or not (it has a page on Google Books but its text is not searchable), even if it does it still takes quite a bit more than just one GNG-worthy source to finish getting him over GNG. Which means he simply isn't sourced anywhere well enough to pass GNG in lieu of not having a strong AUTHOR pass. Bearcat (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 00:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 00:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I researched and wrote the article after coming across a novel by Don Smith, googling the author and obtaining near zero relevant results. (Granted, the popularity of his name and surname do not help.) The article exists in the French and Swedish versions of Wikipedia since 2014 and 2016 respectively. I did not translate either version; I wrote the article from sources I could verify, using the short biography from a French book cited in the French article (which I could search, and corroborated to be accurate), and the scraps of supporting info in the form of work lists and amateur reviews in blogs--which, even if not reliable, might constitute an argument in favor of the notability of an author who published mostly in the 60s-70s, as does the existence of the French and Swedish articles (author wrote solely in English). WP:AUTHOR #3 requires the subject to have "created ... a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". I think that over two dozen books (that we know of) in well-known mass-market paperback presses, translated to at least three languages (again, that we know of) and generating discussion even among bloggers three decades later is a body of work worthy of consideration. And it's safe to assume such work has generated articles and reviews as well (if nothing else, the blurbs on the novels' covers prove so: two different ones from The New York Post and from Adam Hall and Edward S. Aarons). I must disagree with the idea that the article doesn't have a strong AUTHOR pass; as mass-market paperback authors go, it is quite strong. I understand inclusion policies must be more strict for a WP:BLP (assumed, for the subject was born in August 1909 according to all sources, 6 years short of WP:BDP), and I see the flaws pointed out; there's miles of room for improvement and I hope to work more on it (I already am). However, I don't see the benefit of deleting the article altogether, hiding the subject deeper into the pool of Don Smiths in the internet and thus making it more difficult for someone with reliable information on the subject to provide it. SonnyHEL (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SonnyHEL: can you add the New YOrk Post reviews and other sourced to the page?E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are inherently unreliable sources that cannot be used to reference Wikipedia content at all. They are not reliable or trustworthy support for claims of fact, and they are not evidence of notability. And a person does not get a free exemption from having to clear WP:GNG just because he's an obscure topic with a common name who might get "lost" in the crowd — he has to have a credible claim to passing WP:AUTHOR, and he has to have more reliable source coverage to support it than you've shown here, before he gets to have a Wikipedia article. We do not create special carveouts from our notability and sourceability standards just to help publicize the work of a person who doesn't pass them — we're not a free publicity venue, and it's not our role to help undercovered or unsung topics create a media presence. We do not keep an article about a person who has neither a strong notability claim nor strong sourcing just because it's theoretically possible that somebody might come along in the future with better sourcing to support it, because it's also possible that somebody might not — if you want the article to be kept, then it's your job to find enough reliable source coverage to make it keepable before you create it at all. Bearcat (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's creator makes a very good case for keeping this article; particularly since it exists in several languages on Wikipedia. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nothing stops anybody from creating an article about anything, so whether a person has an article on another language Wikipedia is irrelevant to notability or lack thereof — the other articles may also need to be deleted, and just hadn't gotten noticed until they were brought up. That kind of argument actually tends to backfire more often than it succeeds — it's more likely to cause the deletion of the other language articles, if they aren't solidly sourced either, than it is to make the English article survive. Bearcat (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

leaning keep, will do a little sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the reviews! Sadly I don't have access to the ones in The New York Post; I only know they exist because they are blurbed on the paperbacks. Chances are the review(s) was on the whole series, not on one book. Also, author is dead according to a living relative, but I haven't been able to find a quotable source on that. He is said to have lived in Europe while he wrote.SonnyHEL (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have added several book reviews from major newspapers, a tedious process due to author's very common name and the fact he uses titles filled with common names and phrases like "Out of the Sea" that generate hits on a large number of stories about other stuff. Nevertheless, there is more than enough to establish that this was a very popular author. Not also that Smith's thrillers have been written about (albeit briefly) in at least ~~two~~ three (just added another) recent books (sourced on page).E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is clear that Smith was a very popular author. Also, because' that this is a new article, Nom could have tagged it for better sourcing, but taking it immediately to deletion was hasty and ignored indications (publishers don't keep publishing novelists who lack sales) of novelists notability. There are probably more books that mention him and there are certainly snippet views of passages mentioning, discussing these novels in older books and magazine articles that are not online but that come up in snippet views. I am persuaded not only that more sources can be found by diligent searching, but that Smith's oeuvre makes him NOTABLE. Passes WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 10:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum 9[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable consultant firm that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Added to Wikipedia on the same day as Michael Mayes (entrepreneur), the founder of the firm. Both would appear to be created by undeclared paid editors. (As a side thought, the company is more likely to receive coverage in the press than a similar-sized consultant on building materials, because cannabis is an altogether more newsworthy topic.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would vote delete, but for the award in the article. I am not sure what to make of it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on the Stevie Awards, entrants pay a fee of up to $505 and 30 to 40% of them receive awards. The company seems to have been given a bronze Management Award in 2017 in the category "Executive of the Year - Business & Professional Services - Less Than 100 Employees". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about the "Best Management Consulting Firm" recognition?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a "Best International Marijuana Consulting Firm" award from an online magazine of unknown reliability is enough to show notability. I'm inclined to vote to delete this article, but maybe I'm wrong about that award or someone can show the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete After thinking this through, there is not much to support GNG or any other form of notability.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCOPR. Likely UPE based on behavioural evidence. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sani Aliyu[edit]

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

DG of a non-notable organisation National Agency for the Control of AIDS is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia until xe meet GNG. Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person so Can't see any significance. Saqib (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The agency although glorified with the word "national": it is mere sub-agency in broader Health Ministry, there are many of such mini-mini deparments and they are all not notable So it is not surprising there are no sources for both it is leader and the organization. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Toth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Apparently non-notable, does not meet WP:ARTIST. I've not been able to access the two sources in the page, but I believe that they are cartoons by the subject. I've found some promotional material for this person, but no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Note: the page appears to have been created by someone close to the subject; I've removed some unsourced personal detail per WP:BLP, and am somewhat curious to know where that came from – it's not on his website, for example. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: Although this has come up as "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Toth (3rd nomination)", it is the first deletion discussion for this person; the previous two nominations related to a quite different Robert Toth, a commercial artist in the United States. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the first two afds appear to have been for this Robert Toth, this afd is concerning a different Robert Toth. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no WP:RS, no awards. Just some illustrations he has done. Plus WP:COI. --Theredproject (talk) 16:30, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda Solutions[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article, references only minor awards and press releases. No real independant references Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP. A sales brochure, not an encyclopedia entry. Likely COI-based editing, going by the tone and the content. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 19:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aruna Shankar[edit]

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

Mayor of a city with less than a half million population is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless the subject meets GNG. Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person so Can't see any significance, Saqib (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete I make no claims on notability, but there are no sources here for this WP:BLP article. SportingFlyer talk

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The size of the city is not the problem here — in countries such as Canada or the United States, cities this size most certainly would be expected to have Wikipedia articles about their mayors. The problem, rather, is the lack of any reliable sources to support the article's content. I'm willing to reconsider this if some proper reliable source coverage is added before this discussion closes, but even a mayor of New York City wouldn't get to have an article if he somehow held the role without getting any media coverage for holding the role. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added several citations to verify the facts and made the article easier to read. I believe it should now satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lonehexagon:--I have a real fear that although you've a good ability to dig up sources, the manner in which you insert them in the concerned article is resemblant to promo-spamming.Please amend accordingly.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Winged Blades of Godric: I don't understand what you mean. I find information, put it in the article, and reference the source with a citation. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the issue is. I'm not convinced this person is notable, but if someone without a COI attempts to find sources to make the information WP:V, they should be commended, not censured. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-All the sources by Lonehexagon (which has strong resemblances to conducting a Google search and then throwing every G-hit into the article...... ) are routine trivial mentions about the subject, which mainly derives from the chair she holds.~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The question is not whether the article has enough sources to satisfy GNG, it appears instead that there is no consensus regarding the reliability of the sources given. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aldona Kmiec[edit]

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

Fails to meet the requirements of WP:NARTIST. SmartSE (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete source describes the subject as a "local artist". The subject received some minor awards, but no significant critical attention. Vexations (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: the subject of an article can be local and still pass GNG as long as they are covered in several RS. Also, she doesn't need to pass CREATIVE. You may want to re-evaluate. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: I had evaluated those sources already, and I'm not compelled to change my position. I could have explained my rationale better though. To me, for an artist's biography, critical attention is key to notability. Who pays attention matters. Is it the critic for a major paper, or a scholar, or a writer of clickbait? Even in the same publication that distiction matters. It's why we don't evaluate reliability of sources categorically, but always in context. We need subject-specific notability guidelines like WP:ARTIST because sometimes critical attention exists but is given in other ways than articles in the media or peer-reviewed journals. Exhibitions and inclusion in collections of notable institutions are indicative of such attention because the curators (trained experts, reliable sources) at such institutions evaluate the significance of an artist's work before exhibiting or acquiring a work. The amount of work that goes into buying a painting at a large museum for example is enormous. I've seen dossiers that are several hundred pages thick. Even a modest retrospective can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to organize. A catalogue raisonné can take years to compile. So those indicators (exhibits, collections, monographs) are really significant and ought to weigh much more than newspaper coverage. The two sources that you suggest are good articles about her are local and attention solely from local media is not an indication of notability IMO. The rewritten notability guideline for businesses and organizations WP:NCORP has got this right, I think. Local media often report on events that have no significance beyond the region, and a residency at the Ballarat branch of UnitingCare Australia is such an event. The bio provided in the abc article is not written as a critical analysis of the work of an artist, but merely re-states what the artist herself has written at https://visura.co/user/kmiec/bio for example. As for the Courier, that piece is about a series of six works that were among 47 nominations for the Maggie Diaz Photography Prize for Women (a A$5,000 photo prize). Not sure why the award is not mentioned in the article about Maggie Diaz BTW, since it might be a notable award (but an artist would still have to win it to be notable on the basis of an award). Other than that, and the mention that she is one of more than 25 local photographers participating in the Ballarat International Foto Biennale fringe program (Note: fringe, not the core program), that article doesn't actually say much about her. In conclusion, there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Does not meet the GNG or any SNG. Vexations (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artist is covered in several RS and so passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: Which sources provide the substantial coverage that we require? SmartSE (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse: Sorry for the slow reply! I think [11], [12] are good articles about her with the other articles adding enough to support GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG and is well known Abote2 (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by Megalibrarygirl appear to satisfy WP:GNG, and I can see there are several additional sources in the article. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sure how she passes WP:NARTIST. A review of the sources show they are all local sources from Ballarat, which isn't necessarily a disqualifier, but explains why I didn't find them in my before search. My issue is that there are only one or two sources actively about her, and going along with the NPOV problems in the article, WP:GNG seems marginal to me. SportingFlyer talk 02:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, noting that although sources are "local" (i would suggest regional rather than local), there is no mention of "local" sources being precluded in these guidelines, it is a furphy that unfortunately occur in afds on a regular basis. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps a weakish one, but I think there is enough WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. local sources are suspect because they are non discriminating -- they will write about any local artist (or writer, businessperson, etc. ) however minor. Their purpose is not providing POV information--its of making people feel good about their neighborhood. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the problems with the local ABC source identified above the article clearly states that "ABC Ballarat is the project media partner." therefore this is not independent. The other article singled out by User:Megalibrarygirl is yet another indiscriminate local pr piece. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not be sucked in by the promotion. The sources are minor and low quality. As are the solo shows on her CV, several of which happened in hotels and wine bars, one of which was part of the"Ballarat International Foto Biennale" that nobody has ever heard of.104.163.159.237 (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From one of the sources: "Kmiec is one of more than 25 local photographers participating in the Ballarat International Foto Biennale fringe program... The Ballarat International Foto Biennale fringe program provides photographers of all levels of experience the chance to have their work showcased with some of the best photographers in the world." In other words, she is a local amateur photographer. 104.163.159.237 (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WKAR-TV. J04n(talk page) 19:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Telecasters[edit]

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

College cable public access station. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. The article claims that it was founded in 1954. That claim is likely false since it would predate all other cable tv stations by more than a decade. Article was created by an WP:SPA account that disappeared ten years ago and then came back out of nowhere to deprod the article yesterday. Rusf10 (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable college station that has produced award winning original content and has notavle alumni. FloridaArmy (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What awards? Which notable alumni? Also see WP:NOTINHERETED--Rusf10 (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Searches of google and Newspapers.com fail to turn up any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Though not an independent source in any event, even the link to the Telecasters web site is non-working. Cbl62 (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that this be MERGED to a brief (one or two sentence) mention at WKAR-TV, the public boradcasting station at Michigan State where some of this MSU Telecasters product is broadcast.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Van den Bossche[edit]

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

apparent puff piece with hall mark external links to various sites with which the subject is associated. Sources largely primary or from commercial sites. Edaham (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Edaham (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Created by a user with an apparent COI, this piece makes use of in-body external links, is sourced only from the sites with which the subject is affiliated etc. Additionally I've draftified the page World_Trade_Institute, which had been (unbelievably) passed - untagged by a NPP, despite being woefully sourced only from the WTI website and being a similarly COIed puff piece - an oversight I hope. Suggest that those involved be strongly discouraged from creating pages about or affiliated with this institution and its employees. Edaham (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a horrifically-formatted article, with no independent references or clear claim of meeting WP:NPROF. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Promised sources not delivered. Should sources become available, this can be re-created. Or restored to user space to allow for improvement until ready. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About Her[edit]

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

Online magazines and websites are not given an automatic free pass over WP:N just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:MEDIA or Wikipedia:Notability (web), respectively. This one fails both IMO.

The only coverage about this web cum online mag I can see in independent RS in here but it is actually an announcement of the mag launching. The rest of the coverage about this mag I found is some paid press releases in some dubious+unreliable sources, both in English and Arabic language sources. For example, this, this, this and this are obviously paid press releases in English language unrelaible sources. Similarly, this, this and this is coverage in Arabic language magazine Sayidaty which is not indepdent of the subject because the Sayidaty is owner of this online magazine as well so there is obvioiusly COI. Other than this, Search doesn't produce any substantial and non-trivial coverage about this mag in independent RS which means this web+mag fails to meet basic GNG as well. Therefore I Can't see any significance. Saqib (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. It looks to me like you have taken the time to filter only the sources that would back your argument. Despite that, it is worth mentioning that Sayidaty is the biggest Arabic women's lifestyle magazine (and website) globally. Any reliable statistic website will tell you that - including Effective Measure. What you should have done however is request that the 'AboutHer.com' article be updated with more sources, facts, and references. But not deleted. Abouther.com's list of the 100 Saudi Women Creating Change was published on news papers and magazines across the Middle East. It has since become a source for news on Saudi women mainly. Here you'll find more reliable reports referencing stories that have appeared on AboutHer.com: This, this, this, this, this, and this. the list goes on. Wikipedia is a source for information and I believe that any platform that triggers public interest must be acknowledged because people and journalists will search for information about the site and it is important that it is stated clearly who the publisher is, where it is based and to whom it caters (in an unbiased context). I hope this helps.--JenniferCraigCarter (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am just curious if you're in anyway connected with this magazine? If there is any COI, please declare it. Because as far I can see you've so far participated in only one other AfD which is related to this magazine. Now back to topic, none of the coverage you provided above able to establish WP:N. Some of them are RS but they merely namecheck (mention in passing) the website, while some of them are not RS at all. I can't see any mention about this magazine cum website in these sources ([13] [14], [15]). The standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. My comments are concerned with sources used to establish notability. And I don't think the provided sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. --Saqib (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Apologies, I may have pasted the wrong links. I will try and update them later today. Also, I am in no way affiliated with the website or its editors. The only reason I have participated in these two related accounts is because it is related to my first wikipedia page about the editor. And because I had edited this page as well to link to that page. That is all. I intended to create another page for the model who also carries a similar name to the editor but this is proving time-consuming with all the research required, so I may need to postpone that for now. Thanks.

Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Butch.labajo. --Saqib (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete sources boted above aren't even about or related to this subject. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are not enough sources which explain why this is notable. The coverage is about the launch which is fairly routine. This is a fairly new website and I don't see any significant achievement which makes it stand out from the numerous online magazines. There is no information about the subscribers or any significant impact or award. At this time, I think a delete is fair.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Elizabeth Hospital (Enumclaw, Washington)[edit]

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

Article does not demonstrate notability. This is part of a group of articles created by a SPA on hospitals owned by CHI Franciscan Health. DocumentError (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless someone can give sources to meet criteria, WP:NHOSPITALS which currently there's none. "A single author or publisher counts as only one source, regardless of the number of publications by this person. Routine coverage and passing mentions (such as "The victim was taken to E. Normous Medical Center" or "Dr Smith of Smallville Hospital, said...") do not count. Nearly all hospitals, regardless of size, and most medical clinics and related organizations will have been the subject of at least one in-depth article in their local newspaper. In practice, large, regional hospitals will almost always meet all of these standards, but some smaller hospitals and many clinics will not. Hospitals that do not meet all parts of this standard do not qualify for a stand-alone article, and should instead be described in a section on healthcare or emergency services in their hometown articles or parent organization, with suitable redirects from the hospital's name. Additionally, if the independent sources available to you would not permit you to write more than one or two paragraphs, then it may be preferable to add that information to a larger article, with appropriate redirects." Hence, fails WP:GNG also. --Quek157 (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pentecostal Sub-Arctic Leadership Training College[edit]

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

non-notable college, little/no published info available — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bistropha (talk • contribs) 06:46, 29 Apr 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 14:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 14:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 14:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If someone wants to work on this, happy to vote delete without prejudice for recreation, but as it stands I think it'd be hard to source. SportingFlyer talk 06:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the web site doesn't exist anymore, but the information I found indicates it was a local church's Bible study program, not any sort of accredited college. This site says that 46 people have "graduated" in the last 30+ years, which makes it seem like a very small Bible study group. There isn't verifiable information available to build this into a complete article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources have not been provided to demonstrate that WP:GNG has been met. No other arguments have been set forth explaining why this topic is otherwise notable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Société de transport de l'Outaouais Interzone Routes[edit]

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

Not notable with just four routes. Reads like a travel guide Ajf773 (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if there are only four routes, I think this is a notable topic because it discusses routes part of a large urban agglomeration, the National Capital Region of Canada. The article can be improved so it doens't read like a travel guide.Emass100 (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Bus routes are generally non notable and this article provides no evidence of any. Ajf773 (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as classic example of NOTTRAVELGUIDE, Nothing on Google on any of the routes or the prices, Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 17:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I maintain this is NOT a WP:TRAVELGUIDE violation, as it's a transport article and not an article written like a travel guide. It IS a WP:DIRECTORY violation as it stands and is not written well enough to allow me to find sources to make any semblance of a WP:GNG argument, though. If there's a list of bus routes in Ottawa, that would be a viable merge/redirect target. SportingFlyer talk 02:46, 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. J04n(talk page) 19:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kitab Mela[edit]

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

This is a promotional article some relatively small online book store+publisher which also organised a bunch of book events. It received some routine press coverage (obviously) but clearly fails to meet relevant notability guidelines Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH. Both the duration and depth of press coverage was limited. WP:Existence ≠ Notability Saqib (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't pass GNG, so i'll go delete. M A A Z T A L K 13:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kitabmela is authentic, company is just like Ferozsons, so it shouldn't delete. --103.255.4.25 (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but Existence does not prove notability. --Saqib (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP. All the mentions of the subject I can find but quotes round the phrase e.g. [16]. Presumably it means something in Urdu? Anyway, including the founder's name in the search reveals zero coverage. SmartSE (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. book stores are difficult to source, and so are publishing companies, so I'm prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: It is not really a publishing company. As per their official website they are distributors of books+magazines. An online store which sell books. --Saqib (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - it seems that "Kitab Mela" is also associated with a Book Fair or Exhibition. Two of the references in the article which use this term have nothing to do with the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two 'The News' articles in English appear to be discussing a different 'Kitab Mela', not the subject of this article. I can't find English language coverage of the subject of the article, but that doesn't mean that there isn't such in Urdu. Ross-c (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c: There is no significant coverage in Urdu language sources. --Saqib (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib:. Entirely possible. But, as you are the nom, this should be double checked by someone else. (I would expect the same if I was a nom.) Ross-c (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All 3 existing references at the article are working. I just checked them. Looks like a notable online book store and publisher to me that has 2 references from a major English-language Pakistani newspaper - The News International, an independent reliable source. I just edited it also to give it a neutral tone. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references fail the criteria for establishing notability. This is based on a press release as it states "says a press release". Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. This refers to a book fair with the same name and doesn't even refer to this company (why is it even in the article as a reference???). Likewise, this refers to a book fair and not the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing, sources aren't about the company that I see, so fails NCORP Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Scott (military officer)[edit]

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

Martin Scott does not come close to meeting WP:SOLDIER. He was brevetted twice the second time to lieutenant colonel, which was his rank when he was killed in the Mexican War. He had no civilian "track record" to satisfy WP:GNG. Much of the page is hearsay extracted from existing documents which, in turn, often read "I was told" or similar terms. The tale of a raccoon surrendering to Scott in lieu of being shot may be the most mind-boggling. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Having a fort named after you must count for something. The source in the article for that may not be very RS, but here's a better one from a book source. I'm seeing his name come up in a few books, The Life of Major General Zachary Taylor and General Scott and His Staff. All little more than passing mentions but in particular this book refers to him as "the famous Martin Scott" indicating that, at least in his own time, he had some notability. SpinningSpark 00:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~If the keep fails, then repurpose as an article about the fort.~~ The fort is definitely notable. It has a book written about it and there are scholarly papers on archaeological investigations at the site.[17][18]. SpinningSpark 01:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We already have an article about the fort: Fort Martin Scott.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I should have known. Striking my comment. SpinningSpark 22:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be enough mentions to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:SOLDIER & significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is namechecks and in passing. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be more convinced of his lack of notability if someone with access to a historical American newspaper database was to comment. Highbeam does not go back far enough. For instance, their oldest result for "Custer", who was unarguably notable in his own time, is dated 1984. SpinningSpark 08:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two contemporary papers in newspapers.com that report his death; one says he is "celebrated" but doesn't say why. Newspaperarchive.com has one article about Scott talking a raccoon out of a tree and a couple articles about Fort Scott, mentioning that the post was named after Martin Scott but, other than his being killed in battle, offering no reason. I can do clippings if required.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Keep. Merge to Fort Martin Scott also possible, but I think in this case this passes GNG. SOLDIER only creates a presumption of notability - it does not preclude notability for those who do not pass, and criteria for SOLDIER are more tuned to the modern era (and less to the US army between the war of 1812 and the Mexican war - which was a small force with low ranking individuals having a significant influence in folklore and various Indian wars). I'm satisfied that the followings hits from my cursory BEFORE - [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] - that there is probably enough coverage out there for GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 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) 00:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Byrd[edit]

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

Does not satisfy biographical notability or entertainment notability. Google search turns up no relevant in-depth coverage (vanity hits and other people). Could go with BLPPROD but using AFD to bundle related pieces by same editor on his work. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these films are scheduled for release in 2019, and do not satisfy film notability when nothing is said about production. In twelve to eighteen months, films sometimes are developed and sometimes go into development hell. Mention of the films at this point is purely promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These articles don't meet notability standards. BOVINEBOY2008 12:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the bio does not pass WP:GNG and its WP:TOOSOON for the films Atlantic306 (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Broward County Public Schools. Sources have not been shown to meet GNG. Appreciation extended to those who have attempted to find and add sources. There is no long-standing (previous or present) consensus that elementary schools are inherently notable. Therefore consensus is redirect. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beachside Montessori Village[edit]

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

Non-notable elementary school, nothing outside of routine local news coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Broward County Public Schools. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It meets the notability requirements due to news coverage. That meets the reliable secondary source requirement of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline with numerous sources.^[1]^[2] Most notably, it has received the Green Ribbon School Award from the United States Department of Education.^[3]

References

^ Norman, Bob (2010-12-28). "Is JenJen's School the Whitest in South Broward?". New Times Broward-Palm Beach. Retrieved 2018-04-29.
^ Roustan, Wayne K. "Ex-president of Hollywood school's parent-teacher group stole over $53,000 police say". Sun-Sentinel.com. Retrieved 2018-04-29.
^ "Beachside Montessori Village earns 2016 Green Ribbon School Award". Hollywood Gazette. 2016-07-28. Retrieved 2018-05-03.

--SenatorFreedom (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 14:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I guess. Even though it is a Montessori school, I guess it is apparently a public school (within the Broward County Public Schools system) which I think is unusual, so the article could/should be developed more. The Broward County Public Schools merely lists about 100 schools by name, and merging material to there seems inappropriate to me; it would be undue coverage of just one of the schools. There are sources in the article in addition to the two suggested above, including this about the school getting one of a few dozen Green awards nation-wide. --Doncram (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Broward County Public Schools per Cullen. I don't see significant coverage. The Sun-Sentinel article is about an individual and the New Times article as much about the entire district as this school. There are not "numerous sources" identified here. MB 17:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per policy to Broward County Public Schools. Not a grade 12 high school. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, can you please name and give a link to the policy you are referring to? SenatorFreedom (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD-R. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kudpung, that policy statement says nothing about grade 12 high schools. In its entirety, it states: "Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required; any user can boldly blank the page and redirect it to another article. If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect." That seems not applicable. The topic is under discussion, it would be inappropriate to boldly redirect it now. --Doncram (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, thank you, you have correctly reported the content of the policy which I know off by heart. 'Redirect' is one of the perfectly standard, accepted, and listed closure types for AfD. I am sure that the closer will accord due weight to your vote. However, taking my comment out of context, and discrediting the policy as being inappropriate towards building consensus during this AfD, are misleading to any future voters here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per MB. Not seeing significant coverage that's actually about the school itself. Yilloslime (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How a good person can really win[edit]

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

Not a notable book. Page created by a SPA, and the "awards" in the references appear to be vanity awards. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I could not find any independent reliable sources mentioning the book, and the lack of detail available makes it seem that there is not enough information to write an article. Vahurzpu (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources can be found to support the inclusion of this book on guidelines of notability. — Javert2113 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, have been unable to find any useable reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable book. Preaky (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 05:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Jeter[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Dammit_steve (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the list of teams he has played for in the profile suggest he might pass WP:NBASKETBALL, but I just did a heck of a before search and could not find proof of him playing in the Greek League, the Russian League, or in EuroBasket for Partizan or Efes. SportingFlyer talk 05:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is alot of the information in the article, both now and in earlier versions, that don't add up. At one point there were fabricated stats from both the NBA and the EuroLeague. Fact is that although he had a pre-season contract with the Grizzlies, he was cut before the season started. There were also claims that he signed a two year contract with the Lakers but I was unable to find any sources about that and on nba.com transaction page for 2003, there is only a mention of him being signed by the Grizzlies on September 26 an then released on October 7. His college stats also don't match up with the only source I found about them. All of the fabrications and unsourced claims have been put in by the users Vladimir11234, Vladimir54321, Vladimir11111 and Vladimir0902, who's only contribution to Wikipedia has been on the Richard Jeter article. I did try to clean it up and display only what I could find references for but that was soon removed by Vladimir0902. Dammit_steve (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment About the most substantial coverage I've found on him is from Manawatu Standard in New Zealand,[28] and that isn't really very significant coverage. Not to mention they have errors stating he was drafted in 2003 NBA draft by the Lakers and being traded to Memphis. I have no idea how reliable probasketballoverseas.com is, but it sounds more plausible, saying that Jeter only played in Southern California Summer Pro League for the Lakers, and played in preseason with Memphis on non-guaranteed contract.[29] They also have a list of his signings, none of which would seem to meet WP:NBASKETBALL.—Bagumba (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don’t find suitable sources to demonstrate WP:GNG. And given the lies that have been added to the article (never played in NBA for example) I will vote to delete unless and until GNG is demonstrated and all info is adequately sourced. I don’t care if he played a game or two for a league that meets WP:NBASKETBALL, GNG supersedes that and I find this article unreliable because of the false info that keeps being inserted. I see statements from Jeter where he claims being a former NBA player - I am somewhat concerned this could be an effort to legitimize these stories. Rikster2 (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article as it appears is unsourced, and I couldn't find much in the way of WP:RS apart from certifying that he exists. It is a bit disingenuous for him to claim he was an NBA player when he only competed in Summer League action. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found nothing to show either WP:GNG or WP:NHOOPS is met. I also found no evidence for the article's unreferenced claim he was the national junior college player of the year. The biggest award I could find for him was being named an NJCAA second team All-American (where there were 10 players per team). Papaursa (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sock-infested mess, and the article is a blatant advertisement. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Charles-Lemaire[edit]

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

This deletion suggestion has been created by another editor. I am converting a speedy deletion tag into an AfD tag to allow discussion about the arguments. This seems to be more productive than starting an edit-war about this.

Original message was: controversial content on legal issues, does not meet the eligibility requirements on WP FR/ Wikiplus World etc. IP: the same person for self-promotion!!

Edits:

00:31, 29 April 2018‎ @ToBeFree:‎ . . (23,391 bytes) (+23,207)‎ . . (Please wait a moment, I'll create an AfD thread for you instead. We will then discuss about your arguments. Please wait a moment.) (rollback: 1 edit | undo) (Tag: Undo)
23:51, 28 April 2018‎ @John doe123456987: (changed account name to @Djumblo75:) m . . (184 bytes) (-23,207)‎ . . (Undid revision 838733336 by Javert2113 (talk)slight eligibility, controversial content on legal issues, does not meet the eligibility requirements on WP FR/ Wikiplus... Delete recognized blogger Stop it now!) (undo | thank) (Tags: Replaced, Undo)
23:50, 28 April 2018‎ @Javert2113:‎ m . . (23,391 bytes) (+23,207)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by John doe123456987 (talk) to last revision by Shellwood. (TW)) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)
23:45, 28 April 2018‎ @John doe123456987: (changed account name to @Djumblo75:) (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (184 bytes) (-23,207)‎ . . (Undid revision 838732816 by Shellwood (talk)the same person for self-promotion, Fake) (undo | thank) (Tags: Replaced, Undo)
23:44, 28 April 2018‎ @Shellwood:‎ m . . (23,391 bytes) (+23,207)‎ . . (Reverted edits by John_doe123456987 (talk) (HG) (3.1.22)) (undo | thank) (Tags: Huggle, Rollback)
23:43, 28 April 2018‎ @John doe123456987: (changed account name to @Djumblo75:) (talk | contribs)‎ . . (184 bytes) (-23,207)‎ . . (Undid revision 838732672 by ClueBot NG (talk)) (undo | thank) (Tags: Replaced, Undo, reverting anti-vandal bot)
23:42, 28 April 2018‎ @ClueBot NG:‎ m . . (23,391 bytes) (+23,207)‎ . . (Reverting possible vandalism by John doe123456987 to version by 77.136.87.109. Report False Positive? Thanks, ClueBot NG. (3363014) (Bot)) (undo) (Tag: Rollback)
23:42, 28 April 2018‎ @John doe123456987: (changed account name to @Djumblo75:)‎ m . . (184 bytes) (-23,207)‎ . . (slight eligibility, controversial content on legal issues, does not meet the eligibility requirements on WP FR/ Wikiplus World etc. IP: the same person for self-promotion!!) (undo | thank) (Tag: Replaced)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_Charles-Lemaire&action=history ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AfD on the french wikipedia is here. The article was salted there after 2 unsuccessful deletion reviews ([30], [31]). Regards, Comte0 (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you very much for the research.

Adding a comment up here as well: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Benjamin_Lemaire ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~ Djumbo75 (Djumbo75 (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)) This person is self-promoting, has changed these names several times to see "nickname" and create his page on all wikipedia of the world, in France he has not met the conditions and has been withdrawn in recent years and on http://plus.wikimonde.com/wiki/Benjamin_Lemaire (an administrator deleted it last night for lack of eligibility and problems of all kinds), it seems to me that it should also be deleted here for obvious lack of notability. Best Regards[reply]

Comment: The link is pointing to Wikimonde Plus, which appears to be a separate project and not simply a mirror. However, what Djumbo75 said is true for the French Wikipedia article too: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Lemaire (view page logs) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimonde Plus is not a separate project, please look at many pages, it's just a mirror where people can interact, and this parcular page was on war editing before of this specific user, and admin deleted because of its ware edition, fake accounts not becasue of eligility (it's written in it's log) Tifftiff1234 (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC) *FALSE: The real reason for the deletion on the other WPs: "Deleted the page Benjamin Lemaire (too many problems: promotion problems, deletions of sources, slight eligibility) <= it arranges in its way apparently it is well indicated black on white" questionable eligibility and promotion, etc.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Users participing here (Djumbo75 and JohnDoe) were created to delete this article. They did exactly the same things on Wikimonde and on Wikipedia IT and DE. There is no legal issue because there point on vue are based on non confirmed sources about a justice decision. And even if the decisions were true, the fact that so little news is commentated on national media prove that the person has a real existence. Please be aware that there's a vendetta campaign against this person and Wikipedia is not a way to settle accounts. Page as deleted to French wikipedia after admin get enough of fake acounts everywhere and users are trying to to same things here. Plus, Wikipedia eligility are not often same. Here nothing is promotional (and if it, just add banner, and let's correct that) but neutral. And even if most of sources are social media/websites to prove that content or nominations exists, there are national centred sources Slate, TeleStar, Gala, 20 Minutes). User here is trying to make rumor a legal issue but it's not... There'are clear rules here. So :

controversial content on legal issues : no issue here

does not meet the eligibility requirements on WP FR/ Wikiplus World : WikiPlus said they deleted because of war edition only, WP FR deleted after a vote of many fake (and it was before most of sources here, and eligity are not same on all WP)

the same person for self-promotion!! : there are no IP, and no multiple account here...

Tifftiff1234 (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bcoz: you are a liar saying that I am a fake nose and I did absolutely nothing about the other WPs just reported what I saw! You are the only contributor of all these articles on all wikipedia... There has been a consensus that has ended with administrators, we are not talking about justice cases(??), but about its admissibility that you do not want to recognize by doing your promotion, you are a great French director? No, an actor? No! Just an artistic agent and a blogger so for you gives her the right to be there? In addition, I am for nothing at all for the removal on the wiki IT, FR, DE ??? and what you say is totally wrong, there is no vendetta! You are the one and only person who writes this article. No one else is a contributor.. I did not create to delete the article but to have a notice of eligibility, if it remains so much better for you. I have only one account otherwise if you know how to read I just ask an administrator to change my account name! I only have one and I contribute only with this one. The other users that you denounce against you are not even me, I just reported facts like two other people here in discussion by tapping on Google. For me, you are promoting, bloggers I know and assist artists but are not on WP and have been deleted for lack of notoriety. You are of a great renown in France is the real question? Answer: NO to me. Thank you for your opinion and stop with your false insinuations. Judge in your conscience, thank you! (Djumbo75 (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

PS: The real reason for the deletion on the other WPs: "Deleted the page Benjamin Lemaire (too many problems: promotion problems, deletions of sources, slight eligibility) <= it arranges in its way apparently it is well indicated black on white" questionable eligibility and promotion, etc. The rules are clear on slight eligibility ! (Djumbo75 (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not vote twice. And you're not allowed to vote because you just arrived on Wikipedia btw. I'm not the only contributors, because the draft was there : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Benjamin_Lemaire. Just look at the history, there are dozen contributors before and after me. And please we're not here to judge personal thing, and people work, but only is there are sources or not. And here, there are. What happned on other website in not the question here. And the reasons you gave is bad translated but every one can consult it and see it's false (and btw, the history show clearly that you've been blocked for using 4 accounts (http://plus.wikimonde.com/wiki/Benjamin_Lemaire), what you did here before someone noticed it ;) What everyone can see is : why does some without any contributions in Fr, En and WikiMonde, is suddenly taking care of deleting everything about someone. So please let the community debating, and if it's too promotional, feel free to edit and rewrite, that's the way it works. I voted neutral because I'm to new to vote, and creator of the article. You should do the same, not voting 2 times :) 77.136.17.168 (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC) - Sorry wasn't logged, but as you can see, my IP wasn't use to edit anything else. Tifftiff1234 (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: --Royalhouse (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC) same opinion lack of notability, a single contributor (using 2/4 acc). I would agree with your assessment: lack of notability. Google turns up no reliable sources on him => Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Lemaire. There are a lot of sources here, but few of them appear to be independent and reliable – all the facebook/IMDb/YouTube/google/blog stuff does nothing to establish notability, but does give a strong impression that someone with a conflict of interest is trying to use Wikipedia to promote this person. Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC) CheckUser note: The following accounts are sock puppets: Liloula2200, IamAGecko, Ninobalto222, and MangoZona. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IamAGecko.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Given this new information, I would like to highlight (apart from the fact that only the puppets seem to be ok with keeping the article) that 95% of the contribution to this article were made by these sock puppets, given a good information on its unreliability as well as its not notableness. Giorgio69 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC) --Royalhouse (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I worked on draft on IP, but it seems that anybody can create an account and vote so I vote, even it'es clear that the two "deleted vote" are from the same person. There're many primary sources, but also secondary like Slate or 20 Minutes. 1 movie out in theaters (that could be eligible), and a short movie shown and awarded in 2 A class festival that could be eligible (note that it should have 2 short eligible to be eligible to). So it's ok for me, and it's evident here that the people who ask the deletion has COI. Martingally (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

shock puppets : Go ahead and continue working on it, you left other puppets of shock? You will set an example as it is easy to create a new account! I am on WP since 2005 in Canada, France, US for more than 3 years(2015) n you, today? Class festival n Nikon short film no eligible!! It's not forbidden to get paid to influence a Wikipedia article, you just have to declare it! Not with a mention discreet report but visible at the top of the article as in the clipboard!--Royalhouse (talk) 15:05, 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. Similar lists have indeed come up before, and tend to end with the same result. Worth noting that this one has two qualifiers (Asian, music). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-viewed Asian music videos on YouTube[edit]

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

This page is somewhat of a content fork of List of most-viewed YouTube videos and fails WP:NOTDIR point #6 (non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations). We do not need a list of every subgenre of "most viewed" videos on YouTube; the main page handles that well enough. And yes, this is the same nomination rationale as for the Indian version of this page. Primefac (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A needless content fork, an unreliably one at that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non encyclopedic, out of scope categorization which will only serve as incentive for more useless, sub-genre, sub-country, and subregions lists. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pure listcruft. They may be "Asian" origin but there's nothing else in common. Fans of pop-style music from East Asia may not share the same taste for Indian music and vice versa, let along speak the same language, making this list meaningless.Acnetj (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I created this article with the mindset that every eager mind who wants to clarify the position of various countries of Asia on the platform of YouTube can have an access to the article created by me. It is true that there might not be any official release of any article on the web stating this kind of list but it can be noted that there are several articles depicting the tops of individual countries like that of Korea (K-pop), Japan (J-pop), Vietnam (V-pop), Middle East (Arabic songs), India (Bollywood songs and others) and infact almost every region of Asia possess this kind of list. So, what is wrong with that if I merged all those information into one and made a single article for preventing the users from scrolling all those pages for finding the representation of their favourite videos from their very own country amongst the most viewed in Asia or the whole world? The article may look like categorized into a sub-genre but that is only because the general list of all videos only include the "elite ones" (means having more than 1 billion views) preventing others from having a representation in the global arena. It is totally obvious that today the world is globalised. So, the music production by any country may seem the participation of other but that doesn't play with the very identity of the song (resembling the culture). Regarding the negligence of middle east, I tried my best to include each and every part of Asia in it, but I could not make it happen because not every part of Asia could make it to the list. For example, V-pop's best has around 336 million views, J-pop's best have 185 million, Arabic best is more than 600 million views, but it is from a Moroccan singer (and exclusively produced by a Moroccan company). So I could not include them in the list. Well, I am not saying that I have the full editing rights on the article. Anyone can edit it and include others in the future and exactly that's how Wikipedia works. Regarding the breach of the very rights of Wikipedia, I have not made this article for using any propaganda or with wrong mindset or intention. If anybody feels so, then he has the full rights regarding molding the article in the way it suits an encyclopediac content and making it fruitful for others.

Thank you for your kind attention. Rishu Shukla (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What hasn't been explained is why such as list. I still can't find the usefulness of such list. People who enjoy K-pop are more likely to enjoy American pop music than Bollywood songs. Different countries have different population, with some much more than others. Other countries share culture and language with others (like Arabic), while some are not (such as Japan). Also, YouTube's market penetrations are not the same. Some countries may have strong alternatives for videos while some have none. Acnetj (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defining precisely, the resemblence of culture and languages among different nations, population level of different countries determining the number of views, popularity of that music industry, penetration power of YouTube in different countries and alternatives for such videos etc. are those basic factors which are applied to all the sub-categories of YouTube articles across Wikipedia. Well, there are more people in this world who recognize English as either their first or second language as compared to either German or French. So, they are more likely to listen songs in english language and resemble with the english pop culture. Therefore contributing greater number of views for those videos (Although there are exceptions like Despacito, Gangnam Style, but they are just 1-2% of the whole music industry). Similarly, the population level of India is huge compared to the combined population level of many countries in Asia. But, even though, the views of Indic videos are not as much as K-pop, English songs, etc. As one can notice that YouTube is totally banned in China. That's why even having a humongous population, it does not feature in any of such lists on global arena. Therefore it may be noted that all the wikipedia articles are not representing the whole part of the globe, which means they are all incorrect in one way or other and if they are not, then my article is also right in each and every way as per the general notion followed by all such articles on Wikipedia. Representing more than, half of the human population, it is totally correct to mention list which represents the different countries of Asia on YouTube. So, please try to undetstand the credibility of the article and support its existence.Rishu Shukla (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] Norman, Bob (2010-12-28). "Is JenJen's School the Whitest in South Broward?". New Times Broward-Palm Beach. Retrieved 2018-04-29.

[2] Roustan, Wayne K. "Ex-president of Hollywood school's parent-teacher group stole over $53,000 police say". Sun-Sentinel.com. Retrieved 2018-04-29.

[3] "Beachside Montessori Village earns 2016 Green Ribbon School Award". Hollywood Gazette. 2016-07-28. Retrieved 2018-05-03.

[1]

[2]

[3]