Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 April	1 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MER-C 10:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Gupta[edit]

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

Non-notable blogger, purely promotional. Natureium (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of notability. MT Train^Talk 05:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not per nom. She's not really a blogger, more founder of a general blogging site. But the highest views claimed for an item there are about 20k views, and its figures are too low for an Alexa ranking. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Septrillion (talk) 02:52, 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 delete. Enigma^msg 18:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spotinst[edit]

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

Typical start up, has not received coverage outside of obscure sources or routine articles about funding. Does not satisfy WP:NCORP. SmartSE (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP. Septrillion (talk) 02:54, 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 speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. —C.Fred (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Project Amad[edit]

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

Random accusation from Israeli PM, better as a single line (some day a whole paragraph) at Iran and weapons of mass destruction LaserLegs (talk) 21:43, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not so fast. Accusation is supported by evidence and literally thousands of documents. It was reported by newspapers and reliable sources across the world. Trump just said Netanyahu proved him right. Let's wait for more information on the news instead of rushing to delete this article.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think whether if the claim is legitimate or not is the largest concern. Since it has impacted Trump's decision-making on an important deal, one can argue this accusation has lasting significance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as יניב הורון and GracefulSlick say.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per יניב הורון.Nanophosis (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As something literally supported by thousands of documents, and that it's been noted to affect real word decision making as we speak (Trump on the nuke deal), simply deleting this because Mossad delivered it would be absurd. Thelovelyconch (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sheer volume of support and the facts and consequences of this clearly pass WP:GNG - Galatz ^Talk 23:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the story dies, it can always be merged into another article. Presently, however, the story has legitimate RSs and considerable traction. The Kingfisher (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn' whatever then. This should never have been it's own article, Iran and weapons of mass destruction is where this latest poorly substantiated factoid from a hyper-antagonistic source belongs, but the opinion is clearly against me, so keep it, whatever. Just someone please put it in Category:This POV battle ground article is doomed to forever be a stub filled POV enforcing tidbits for dubious reliable sources. Sorry I brought it up. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 18:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of the Gurma Mossi state of Pama[edit]

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

Procedural nomination; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/List of rulers of the Gurma Mossi state of Pama. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete normally lists that are all redlinks are deleted. If an enthusiastic editor would like to get cracking and fix the redlinks with articles, it would probably be a good keeper.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN. The remaining articles listed in the See Also section could also be flagged for deletion as well. Ajf773 (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN. Septrillion (talk) 02:54, 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. Enigma^msg 18:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MusicDigi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. While from the references listed there appears to be RS coverage, it is hosted press releases, deadlinks or from fake news sites. SmartSE (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP. Septrillion (talk) 02:55, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Hatten[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Not notable local politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:13, 30 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? 20:14, 30 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? 20:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. West Monroe is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but this article is not sourced well enough to get him over the "more notable than the norm for a not inherently notable class of topic" hump. Of its 17 footnotes, about half are primary or unreliable sources that cannot support notability at all, while the remaining half that are media coverage are purely local media coverage whose range and depth and volume is not even slightly out of the ordinary for what every mayor of everywhere could always show. This is not enough to make a smalltown mayor a special case over and above most other smalltown mayors. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there was a lot there to sort through. Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Possibly also fails WP:OR. SportingFlyer talk 04:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable local politician and journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

sources. I added to the page a long profile that ran in the The News-Star in 2004, and also the 2005 obit. Article certainly passed WP:BASIC an I note that he was a journalist and a newspaper owner in addition to being a mayor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 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) 00:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Illesteva[edit]

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

Company has not received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:NCORP. SmartSE (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP. Septrillion (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not have enough SIGCOV to pass GNG Chetsford (talk) 21:39, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Palino[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for mayor, which was incorrectly raised as an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reynold Macpherson. As always, unsuccessful candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- he has to win the election to be deemed notable as a politician, and otherwise gets a Wikipedia article only if he can be demonstrated and properly sourced as already having preexisting notability for some other reason besides the candidacy itself. But this demonstrates no evidence of that; it's referenced entirely to the WP:ROUTINE campaign-specific coverage that every candidate in every election could always show, not to any coverage in any context that might count as a notability claim. The first discussion, it should be noted, resulted in his name being redirected to the election article — where it stayed for three years, until being recreated in 2016 without actually demonstrating a stronger case for standalone notability than he had the first time. So reverting back to a (protected?) redirect would also be an acceptable alternative to deletion. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I stated on the article's talk page, subsequent to the 2013 election, Palino received a lot of attention over the Len Brown affair. I suggest that brought him over the general notability threshold. Schwede 66 20:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains almost no substantive content about him actually having any significant role in "the Len Brown affair" — it just asserts that he was questioned about it at his campaign launch, and then wanders off to other topics without saying even close to enough to make that a notability claim in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage seems limited to his mayoral campaign and while I accept that he was covered by most major local newsmedia, there seems to be insufficient substance to warrant an article. Maybe merge any useful information into Auckland mayoral election, 2016 and Auckland mayoral election, 2013 NealeFamily (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet criteria for WP:NPOL and not enough coverage for WP:BLP. Ajf773 (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This person has run for the Auckland City Mayoralty twice, and (prior to this) was the star of a New Zealand TV show. In my opinion, there seems to be no question that he is sufficiently 'notable' to warrant a Wikipedia page. Ross Finlayson (talk) 06:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Çomment The TV series seems to be even less notable failing WP:DEPTH- all I can find is mention by the production company and the broadcaster of its existence. There is nothing at this stage that I can find the causes the article to cross the threshholds for WP:ANYBIO, WP:ENT, and WP:POLITICIAN NealeFamily (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remember watching his TV show ("The Kitchen Job") a few years ago. But even ignoring the TV show, do you not think that his two (serious) runs for the Auckland Mayoralty makes him notable? Ross Finlayson (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia does not deem unsuccessful candidates for office notable just for being candidates. It's not our role to judge whether the candidacy was "serious" or not — our role begins and ends at covering the holders of notable political offices, not unelected candidates for them, so unsuccessful candidates for office are ordinarily notable enough for articles only if they were already notable enough for articles for some other reason besides being candidates. And it doesn't matter whether you remember watching his TV show or not, either: it matters whether the show got reliable source coverage in media or not. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on reflection I think you're right. I haven't seen him in the news at all since he last ran for mayor. Ross Finlayson (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my opinion to "Neutral" Ross Finlayson (talk) 06:32, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn; references found under Pinyin spelling. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lha’gyai[edit]

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

An unsourced geo-stub; previously sourced to a weather site. Neither Google Maps nor Bing Maps show any place of this name near the coordinates in the article. Search finds that Lhagyai is a Tibetan given name, but no references to a place. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure, looks like its a township, not a village/community, it's listed at Gonjo County and the list of townships within articles. I think however it's actually a different translation for Hajia, which has an article on zh.wikipedia, where this one doesn't. The coordinates on the Chinese Wikipedia (w:zh:哈加乡) line up almost perfectly with the coordinates here. My guess is that Lha'gyai is the Tibetan name, and Hajia is the Chinese name. So probably I would say keep and move, (or redirect Hajia to this page, depending on if we want to keep it at the Chinese name or the Tibetan name, of which I have no opinion). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, I see a reference to a Hajia Township in Gongjue County [1] which looks like a different transliteration. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:39, 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 merge to Academy. Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Academy (educational institution)[edit]

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

This article covers the same topic as Academy and should be merged into that article. There is no reason to have two separate articles on the same topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the merge proposal. Just out of interest, why are we here? Aren't merge proposals carried out on talk pages? PhilKnight (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the above reasons. This probably does deserve a procedural close so the discussion can be held at Talk:Academy (educational institution). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:09, 8 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. Enigma^msg 18:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Alliman[edit]

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

There are a lot of references in this article, but few of them discuss the individual in any depth. The one that does is a blog for a clothing company. Google search does not result in anything that would meet the notability criteria at the moment. ... discospinster _talk 18:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of these sources is particularly good. A Google Search for "Justin Alliman" produces 575 results, and it seems virtually impossible to meet WP:GNG with only that many options.Gargleafg (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. I can't find anything significant in anything I find reliable. It may just be WP:TOOSOON for Alliman to have an article.Jacona (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources are promotional in nature. I can be persuaded he's notable but I need to see the sources first. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is far too dependent on primary and unreliable sources. Notability is not determined by what a person did, but by how much reliable source coverage in media they received for doing it — but the references here aren't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 02:57, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Puss[edit]

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

Despite sourcing attempts, this fails WP:NALBUM as well as WP:GNG. Sam Sailor 18:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that the band's article is also being discussed for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puss (Swedish music duo). If the band's article is deleted, then per usual policy this album would automatically become non-notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUM. Gargleafg (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 02:58, 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. Enigma^msg 18:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akinbode Adedeji[edit]

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

Per WP:NACADEMIC, Dr Adedji has a mdoest H-Index of 12, does not hold a named chair or professorship, is not a fellow of a learned society. He has received only the most fleeting coverage that doesn't meet the standards of GNG. Chetsford (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 02:59, 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. Enigma^msg 07:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Netanyahu speech (2018)[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS Chetsford (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: No indication of WP:GNG coverage. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Project Amad. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable, but needs to be expanded. Not every the Iranian top-secrets are revealed, as Israel showed documents seized from Iranian nuclear archive documenting Iranian plan (Project Amad) to develop nuclear weapons. MathKnight 19:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This just happened; it’s WP:TOOSOON. Weak merge to Benjamin Netanyahu and/or Project Amad, otherwise delete. WP:NOTNEWS. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - There also is Project Amad which if improved could become a good redirect target. This large cache of documents appears that it will be notable by itself with this speech being just a part of it. - Galatz ^Talk 20:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~Delete - ~~To Project Amad~~. These needless content forks, especially on recent events, get out of hand when there are legitimate target articles that should receive the information.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I honestly thought the redirect would be something like "Benjamin Netanyahu speech" or "2018 Benjamin Netanyahu speech", but if the article title is the only option with support, I would much rather delete it as an unlikely search term.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Project Amad. With selective merge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What are you going to redirect? Netanyahu gives dozens, perhaps hundreds of speeches every year. Why in the world should the phrase "Benjamin Netanyahu speech (2018)" redirect anywhere? And if it must redirect, it should redirect to his biography. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is obviously not a viable redirect (and it might not even be the most notable Netanyahu speech in 2018). The article in its present form fails WP:V (having no sources) and is a one-line blurb (failing some NOT for sure) - so there isn't much (to say the least) to merge. Could a viable article be developed on the "Iran Lied" speech/presentation? Maybe (seems to me it would pass notability (at least on RAPID), but that it would also be a viable merge to Project Amad, Netanyahu, or elsewhere). - the current article isn't there.Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete updating my iVote, noting that 4 days ago these were 2 competing articles on a single event. Suggest that tat the next editor visiting this page WP:SNOW CLOSE. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:29, 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. Enigma^msg 18:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ai Laika![edit]

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

This does not appear to be a notable band, I can find no coverage anywhere and I don't even see any notability being asserted in the article. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 02:59, 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. Enigma^msg 18:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Six[edit]

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

Can't find any evidence this band has received coverage or meets any other N criteria. I found one article in Christian Today, but that's about it. They haven't charted, and aside from appearing on Radio Disney, don't appear to have any truly notable appearances. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add, despite it's being kept 7 years ago, the content hinged largely on hyperlocal articles and one piece: this aritcle which all the additional articles provided in the last AFD rehashed. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a Before search and while they've been listed in some databases and similar, there's nothing very notable. I did see an article about on a woman who was on a mission to get a six-pack unrelated to the band, though. SportingFlyer talk 01:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Septrillion (talk) 03:00, 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. Enigma^msg 19:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Hayden[edit]

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

Highly promotional, poorly sourced article about a questionably notable musician/business person. I can find no evidence that he meets inclusion criteria and can find virtually no in-depth coverage outside of a few hyper local sources (which I'd struggle to say are even significant.) Same goes for the band. I found a lot of unrelated hits and pieces for people named Noah Hayden who are not this person (and same for Mission Six.) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although this article may be poorly sourced, I don't feel there is any promotion of the subject, only display of information. If you feel this article needs more work, I can research for better articles and more efficient information. -Elijah Youngblood

Please stop adding unsourced content. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Poorly sourced. Septrillion (talk) 03:07, 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. Enigma^msg 19:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Beaty[edit]

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

Non-notable electrical hobbyist blogger. All the refs are to his own writings and none of his claimed discoveries stand up to scrutiny. Traffic waves, for instance, were discovered and theoretically modelled as far back as 1955. He has never been published in peer reviewed journals as far as I can tell. SpinningSpark 16:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. Septrillion (talk) 03:07, 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 nomination withdrawn. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Incredible Mrs. Ritchie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Rotten Tomatoes lists the film but has no score for it, which I imagine means nobody has taken any note of it. TheLongTone (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has the nom looked for sources? FloridaArmy (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is why we have WP:BEFORE; when one sees a film starring Gena Rowlands and James Caan, at least a minimal amount of research ought to precede any consideration of deletion. This TV film won three Emmys: Outstanding Children/Youth/Family Special, Outstanding Writing in a Children/Youth/Family Special for the writer-director Paul Johansson [2], and an acting award for Rowlands; it also received nominations for Caan and for Johansson as director. [3] And Google also quickly produces substantive reviews in The New York Times, which liked it very much [4], and The San Francisco Chronicle, which did not [5]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This does need referencing improvement, but there are credible notability claims — it won three Emmy awards, and got nominated for two more, and I'm completely on board with Arxiloxos that "when one sees a film starring Gena Rowlands and James Caan, at least a minimal amount of research ought to precede any consideration of deletion". Rotten Tomatoes is always worth checking for some help in locating potential sources, but it is not an infallible judge of the existence or non-existence of proper sourceability for a film — and that's especially true when the subject is a television film rather than a theatrical one. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw nomination. I did do a search, but didn't see anything in the first few pages. Three Emmys are a fairly convincing claim to notability. And while I'm making ewxcuses, I do wish that editors would include such basics when creating an article. I came across an article at AfD that was there because, inter alia, the writer had omitted the fact that the artist in question had been the British exhibit at the Venice biennale and had had a retrospective at the Tate.TheLongTone (talk) 14:56, 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. MER-C 10:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LocName[edit]

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

Apparently defunct startup, no clear evidence of notability. Domain name has expired. The Anome (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NCORP, doesn't seem to have any sources proving the contrary. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a COI to me. Deb (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NCORP. Septrillion (talk) 03:08, 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. Enigma^msg 20:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Pharmacist (2010 film)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a film that has no strong claim of notability per WP:NFILM. There are statements here that would count as valid notability claims if the article could be reliably sourced properly, but nothing that's so "inherently" notable as to exempt it from having to have real reliable source coverage in media -- but six of the seven references here are primary sources such as IMDb and its own press kit, which cannot support notability at all, and the only one that actually represents media coverage is a mere 163-word blurb in a local newspaper in the filmmaker's own hometown media, and even that is more about two of the actors in the film than it is about the film per se. And on a ProQuest search, I can find nothing that constitutes more substantive coverage about the film, or even verifies the accuracy of its notability claims at all. This is simply not good enough to deem a film notable. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This film comes no where near meeting notability criteria. To be fair, this could be said of lots of the articles we have on films, which too often use unacknowledged quotes from promotional literature for the films, often perpetuating problematic use of language, such as refering to women in their 20s as "girls".John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is misleading, since the word "girl" or "girls" does not appear in this article at all, as far as I can tell. If other articles have that problem, that should be addressed by editing those articles, on their talk pages, or in deletion discussions for them, but this article does not need to be accused of "problematic" (sexist) language which it does not have. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep award winning independent film. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy, could you prove that using RS? Which award(s) did it win? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Edmonton Film Festival and Nevada Film Festival are reliable sources for who won awards and are already cited.FloridaArmy (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself nominally verifies the accuracy of the statement, it does not assist in making the statement an article-clinching notability claim if it's the only sourcing that can be provided. The extent to which an award win counts as a notability claim is strictly coterminous with the extent to which media outlets do or don't independently devote their editorial resources to reporting the granting of that award as news — an award does not count as a notability claim in its own right if it can be referenced only to the award's self-published web presence, because media coverage about the award win is non-existent. If an award's own self-published content about itself were all it took to make an award an article-clinching notability claim, we'd have to keep an article about every teenager who ever won a high school poetry contest or employee of the month at Arby's — so we don't confer notability because awards until the media pay attention to the granting of that award as a thing they assign their staff journalists to produce and publish content about. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep per FloridaArmy, above. -The Gnome (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changing opinion to Delete after going over the context one more time, following the input by K.e.coffman. -The Gnome (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Bearcat. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to prove notability, nothing cited for the award claim. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NFILM and significant RS coverage not found. Promo 'cruft. The article on the director has been recently deleted, so it's possible that this page is part of the same walled garden. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notability as evidenced by sources cited, including IMDb. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 12:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Septrillion (talk) 03:09, 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) 00:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Anidil[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO - no sources provided provide substantial coverage of the subject. Kirbanzo (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBIO. Septrillion (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet criteria for WP:NACTOR Chetsford (talk) 21:40, 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 keep. Enigma^msg 03:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnawala Central College[edit]

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

No sources, nothing to prove notability. Fails WP:GNG as a result. Kirbanzo (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to also be known as Pinnawala National School? What about this source? FloridaArmy (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. K12 government school. Sourced.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited secondary school. Fully sourced. No good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dan arndt's recent contribution's to the article. -- Dolotta (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources added satisfies WP:NSCHOOL. Dan arndt (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the addition of sources it satisfies the bare minimum requirements of WP:SCHOOL Chetsford (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fully sourced. Septrillion (talk) 03:05, 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. This should have been speedy deleted per G4. The content had no substantial differences from when it was deleted a few months earlier. Enigma^msg 02:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Ritendra[edit]

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

No notability. Existing sources are press releases and no reliable sources can be found. KingAndGod 14:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable Ghits, fails WP:GNG in that regard. Kirbanzo (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was previously deleted at AfD per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invisible Love. --Finngall ^talk 17:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Both Fiji Times and Fiji Sun are reliable sources of information from Fiji and furthermore artist recently got nominated at 2018 FPRA Music Awards, i will add more references after the event on 12 may. Krishfiji (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2018 (GMT+12).

I still doubt the reliability of these sources since the subject could have paid them to write about him. DJ Ritendra Gets More Followers (Fiji Sun) - the title itself seems meaningless and the article looks extremely promotional. I do not believe Fiji Times and Fiji Sun are reliable sources and given that there are no other sources to discuss the person significantly, deletion would be appropriate. Being nominated in the Fiji PRA awards still does not pass the criteria at WP:MBIO. Furthermore, the article is entirely promotional and the subject himself used to buy Facebook pages to get followers. KingAndGod 07:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it is just your assumption, most of fiji's related articles on wiki have fiji times and fiji sun as references. Krishfiji (talk) 3:42, 7 May 2018 (GMT+12).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 03:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Majid mossabebi[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. The article contain a lot of OR and cites some dubious unreliable sources. The page is promotional in nature and It look like some COI is involved. The same user also created the corresponding entry in Farsi WP today. Saqib (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

first sentance reads: Majid Moshehbi, born on March 2, 1357, started his career in 1999... I was about to speedy it as a hoax when you AFDed it. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC):[reply]

@IdreamofJeanie: I found some trivial coverage about the person in Farsi RS so the person is real but there is WP:N issue. It appears the user mentioned Iranian calendar year. --Saqib (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax information, fails WP:NBIO. Kirbanzo (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his main and native language is Persian, as i check on FAwiki, its equivalent on fa.wiki has been nominated for deletion, due to notability, too.Kamran Ali El-Batli (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NBIO. Septrillion (talk) 03:11, 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. Enigma^msg 19:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh Sultan[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 03:11, 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. Enigma^msg 02:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Barry (American bartender)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Contains unsubstantiated claims about having won best barman in Boston, I searched and found nothing. These are passing mentions interviews and a student news site that doesn't seem to have gone in for fact checking about certain claims. One says he started work at 9 years old another at 12 years old, there are unsubstantiated claims about his famous customers and as notability is not inherited this doesn't really help show notability. Tagged as needing more sources to prove notability but tag removed. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More about chest-thumping than notability. In addition to nom, no third-party coverage outside of niche or local sources, and Ghits turned up quite a few Paul Barrys in the state. Maybe in 1988 when Cocktail came out this guy would've been a big deal, but today, no. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 12:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Domdeparis- I want to work with you on a solution to keep this article up. If I can get copies from the Boston Globe and the Improper Bostonian referencing when they featured him as "Boston's Best Bartender" would that help. I'm sure I can find them by looking through the archives at Boston Public Library. Also you continue to reference to the Harvard Crimson as a college newspaper with pejorative terms like "rag." The Harvard Crimson is probably the most respected college newspaper in the world. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Harvard_Crimson_people to see their alumni.Effecthypothesis (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue is that he has not received any notable third-party coverage outside of the Boston area. As a result this is little more than a promotional piece you would find in your average local publication, rather than an encyclopedia article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence in article or in searches of WP:GNG compliance. The significant coverage is either not independent or not in a reliable source and there is no evidence of fitting any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:03, 8 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 Yolo (Ghanaian TV Series). (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Adatsi[edit]

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

WP:PROD tag removed by article creator without adding content, so here we are. A search turned up nothing better than the dailymedia.com.ng source in the article (which is more about the TV series Yolo than the actor). Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:GreenMeansGo, who had added the PROD tag. Narky Blert (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Looking. GMG ^talk 13:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's this and this. The Yen site looks like it ain't bad for what we're gonna get specifically for Ghanaian pop culture. But...it looks like that's pretty much it. I'm inclined to think it's probably too soon for this guy, and we should be redirecting to Yolo (Ghanaian TV Series) for the time being. I mean, this is about as far as it gets outside my circle of competence, but it's apparently in it's fourth season, which would indicate that it's been at least somewhat successful. But we're gonna need someone better than me to expand it into anything but a stub. GMG ^talk 13:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom. I agree: WP:TOOSOON for him, and merge and redirect to Yolo (Ghanaian TV Series). Narky Blert (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above discussion. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per The Mighty Glen Nosebagbear (talk) 15:52, 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. Sandstein 17:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Church Rock, Penwith[edit]

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

It surely must be incredibly rare to find an undocumentable spot in Britain, but searching for this produces a pretty small set of hits, most of them bogus ("Church Rock" isn't that uncommon a name). What I can't find is something definite and reliable that says that this is a place in Cornwall at all, much less claiming it to be a beach. Mangoe (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the original version, all the way back in 2005, labelled the picture as "Gwithian Beach". While the latter is a redlink, it's plainly a real place. This seems to be a made-up name, even assuming that the picture in question was taken at wherever Gwithian Beach is. Mangoe (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:56, 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. MER-C 10:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biz2Credit.com[edit]

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

Non-notable company that has not recevied sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:NCORP. SmartSE (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, not enouhg coverage. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 03:12, 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lashio Airport[edit]

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

~~Not meeting Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and the deadline is already past. ŚÆŊ MØ ŠĀ 12:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Airports with airline flights[6] (as well as it seems a military operations[7]) are typically notable per :WikiProject_Airports. Media coverage,[8][9][10] and in books[11][12][13][14][15]. One would assume there is more coverage in Burmese.Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Airports can be assumed much more important than roads, stations, or some other transportation-related-place articles. Currently 11 language-editions already shown its value. --Wildcursive (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable airport. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close: per Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Notability--Phyo WP (message) 17:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close by the deletion requester. ŚÆŊ MØ ŠĀ 00:02, 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 keep. Enigma^msg 07:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Liu[edit]

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

It's just look like copy-paste of newsletters from ITRI. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 08:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it's unambiguous copyright infringement, articles for deletion isn't the proper course of action. A speedy-delete tag can be applied to garner administrator attention. Independently of copyright violation, subject is indeed notable as IEEE fellow. ー「宜しく」 クロノカム 09:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @John123521:, Chronocam is right regarding CSD being the correct mechanism for copyright infringement. Could you link the source it's supposed to be plagarised from - I looked at a couple, and it was paraphrased correctly from them, and proving a negative is slow work. Article is notable, so copyvio would be only grounds for deletion Nosebagbear (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I doubt if we are questioning the notability of the subject here. So I just run some CV checks eg.g Earwig's CVC and it appears it is just minimal and ineligible for g12. It is actually more of close paraphrasing and that appears only in the lead section. I rewrote some of that parts. Also the block of text in career/awards sections can lead to false positive since such list may not necessarily be copyvio. The article only needs some more cleanup, but deletion is not that cleanup. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 18:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IEEE Fellow is enough by itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 8 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 Firdaus Kharas. Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate Moose Media[edit]

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

Article about a media production company, with some advertorial undertones and not properly sourced as clearing WP:CORP. Five of the eight footnotes here are primary sources that cannot support notability, such as the company's own self-published content about itself and press releases from directly affiliated people or organizations, while the other three are a blog entry, a Q&A interview in which the company founder is talking about himself rather than having his work written about in the third person by somebody else, and an article which doesn't actually mention this company at all but simply verifies the founder's existence in a tangential context. Which means that exactly none of the sources here actually constitute support for this company's notability. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As nom notes, there are RS. First of all, the interviews in the Atlantic and the New Yorker support notability per WP:INTERVIEW. It's a common misconception at AfD that interviews aren't RS for notability, but they are, just not for facts stated by the subject. Furthermore, there's this award nomination from the Guardian, all of which add up to a GNG pass. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:INTERVIEW is clear: If it comes straight from the horse's mouth, it's a primary source; Q&As, like the ones described here, are in fact primary sources since they do not offer substantial secondary commentary. The Guardian piece mentions the subject once, hardly substantial coverage. There are blogs and self-published sources but those, like the interviews and The Guardian blurb, do not help pass WP:GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typical misreading of notability guidelines. WP:INTERVIEW is clear. Interviews are RS for establishing notability: "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was misread at all, actually. I agree that the interviewer is independent. But if all he/she is offering is a brief intro and questions, like in these Q&As, he/she isn't offering any content, the interviewee is.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in INTERVIEW is "clear" that interviews are RS for establishing notability, especially if the interview is the only substantive source that can be provided at all. The problem with Q&A interviews is that if a person is talking about himself, then it's subject to the same problem as any other self-published source (i.e. people can and do make self-aggrandizing claims in interviews, or try to whitewash controversies by presenting a distorted version of the story instead of the truth...yes, Donald Trump, I'm looking at you), and if he's talking about something else then he fails to be the subject of the source at all. Interviews of this type can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after notability has already been covered off by better sources — for example, an interview in which a writer clearly refers to herself as lesbian can be used as sourcing to support adding the fact that she's out as lesbian to the article, and an interview in which a musician reveals that the reason he dances so oddly in his videos is because he only has three toes on each foot can be used to support adding the fact that he has ectrodactyly of the feet to his article — but an interview can't bring a GNG pass all by itself as an article's only non-primary source. Bearcat (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Firdaus Kharas#Media where a subhead could be created. Slources in additoin to those mentioned above and on the page include: Globe and Mail: Animated series brings Africa to other cultures Nixon, Geoff. 23 June 2007; Toronto Star: Cartoon condoms battle AIDS; Canadian tackles the pandemic with animated humour Twenty public service announcements to be aired worldwide, Stephens, Libby, 23 July 2004; and more similar over several years, but despite extensive coverage of the company's productins, I found no INDEPTH coverage of the for-profit media company founded and run by Kharas.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it would need further work to make it less promotional, which shouldn't be too hard to do. EMsmile (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am voting for it and also added some references to the article. The company is definitely notable, I also like that they are doing a lot of non-profit projects. If this discussion gets too many "Delete" votes, change my vote for setting Redirect to Firdaus Kharas and moving the content of the article there. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Firdaus Kharas: not independently notable; promo 'cruft. Does not meet WP:NCORP and fails WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The two keeps right above are bare assertions, unsupported by the sources. The New Yorker doesn't even mention chocolate moose media, the other interview is a one line mention and is just the founder talking about themselves and so on. The productions have some coverage but nothing substantial about Chocolate Moose media for a separate article. (incidently, the Firdaus Kharas article is also reasonable awful, with this the version before Vinlev the creator of this article too worked on it..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:57, 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. Randykitty (talk) 08:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bboyworld[edit]

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

Not a notable organization. There are no significant coverage of reliable sources. Does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP KingAndGod 09:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just seems to scrape WP:GNG - I've seen better referencing, but I think it's notable for the events it organises if nothing else. The article tone could be improved, but I don't quite think deletion is warrented here. Mdann52 (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources in the article don't discuss the subject significantly. KingAndGod 12:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: which sources demonstrate GNG is met? SmartSE (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources provided (as well as my own searches) do not indicate that WP:NWEB or WP:GNG is met. All I can find is very brief mentions in passing. In addition, the article is so promotional that WP:TNT would be in order, even if it were notable. SmartSE (talk) 12:46, 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 17:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stallone Santino[edit]

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

Orphan article that seems to fail WP:ENT. Potential self promotion. Actor and radio producer who has appeared in, and directed, some minor stage productions. Citations include self-created press releases on artslink, and personal website. Finalist in a dubious[16] beauty pageant, and creation of the article seems to have been linked to that. Park3r (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New links added to references. Article to be relisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl Redemeyer (talk • contribs) 12:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still a delete (stronger than before) In Big Data, which was referred to as his "most recent achievement" he is one of around 50 actors. The rest of his appearances seem to be community threater, small scale and student productions. He appeared in a bit part on a soap opera for 50 seconds[17], and this is listed in the article as a notable appearance. Park3r (talk) 14:16, 3 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. Enigma^msg 03:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ILM Society[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH and lacks even lack trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful, unfortunately. Saqib (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Believe that have enough references for it. Maybe need more references and mark it as need more references. Deletion should not be an option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.87.192.71 (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saqib User:Saqib, I hope you are doing good. You are doing great work. I appreciate for the community, Instead of removing content from ILM Society and nominating page for deletion, you should be finding and adding reliable sources as per Wikipedia Policy.

I hope that you will be removing the notice now. Looking forward to build a better community. Jalismirza (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is promotional and no third-party sources to establish notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 12:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do not think, its quite notable as of now, so its a delete. M A A Z T A L K 00:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third-party sources to establish notability. Seems like promotional article. Park3r (talk) 15:34, 3 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 10:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sumanth Suvarna[edit]

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

This autobiography has very little in the way of sources and just narrowly misses the criteria for speedy deletion. StewdioMACK (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither the article nor my own search finds sources that meet WP:GNG. I also could not find any evidence that WP:NCRIC is met. Papaursa (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Fails NCRIC by a mile or so.I'm not even delving into GNG:) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:03, 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 merge to South African Border War. Consensus is that this relatively limited amount of content is best covered in the contest of the article about the war. Sandstein 17:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign involvement in the South African Border War[edit]

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

Content fork from South African Border War. The problem here is the usage of the term 'foreign' in the article title, when the issue of sovereignty was hotly contested. According to the pro-Apartheid narrative Cuba, etc., were 'outsiders' but in Namibian discourse the main foreign actor was the South African occupation army. It problematic that we have an article title that invites to such open POV issues, when the main article is already quite elaborate on the topic. Soman (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on such flimsy rationale. The issue of foreign involvement in the South African Border War is not a matter of POV or contested narratives, but a well-documented fact. Both sides - PLAN insurgents as well as South Africa - relied heavily on foreign military personnel. Presenting Cuban forces who kept PLAN supplied and trained and even fought alongside the insurgents on multiple occasions as an example of foreign involvement in this conflict is not a pro-apartheid narrative and frankly, as a historian of apartheid, I'm appalled that it's being misconstrued as such here. The article in no way seeks to legitimise South Africa's occupation of Namibia but instead describe all external actors aside from the two primary belligerents who participated. See Foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War etc. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - this is a legitimate spinoff from South African Border War (which, at 230k, is not small) and we have several other similar articles on "Foreign involvement in war X". The question to me is whether the current article is ready for main space as opposed to being a draft - as it is rather short (3 paragraphs) - and I'd expect the spinoff to be larger than the content (of the sub-topic) in the main article - and I don't think that is the case here.Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If there is concern over the context of 'Foreign' might a way round this be to re-title as 'International involvement in the South African Border War'? Dunarc (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, it doesn't solve the problem, since SADF also classifies as 'international'. --Soman (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The name for the conflict is the South African Border War. Describing South Africa as a foreign actor in the South African Border War would be inaccurate. Regardless of whether you like it or not, for most of its history the war took the form of a domestic insurgency being waged within what was de facto South African territory. It's not comparable to writing an article entitled, "Foreign involvement in the First Indochina War" excluding France. --Katangais (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Well, the name of the conflict is also the Namibian War of Independence. For Namibians, South Africa was a foreign occupying power. Precisly due to these issues, this FORK of the main article is unsuitable. --Soman (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep Deletion is not cleanup and naming issues have yet to be discussed on the article tslk page. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 11:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to South African Border War. The fact that the South African Defence Force absorbed foreign mercenaries from other post-colonial conflicts is a relatively insignificant fact. The bulk of the article is about Angolan support from PLAN with backing from Cuba and USSR. I do not think we need this fork. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename External involvement in the South African Border War and define external to be non-African. Anah Mikhayhu Leonard (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

obvious merge back to South African Border War. Never mind the POV issues (and sorry, but the name is a problem: if you cannot suggest a different name for it, then the objections over the present name predominate): it's one not terribly long paragraph with the tell-tale characteristic of having as much citation material as it does text. Assuming that it isn't already in there, it's a reasonable size to be part of the main article, without the POV naming issues. Mangoe (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with South African Border War The title is itself obviously problematic, since the border war was contested in South West Africa and Angola, so South Africa was as "foreign" as the other belligerents. "Overseas" may be less troublesome, but it should just be merged into the main article. Park3r (talk) 05:18, 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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David K. Bernard[edit]

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

No evidence of independent notability. Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage of him and his work as a Pentecostal on Google News and Google Books. The Washington Post refers to him as "noted Pentecostalist theologian David K. Bernard". FloridaArmy (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get one hit on news, and I do not think it is him (as he is a music director of the The Massapequa Philharmonic), and I am not sure that a google books search is enough to establish notability. Perhaps you could provide one of the spruces I cannot find?Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I searched - "david bernard" pentecostal - and got good results on Google News and Google Books. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got 5 results on news, all about the church, with mentions of him as (for example) one of the speakers at an event.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being an academic I would not expect to see him in the news often. Mustardseed1 (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's a definite promotional tone to this article, and I would not be surprised if there is a COI. Deb (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, the summary was from his organization's page. I have revised and attempted to remove any promotional tone and have added a number of independent secondary and tertiary sources. I was hoping others would work on it over time. Please see the updated article.Mustardseed1 (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -He seems to fit the category as Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Notability guide (recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on religious matters/writing). Please see update of page that includes addition of independent secondary and tertiary sources. Mustardseed1 (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has a large body of works as an author notable for the pentecostal topic. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep Oneness Pentecostalism is out on the fringes of Protestantism but as the head of one of its major bodies (claiming a membership somewhat larger now than the Episcopalians, when it comes to numbers) and a major theological spokesman for the position, he's plainly notable. Mangoe (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep head of denomination as per WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES and WP:HEYMANN sourcing during AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:32, 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. Sandstein 17:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Gilani[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO - sources given do not provide substantial coverage of the subject. SmartSE (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read the document you linked but TBH I'm still a bit fuzzy on what counts as "substantial." But I did find a lot of national newspaper coverage for Gilani, which is why I picked him to write about. For example, three articles in the New York Times (one gives him four paragraphs [18]; the other two quote him [19] and [20]). Three articles in the Wall Street Journal talk about his study on incubators ([21] [22] [23]). And there are much smaller mentions in the Washington Post [24], International Business Times [25], Chicago Tribune [26], etc.

In the Houston area which is where his company is, he gets more detailed coverage, like this story about his public feud with an imam that got articles in the Houston Chronicle [27] and on the UPI wire service [28]. And here's a weird full-length article about how he found a cockroach in his food at restaurant and tweeted about it: [29]

His focus on "flyover states" got a whole article in Entrepreneur: [30]

He's also discussed or quoted regularly about tech stuff in what seem to be tech publications: [31] (9 paragraphs), [32], [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

Does any of this count? I spent a few hours writing this and I would love to see it stay if that's possible. Thank you and have a good day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Racca45 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Racca45: 'Substantial' means that the article is about the him rather than mentioning him in passing. #1 is about work-life balance. #2 and #3 are brief mentions in passing. I can't access #4&5 but from the titles they do not look as if they will discuss him in depth. #6 makes no mention of him. Mentions of him in local newspapers complaining about things does not make him notable. Entrepreneur.com is not a reliable source and again doesn't barely mention him. Quote in tech publications fall well short of what is required. SmartSE (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable investor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 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. Sandstein 17:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Greenwood[edit]

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

Does the appearance, for one season, as a judge on Nashville Star make this subject notable on his own? Subject has been a part of numerous radio stations across the United States, but he was not a featured personality (a la Ryan Seacrest, Bobby Bones, etc). His single season as a judge on Nashville Star doesn't seem to meet the standard for notability, in my opinion. It should also be noted that the bulk of the article appears to have been written by Billy Greenwood himself. If nothing else, we have a major COI issue here. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 19:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fixed the AfD. ansh 666 05:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. It's been quite some time since I've edited WP and I'm only barely getting used to the formatting, etc again. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 21:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable radio personality with no third-party coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I nominated the article for the purposes of establishing consensus, but I do not necessarily believe it should be deleted. As someone that spent 15+ years in the radio industry, I know who the subject is, by name, and know that he has been on many iHeartMedia radio stations over the last decade or more, but I still struggle with the question of, "Does that make him notable for the purposes of an encyclopedia?" Moreover, I know the subject personally, so I do not feel that I should cast a !vote in either direction. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 21:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable radio personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 3 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. Enigma^msg 19:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Takuma Kawai[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and I didn't see anything to show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 20:06, 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)} 17:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go Tanaka[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having read through all of WP:NHOCKEY it does seem that he fails to meet the criteria. Personally I'd say that the NHOCKEY rules are a tad too strict on the non-tier 1 players/tournaments, but I'll go with the relevant (hopefully) consensus. WP:GNG-wise, he does get some mention courtesy of being flag-bearer but it's not broad enough, not lasting, and is usually only a mention. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet NHOCKEY and cannot find coverage in appropriate sources. Husounde (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY and my search (and the article itself) fail to find anything that shows WP:GNG is met. Of course, there could be sources in Japanese, but that's out of my skill set. Papaursa (talk) 20:03, 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. Enigma^msg 19:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yuta Narisawa[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and my search doesn't find anything to show that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 20:05, 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. Enigma^msg 19:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Šijan[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - played for Zagreb, but never in the KHL. SportingFlyer talk 06:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 3 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 17:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BAILLOR JALLOH[edit]

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

A Google search for "Baillor Jalloh" turns up no coverage of this person, only his social media accounts and stories he wrote, as well as similarly named people such as a Mohamed Baillor Jalloh. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. MT Train^Talk 04:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A journalist/presenter on local community media. Examples of his work can be found but no evidence that the subject meets any of the WP:JOURNALIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find anything online to support a notability claim. Husounde (talk) 00:48, 3 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. Nomination clearly without merit. Enigma^msg 04:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald L. Trump[edit]

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

Claim to notability is based on sharing the same name as the president of the United States. If not for his name, he would have zero press coverage. Rusf10 (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interesting, but trivial. Not a valid claim to notability. I believe the relevant guideline is WP:BLP1E. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I usually don't vote in AFDs for articles I created myself, but this one is so absurdly off-base I felt compelled to do so. The nominator's claim is utterly false: much, if not most, of Dr. Trump's claim to notability is wholly independent of sharing a name with the president of the United States. His h-index, for instance, is very high (>50), as a Google Scholar search demonstrates, showing that he passes WP:PROF#C1 easily. Moreover, he passes WP:PROF#C6 because he was formerly the director of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute for over a decade. His membership in the American Association for the Advancement of Science [40] provides evidence that he satisfies yet another of WP:PROF's criteria (namely, C3). Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per h-index, directorship and AAAS membership. ー「宜しく」 クロノカム 08:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he's notable in his own right, and was so long before he had emphasize his middle name quite so forcefully. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the article makes clear, his notability is on account of his work in the field of oncology. The fact that he also happens to have the same name as the current president of the United States is just a coincidence. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly satisfied as already mentioned under WP:Prof#C1. Concerned by a lack of WP:BEFORE - suspect a look at the sources, saw the multiple name refs (which, stylistically, would be nice to see reduced) and assumed that was all the justification present. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom is wrong as the claim to notability is not based on sharing the same name, a quick google search reveals plenty of coverage independent of the name similarity, which does show a concern for lack of WP:BEFORE. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep A significant coverage about the subject exists and the article is well sourced. Shellwood (talk) 00:54, 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elie Y. Katz[edit]

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

The newest in a series of articles about non-notable mayors from a certain New Jersey town. He does not even remotely pass WP:POLITICIAN. Very little coverage outside of local press. Rusf10 (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:POLITICIAN and a before search doesn't bring up anything which might pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Teaneck is not large enough that its mayors would get an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but the sourcing here is nowhere near solid enough to get him over WP:GNG: it's about half primary sources and half the WP:ROUTINE reporting of election results in the local media that's simply expected to exist. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two-time mayor of Teaneck, first Jewish mayor of Teaneck, youngest mayor of Teaneck, first observant Jewish mayor of Teaneck. I know "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is not given weight, but the other recent mayors have articles, apparently because they are minorities. This is also of a minority with his own claim to fame. I note that there's an apparent personal vendetta at play to delete articles related to New Jersey. See here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey, and here. Enigma^msg 04:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all nice, but does he pass WP:GNG? SportingFlyer talk 04:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither being the youngest, nor the first Jewish, holder of an otherwise non-notable office constitutes an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a smalltown mayor from having to clear WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, he is Jewish, so he deserves a article. What should matter more is that Teaneck does not even directly elect their mayors, they are appointed from among the councilmembers. See also WP:AFDEQ--Rusf10 (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you didn't bother reading what I wrote. No, I didn't say that everyone Jewish deserves an article. Enigma^msg 16:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added an article from one of largest newspapers in Israel written about Teaneck and Katz. You can see his picture featured at the top of the article. Enigma^msg 19:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, I can't read Hebrew, but Google translate can! The article is not about Katz, its a profile of the town of Teaneck. There's a few quotes from Katz including ""When I ran for deputy mayor, Muhammad was the one who ran the campaign for me," and "I have no interest in being mayor," . They either misquoted him or he was lying (figuring that the Israeli audience would have no idea) because a person cannot "run for mayor" (or deputy mayor) in Teaneck, as this article explains, they are selected among the councilmembers [41].--Rusf10 (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's evident you can't read Hebrew, because you mischaracterized what he actually said. From your responses to my comments, I'm starting to wonder about your level of reading comprehension in English. Enigma^msg 00:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know it was a requirement for me to read Hebrew. You now made it obvious that you threw that source in there hoping no one would read it, Google translate gave me a coherent article, so I have to believe it was pretty close to what it probably said. And if the translation is wrong, why do you translate it for us then? And regarding, my "level of reading comprehension in English", how about you read WP:AFDEQ?--Rusf10 (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is now the third AfD I've seen where you've displayed a startling lack of reading comprehension. I posted an article from a major foreign newspaper. You then admitted to not being able to read, and proceeded to call the guy a liar even though you admittedly don't even know what he said. I don't know why you're so determined to have as many articles deleted as possible, but you're clearly dealing in bad faith. You don't even do a modicum of research before pushing for the deletion, as evinced by the Donald L. Trump AfD. I'm new to the scene here, but it's no wonder a number of editors are upset by this behavior. Enigma^msg 02:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you consider an apology - Rusf10 has had a couple misses on articles nominated for AfD recently (missed before searches), but Rusf10 nominates articles that deserve to be deleted more often than not. At least check the user contributions for a history of nominated articles before making a very serious bad faith claim. SportingFlyer talk 03:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source from an international newspaper and he decided that I "threw it in there hoping no one would read it." Meanwhile, he didn't read it and proceeded to personally attack the subject of this AfD. Clearly bad faith. Enigma^msg 18:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having translated the article myself, I would be more inclined to agree with you were the article you posted actually about the subject and not the municipality. SportingFlyer talk 01:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the article headline translates to "The unholy trinity of the town of Tink (sic)" and discusses a different mayor in the lede. SportingFlyer talk 01:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made a good faith effort to try and read a foreign language newspaper. But guess what? After more searching, look what I found! The Most Jewish City in New Jersey Has a Muslim Mayor and a Ban on Sunday Shopping So now, I know I'm right about the content of the article. Know what is extremely bad faith? Using a Hebrew verison of an article in an English encyclopedia when there is an English version of the same article is available. Its like you don't want anyone else to know what it says. Even the placement of the reference in the article is questionable. "Elie Y. Katz (born July 16, 1974) is an American businessman and the former Mayor of Teaneck, New Jersey" Where in the article does it give his birthdate or even tell us he was mayor? The article doesn't tell you he was a former mayor, obviously the staff at Haaretz is as bad at fact checking as the American press, so I could believe they misquoted him too. Since everyone can now read the article, we know the subject of the article is a town with a large Jewish population and a Muslim mayor. It has several quotes from Katz, but not indepth coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is now the third time you've directed a highly uncivil comment towards me. Please read WP:CIVILITY. You present a foreign language source that no one can read to support notability and when I put it into a translator to actually read the thing, you claim the translation is completely wrong. And yet you refuse to tell me what it really says. So who is acting in bad faith? And what I actually said is either he was misquoted or he was lying. It is actually more likely the former because the press misquotes people all the time. Regardless of what he actually said, the issue you are completely ignoring is that the subject of the article is Teaneck, not Elie Katz. WP:BASIC requires indepth coverage from multiple sources. Regardless of if I was reading a good translation of the article or not, you cannot tell me that it is in-depth coverage. Because you can't refute my assertion that the subject lacks notability, you have resorted to attacking me instead.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Teaneck has less than 50,000 people. we need truly significant coverage to show notability which is lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline Keep Needs more references, they are available and the existing ones need to be formatted better. --RAN (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey. Nominator (and others) have clearly not considered and should have appropriately suggested what the [[Wikipedia:BEFORE guidelines says: If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term.. This is clearly such a case, since the target article is well-written and well-referenced. Djflem (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey. This page doesn't stand on its own merit, but in the rules of AfD there are other options than just deleting everything. Let's redirect, not delete, as per AfD rules. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey-Definitely not notable enough for its own page, but can have a mention on the list of mayors page. Tinton5 (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having recently participated in the discussion here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_mayors_of_West_Lafayette,_Indiana I would recommend merging the list of mayors for Teaneck since it's a smaller city than West Lafayette, but of course it's a New Jersey article and therefore was nearly snow-kept less than four months ago. I'd prefer a deletion. SportingFlyer talk

"but of course it's a New Jersey article and therefore was nearly snow-kept"' what the devil does this mean?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's smaller doesn't mean anything though. Not sure what you're implying with the end of that sentence either. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, after the change in consensus, I'd still prefer deleting the article over a redirect, since I don't believe the list of mayors for a town the size of Teaneck would be notable as a standalone article under the WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 02:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a point of contention for another AfD I suppose. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Just putting it on the record. SportingFlyer talk 02:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer:, I agree with you, but we'd have to reopen another discussion, which I'm not going to do right now, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mayors_of_Teaneck,_New_Jersey_(2nd_nomination)--Rusf10 (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hats off to User:Enigmaman for creating the article on Katz, which was long overdue for a two-term mayor (including interim tenure). The article is well-sourced. In the worst case scenario, you could call for a redirect, rather than a deletion, rather than lose the existing content and editor contributions, but a full stand-alone bio is preferable.Scanlan (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's not well-sourced. 1 is about the town, 2 mentions the subject two or three times and is local in spite of being the NYT, 3 is a hyper-local self-published article, 4 is an alumni article dead link, 5 is MILL, 6 and 7 isn't about him, nor is 8, and 9 is an interview with him which doesn't cut it but is probably the best source, and 10-14 are all links he wrote himself or would fail WP:PROMO. It's local political cruft, and we'd delete it for states other than New Jersey. SportingFlyer talk 17:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Scanlan^Talk 04:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:SIGCOV. Article does need to be moved to Elie Katz per WP:COMMONNAME. gidonb (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Malik Shabazz: at the first two AfDs:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eleanor_Kieliszek

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mayors_of_Teaneck,_New_Jersey

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mayors_of_Teaneck,_New_Jersey_(2nd nomination). Husounde (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is all about press coverage. As the first Orthodox Jewish mayor and the youngest mayor of Teaneck, Katz received plenty of press coverage. Throughout New Jersey. Across the river in New York, the media capital of the world. Across the United States. Around the world. You may not like it, but in many cases, being the first [fill in the blank] makes an ordinary, even pedestrian, person notable. Notability doesn't require greatness, or even accomplishments; merely that the press pay attention. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care, I'm just really frustrated that your NY Times article isn't actually about the subject, nor is the Haaretz article, and the jta.org article does not seem to be all that independent of the subject. Being the first fill-in-the-blank of a town of 40,000 people isn't an automatic notability granter, and the press really isn't paying all that much attention. SportingFlyer talk 06:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. You do care, very much, or you wouldn't be WP:BLUDGEONing the process, making nearly 20% of the edits to this page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is uncalled for. SportingFlyer talk 00:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, sourcing is not in-depth coverage and he is not the first in the world, America, or even New Jersey. The first (fill in the blank) mayor of every town in America does not automatically qualify for an article.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And like Tweedledum and Tweedledee, here's the other WP:BLUDGEON who has made 20% of the edits to this page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments here are completely uncalled for, see WP:CIVILITY--Rusf10 (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went ahead and moved the article per above. See also under: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Keep she meets GNG, which is all that really matters, per the sources from Enigmaman. This is a borderline case but the rs are there. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 08:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep new sources brought: meets WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:43, 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 keep. Enigma^msg 02:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Vanjie Mateo[edit]

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

This person was in the public eye for just being a contestant on a reality tv show. They were the first contestant to be eliminated from the show. That is the only thing that they are known for. Therefore the article should be deleted as per WP:BLP1E. Lupine453 (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Absolutely not. This person's social media following extends further than the Drag Race fanbase, just the regular mainstream fanbase. Being the first eliminated is not the "only" thing they're known for. The article should not and will not be deleted.

Vanessa isn't known for doing anything other than being a contestant on Drag Race. That's her sole claim to "fame". And you have no way of determining what her social media following is comprised of. Besides, social media followings have no bearing on who qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Lupine453 (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, Instagram has over 200,000 followers plus verification, Twitter has 41,800 followers plus verification, and again, there are thousands of people who have barely to never seen the show know about the meme. And before you say "well some queens have higher followings but they don't have pages" the fact is they deserve pages too, and in fact there are some queens with smaller followings who have pages, so that's not an excuse, and it's hypocritical. Do not delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratherbe2000 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not based on social media followings. This is an encyclopedia, not a random listing of people. If you take away the fact that Vanessa was a contestant on that show, there is literally no other reason she would even be mentioned in the media. Lupine453 (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've not completed a notability assessment, but if this individual is not notable enough for a standalone article, the page should be redirected to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10), not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She became the most famous queen of the season in just one episode, she made a huge viral impact, people still talk about it, there are petitions to bring her to the next season ... She may not be the most notable contestant, but she is a notable one. People want to know who this "Miss Vanjee" is and Wikipedia has the power to give them this information. Alecsdaniel (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to editors that fame and number of Instagram followers are not bases for keeping an article - notability is. Fortunately for those, there is evidence that the subject qualifies under the WP:GNG for generating significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, including: Bustle, Billboard, Decider, Billboard (again), etc. This is certainly enough notability to Keep the article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:21, 8 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 17:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adaeudora[edit]

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

As discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects#The mystery genus Adaeudora, it doesn't seem like the name has actually been used as a genus name in any actual taxonomic works relating to tachninid flies. It could be a typo of Adejeania, but I'm not sure how plausible it is to typo "Adejeania" as "Adaeudora" normally (even the original author of the article wasn't sure where the name came from anyway), so I think "Adaeudora" should be deleted rather than made into a redirect. Also, as far as I've found, the only other sites on the internet that list this as a genus are themselves copying Wikipedia. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what an interesting AfD! The link shows a thorough before search, and my own before search brings up the same mirrors - no actual possible citations. Could it be a hoax? SportingFlyer talk 02:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would be safer, I think. There seems no clear indication that this is a typo, and we shouldn't perpetuate a mere hunch in that direction. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nice to see a bio AfD bought so correctly - properly knowing your stuff (or vastly more energetic checker than I) to spot this one. Delete for now per nom, unless someone finds refs indicating either that it does exist (unlikely) or that it is a typo, in which case move. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Good catch. Natureium (talk) 15:24, 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office India[edit]

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

No independent, non-trivial coverage in reliable source. Fails subject notability guidelines. It may be noted that WP:USEBYOTHERS is not a criterion of encyclopedic inclusion. Certain reliable-sources have sourced some data to this site. Nothing more and nothing less.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is another explicit overzealous deletion attempt. WP:NEXIST applies here. Though the nominator knows this website is popular but is trying to get this article deleted merely on the basis of lacking independent sources on the subject. Moreover, this website is used as the source for other articles here. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 15:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be highly prudential that you read the linked policies you are citing before dishing them out.Anybody, who manages to bring NEXIST on a 21st century Internet-site whilst admitting the veracity of the the deletion rationale as merely on the basis of lacking independent sources on the subject, is probably incompetent to partake in AfDs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winged Blades of Godric (talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It may be widely used, but we need in depth coverage about the subject, not just mentions or references to it. The point of the sources isn't to just say "it's important" but to write an encyclopedia article, and without significant coverage we cannot do so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aptly said:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this website is used by Wikipedia as a reliable source for box office takings in thousands of articles that link to it (What links here has an upper limit of 1000 I think) and having an article that explains what it is even if it is just a stub serves a purpose for the reader of a film article who wants to make up his own mind whether the box office takings total is from a reliable source. The page views average 232 a day so that seems to prove that is happening. Regarding rs coverage there is : Times of India (looking for more) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm....We need significant and non-trivial coverage.As to the rest of the arguments, it's a mixture of ILIKEIT and other similar stuff.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're not supposed to consider page views why are they provided in the link at the top of every AFD ? Atlantic306 (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasoning of Atlantic306. The Times of India reference is relatively brief but it explicitly vouches for the significance of this website within the Bollywood industry. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:24, 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 Deleted by me as meeting WP:CSD#G11.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orexian[edit]

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

non-notable startup business. Prod removed by creator[42] without comment. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like spam. Maybe G11 is appropriate? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:01, 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. Sandstein 17:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Dew[edit]

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

This is actually one of several articles on defeated candidates for the US house in Utah we should delete. I have not been keeping close track as I come across them, and each case might have mitigating circumstances. However here over half the sources are primary sources. The secondary coverage all comes from papers for which Dew's district is part of their circulation area, and so mention of Dew is totally expected from them. No standard higher than all major party candidates for US congress are notable would make Dew notable, and that standard has been rejected. He totally fails the notability guidelines for politicians and does not meet any other guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 02:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while there are plenty of mentions of Bill in my WP:BEFORE check that aren't results/polls, a trend of either mentions in more notable media or rampant bias in others, rather undermines any attempt to get in under WP:GNG. WP:POLITICAN doesn't give him an automatic in, but there's enough about him that it might not be impossible to find something. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsuccessful election candidates don't get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — he has to win the election, not just run in it, to be deemed notable per WP:NPOL. The only other way to qualify him for an article is to demonstrate and reliably source that he had preexisting notability for some other reason besides the candidacy itself, but this article doesn't even try to do that, and instead is staking his notability and his sourcing entirely onto the candidacy alone. I can't find any appreciable evidence of strong sourcing on a Google News search, either — so no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can source the article well enough to demonstrate that he actually has some other notability claim that this article is completely missing for some reason, but nothing in this version is notable enough to make him keepable as it stands. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 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. Sandstein 17:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of West and Central Asians in the United States[edit]

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

From the talk page:

“

Why are West and Central Asians grouped together into this article? None of the sources in the article makes mention of any such grouping.--Zoupan 03:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”

I'm not finding evidence of such a grouping in any RS. This is a disjointed WP:SYNTH explaining several unrelated groups without connection. The Turkish section should be merged into Anti-Turkism. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is an odd expression of stereotyping in its own right. This seems to really be "Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims in the US" . The problem is that there are non-Muslim, non-Arab West Asians, most obviously the Israelis, and by some accounts the Chaldeans. Central Asian=Muslim is probably more correct in that almost all Central Asians are Muslims, however a large number of Muslims are not Central Asian at all, but from Pakistan and India and Bangladesh which are all in South Asia. THen there are Indonesians and Malaysians. This is trying to build unity with no sourcing for the ideas presented.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SYNTH is in place, but there is also the issue raised by John Pack Lambert. This article seems to exist just to blur a number of other articles into a summary page, where the summary page doesn't really blend its contents very well. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:07, 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.