Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 April	5 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. There were a number of users arguing to keep, but most of them presented no policy-based arguments or sources. The one source that looked reasonable, [1] was discussed and found to be insufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amb Jogi[edit]

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

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

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

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

The subject does not appear to meet GNG.. he has got some trivial coverage from independent reliable sources such as here and here but nothing significant. The article contains OR. while language isn't relevant to our notability criteria at all but one should expect a bio on a relevant language edition of WP however in this casen no article in Urdu or even Sindhi WP.. I tried WP:BEFORE this nomination, but was unsuccessful, unfortunately. Saqib (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, There are sufficient references to be kept. Jogi 007 21:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please establish the notability by providing sufficient references here. --Saqib (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SLF page 11 Music & [2], Play it here & Listen .Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 22:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib:, Dear, SEe this one] ....Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 22:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to see WP:SOURCES which defines what count as a reliable source. --Saqib (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Amb Jogi is notable drum player in Sindh province. please keep this article. Arif80s (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Arif80s: It would be better if you establish the notability by providing sufficient references here. --Saqib (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Saqib please [[3]] [[4]] & [[5]]--Arif80s (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've provided links to his performances, not coverage which discusses him. Trivial mention in Dawn. --Saqib (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Saqib you are not a judge, mind it. Amb Jogi is a folk performer of Sindh. If you don't know about Amb Jogi, it is question mark of your ability to judge these type of personalities. Arif80s (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Arif80s: You know you're making personal remarks. --Saqib (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Wikipedia is free encyclopedia, please don't take it personally. My above remarks is very reasonable. Arif80s (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think your remarks were justified. Our policy says comment on content, not on the contributor. --Saqib (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy says You are claiming that Wikipedia is your property🤔. Please clarify your position? Arif80s (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're needlessly nitpicking on my use of words is pretty lame mate. Don't you have anything relevant to the topic to talk about?--Saqib (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you Mr. @Saqib:? please clear your position in the light of your above comments. Arif80s (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should assume good faith @Arif80s:.. I said "our policy say"s not "my policy says" and the former one is not prohibited either. See this. --Saqib (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Article should be kept because musician has performed a lot, and he is famous in Sindh. Unfortunately, He has not been covered sufficiently by media.--مھتاب احمد (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Existence ≠ Notability.. with a few exceptions., if someone has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, it is presumed to be not suitable for a stand-alone article on WP. --Saqib (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is very active in music scene. He is known and notable in sindh music. He is a rare talent, so keep this article. --Spasage (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes criteria 12 of WP:NMUSIC having been the subject of national television coverage, and has coverage in reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: This is not a national TV channel coverage. And the coverage in RS is passing mentions, nothing in-depth. --Saqib (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This reliable source here confirms he has appeared on Pakistan Television Corporation, the youtube video is of something different Atlantic306 (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: I think you misinterpreted. Dawn price says "the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation arranged a benefit concert in Ms Shaikh’s honour at the Hyderabad station of the PBC" so it does not passes criteria 12 of WP:NMUSIC.. criteria 12 says "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." whereas in this case the subject merely performed and was not a featured subject. Further, the programme was on-aired on Hyderabad station of PBC, not nationwide. --Saqib (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, 306, you are back with your regular nonsense.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPA, passing a SNG criterion is not nonsense as the article refers to a different television production than the concert. Your comments at AFD are becoming abusive so please consider that bad attitude editors ruin AFD for many good faith contributorsAtlantic306 (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Please provide the TV-related passage here. --Saqib (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The performance section mentions programmes made in Dubai, will look for sources to confirm it later, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: I thought you was referring to Dawn ref which you provided above. Well if we speak of content in the article, I would say obviously made up, and no verification. On a related note, K.T.N TV is not a national TV channel and performing somewhere in a concert in Dubai is not significant. --Saqib (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Article should be kept because he is Notable Drum Player in Sindh. Saqib is lecturing others to assume good faith while he feels immunity from it for himself. Sugar Coating and Canvassing in Disguise here [6].--31.173.188.190 (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)— 31.173.188.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If I have my way, I would make sure that all IPs, !voting on AfDs, shall be check-user-ed by default. I wonder, what the outcome will be, in that case!~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be also kind enough to note that his notification did not violate the canvassing guidelines and am also pretty sure that I and Saqib, had not crossed our paths, significantly, ever before.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- Zero non-significant coverage in reliable sources.I'm afraid that none of the the participants over here, which may include socks/meats, have no tangential idea about what constitutes a reliable source and what arguments are completely discountable at AfDs.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)As, described above, in my reply to the IP, I was alerted of this AfD, at my talk-page, which consisted of a notification, IMO, sufficiently neutral, to not fell afoul of our canvassing guidelines and neither have I and Saqib, crossed our paths, significantly, ever before.[reply]
Comment, Please allow this discussion some more time, I am working to find more reliable sources and trying to resolve the concerns raised regarding reliable sources and notability...Thanks...Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 09:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closing admin Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#Possible_issues_at_AfD . --Saqib (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not enough to meet GNG; the one reference is fairly trivial and refers to him as "Ustad Amb Jogi". The only additional content I find is a few Youtube videos by the subject. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient sourcing to establish notability, and I can't find anything better. This may be a search bubble issue (I'm not going to find things that require Hindi search terms) but unless some of the defenders above can provide such sources, they have to be treated as nonexistent. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per lack of references to establish any kind of notability. London Hall (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails our guidelines for musicians, despite the "rare talent" and other things claimed by his ~~sock army~~ rather suspiciously enthusiastic group of supporters. We're a bit wary here of claims that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, as many articles kept on those grounds are just deleted a few months later when the promised sources (shockingly!) never show up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 12 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 withdrawn. Thank you for the massive improvements to the article! ansh 666 21:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan Maru[edit]

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

Non-notable WWII-era Japanese merchant ship. Originally tagged A1 by Spasage but doesn't qualify for that. ansh 666 23:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 23:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 23:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 23:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:NVEHICLES. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG and WP:NVEHICLES, and WP:MILUNIT as a large ship (6,534 GRT) treated individually in secondary sources, and as an auxiliary ship of a navy. Kges1901 (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Striking my original vote. I did not know about MILUNIT, which the subject meets. In light of the expansion by User:Kges1901, it seems to pass NVEHICLES too. Not sure how it passes GNG, however, as the references to it are passing mentions. Is combinedfleet.com a reliable source? Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Combined Fleet is the most authoritative website on the Imperial Japanese Navy and has been cited in books considered RS google books, and is managed by Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully, who co-wrote a respected history of the Battle of Midway. Kges1901 (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While it's clear that he does not meet WP:NFOOTY, that is irrelevant if he can meet the WP:GNG. There is no clear consensus on this point. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Masterson[edit]

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

Nothing has changed since the first AfD notability-wise. Still fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG and all that. Tagged G4 by JMHamo, but it doesn't qualify. ansh 666 22:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with draftification, if it comes to that. ansh 666 00:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - still fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Fail WP:NFOOTBALL and this deletion will be third deletion. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to salt if it's deleted, this is only the second deletion and it's only because of his contested sudden rise in notability. SportingFlyer talk 04:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being an unused sub, even in the Champions League, does not confer notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now More than 1500 views in 3 days, people want to find out who the guy is. It’s weird a player can be on the bench for a quarter final of the champions league and not have a Wikipedia page, people expect to find one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hildreth gazzard (talk • contribs) 17:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Currently fails WP:NFOOTBALL but do a before search, he clearly passes WP:GNG (and will probably pass WP:NFOOTBALL within days.) SportingFlyer talk 07:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete currently fails NFooty, and recreate if he does make his fully pro debut. Govvy (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to show he clearly passes WP:GNG even though WP:NFOOTBALL isn't met (for the next couple weeks at least): [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Deleting this article would be non-sensical. At the very least it should be draftified. SportingFlyer talk 05:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a professional footballer who has not played in a professional football match. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he will likely go on to make his senior debut soon but at present he simply doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article appears to meet GNG, based on the majority of the links above provided by SportingFlyer, and the Independent reference at the main article. Eldumpo (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. To my mind the sources presented in the article and here do not satisfy GNG as they are in the main local sources, blog posts, or hype articles speculating how good this player might be, consensus about these are they are not suitable for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as per suggestion by SportingFlyer. Whilst the page views now are high, it is because of the fact he was listed on the subs bench so there is a curiosity factor that'll ease if nothing else noteworthy happens any time soon. However, an upcoming player who gets to the bench may well become "someone", so I agree that taking the article out of mainspace and seeing if it can be developed in draft is a good move for now. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:26, 11 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Journalism International[edit]

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

The article's creator and biggest contributor has a conflict of interest bias against the article and is abusing multiple accounts. The main user (now blocked) can be found here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kiernanmc. They seem to edit articles relating to Youth Journalism International's founder, Steve Collins (journalist) (also being nominated for deletion), and other related pages. It appears that the following users are evading the block put in place for the main user:

134.181.107.236
2604:6000:9802:5100:857:c3c2:d088:4cd0 (when 134.181.107.236 was reverted this one popped up and began editing Youth Journalism International)

The original deletion proposal had the following:

According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy: Violates WP:DEL-CONTENT (not enough citations); goes against WP:ATD-M (no suitable merge location); fails WP:SIGCOV (all 5 tenants violated); fails WP:SUSTAINED (sustained coverage not proved); supports WP:SPIP (look at citations); supports WP:NEWSEVENT (used news events to create faulty notability); I could go on... but perhaps most importantly WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV on its majority of edits. CamdenEric (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Neither the present nomination nor the previous nomination seem to include any actual valid reasons for deletion, which is because there aren't any. This organization clearly satisfies WP:GNG. There's the Hartford Courant article already cited. Also the Daily Iowan and profile at the Cato Institute by Nat Hentoff. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Those two sources contain merely mere mentions, they make no commentary on the organisation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know what,Mr. Smokey, that's just not true. For instance, here's just one excerpt from the Hentoff source: Which is why I was delighted to discover the global nonprofit Youth Journalism International (YJI), headquartered in West Hartford, Connecticut. It mentors young people in their teens and 20s from around the world in the art and ethics of journalism. The husband and wife team of Steve Collins and Jackie Majerus started YJI in 1994 for students interested in pursuing a career in journalism. Slowly, this small, informal group grew to include students from other states and, eventually, started to receive inquiries from students in foreign countries. At the time, Steve and Jackie were both working full-time as reporters for the Bristol (Ct.) Press. That sure looks like more than a "mere mention" as you would disingenuously have it. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A worthy organisation, sure, but nobody has really paid focused attention to it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable sources - fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Absolutely satisfies WP:GNG. CamdenEric is a single-purpose user who only exists to keep actor Stephen Collins at a high profile. Now that the founder of this org, Steve Collins, has been removed from Wikipedia, as per his nom, this page likely doesn't concern him anymore. 73.5.132.206 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a strange duck. From what I can see, an SPA supporting actor Stephen Collins and using his 7th Heaven character's name is battling an SPA that keeps popping up with different IP addresses who is focused on promoting journalist Stephen Collins. Nonetheless, I'm voting based on the merits of the article, not any assumed biases in the voting and nomination process. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Assumed biases towards the page are irrelevant for this discussion. From my perspective, the Organization hasn't received enough coverage to be relevant for Wikipedia. However, I will change my mind, if someone can provide some decent sources. Wikitigresito (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete’’’ I created an account with the intent of trying to fix the entry but I can’t find any sources not already listed. This is not much of en entry and it needs signifant work to even make it relevant. Edmaasman (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Changed. I can't save this. This article is little more than a stub. Give it some time for editing in the draft namespace but it's a jumble of bad links The Columbian Journalism Librarian (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't yet know how to edit the entry itself, but want to point out that a number of Youth Journalism International stories have been republished on the PBS website here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/search-results/?q=Youth%20Journalism%20International&cx=009246036402813309713%3Av5jnfro4j00#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Youth%20Journalism%20International&gsc.page=1 and U.S. public radio had a YJI reporter on the air during the Egyptian revolution several times. The only link I could find that still works is here: https://beta.prx.org/stories/58675. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneBoringGuy (talk • contribs) 23:59, 11 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly de Nance[edit]

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

While, according to the CFSC article, she and her partner did win two bronze medals back in the 1950s, that does not qualify as notability as per WP:SKATER. Nothing turned up in searches regarding her either, so she doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:V. Kb.au (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no refs in the article, i googled for her but could only find her obituary and a list of results. Szzuk (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the level of competion she was in does not lead to automatic notability. We lack enough sources to otherwise show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking references and notability. Kraose (talk) 07:01, 10 April 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. Sandstein 11:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Micropoint[edit]

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

No claim to notability and no reliable sources can be found. KingAndGod 17:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couldn't find any reliable secondary sources. Waterco4 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the more comprehensive French Wikipedia article here has references that demonstrate notability and that article can be used to improve the English version Atlantic306 (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources used in the French Wikipedia article pass the GNG. KingAndGod 19:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While not an area I am familiar with, given this is a poorly attended AFD and I read French, I took a look at the sourcing in the French wikipedia article. Two of the sources wouldn't load for me, but otherwise *collectively* they didn't pass our en.wp standards for an article. I wouldn't go as far as KingAndGod and say *none* of the sources are relevant to GNG, but taken collectively we do need multiple reliable independent sources that are more than passing mentions and I am not seeing that. Martinp (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Self-written spam for non-notable, repeated attempts, likely SP Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chandan Saxena[edit]

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

Appears to be a not notable musician. The two sources already in the article are the only things I could find. One is a blog and the other looks like it's just a photo gallery. The Living Limitless things appears to be... a thing, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Chandan Saxena. Possible he was a set musician or something. GMG ^talk 19:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Alternate version of this article was recently speedy deleted per WP:A7 and salted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandan saxena. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt I've initiated a SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yashi Yadav. --Saqib (talk) 08:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Josip Vujčić. MBisanz ^talk 13:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where the Penguins Fly[edit]

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

A non-notable film. I could find only one article online which discusses the film in any detail ([12](in Croatian)), published while the film was still in production. I could not find any reviews (or any info about its reception), nor evidence the film had a theatrical release. It does not meet WP:NFOE. GregorB (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 20:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail GNG and WP:NFILM. There might be coverage in Croatian but I do not speak that language – if nominator is Croatian and cannot find coverage, there probably is not. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to directors article FloridaArmy (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to director/writer's article. --Doncram (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable film. I've just prodded the director's article – this local web portal interview is the best reference about him that I can find, so don't bother merging. No such user (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's not a bad call either - I nominated the film just because its case should be clearer. GregorB (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that PROD as highly inappropriate. It is reasonable target for merger from here. Deleting it while this AFD under discussion undermines reasonable consideration. Inappropriate like it is to delete substantial content from any article at AFD, or just before nominating for AFD. --Doncram (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Removing the prod certainly was your prerogative, but it's just dragging the procedure for no substantial reason. Prod expires after seven days, thus it would be deleted after this AfD is closed. I was under impression that merge votes here were based more on the fact that the director's article exists, than on merits of notability and sourcing: the two of us, native speakers found nothing. We're dealing with a common WP:WALLEDGARDEN COI situation, as can be easily evidenced by username of Jvujcic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No such user (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd volunteer to do the merge into Josip Vujčić should that be the outcome of this discussion, but frankly I don't see any mergeable content. If that is indeed the case, then Doncram's point is moot. GregorB (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not moot. Whether it is a redirect to that article, with bare mention of this film, or a larger merge, doesn't matter. It still is unhelpful to delete the merger/redirect target proposed, when AFD about this film article is going on. About PROD expiring after 7 days, I am not sure about that (about whether they are sometimes ended sooner i dunno), but it conceivably could end before this AFD is done. AFDs often run for more than a week.

It certainly seems argumentative to PROD the director/writer article, which I would think is almost certainly more central, more notable than just one of their works, while full-blown AFD is going on about the work. --Doncram (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point - indeed, it is better not to interfere with the process in this way, even if the end result should turn out to be the same. GregorB (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sathiya[edit]

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

Non-notable film created by a sock with no coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM. FITINDIA 19:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of meeting WP:NFILM or general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eena Meena Deeka (TV series)[edit]

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

Indian television shows are seldom notable, largely due to lack of reliable media coverage. This is unfortunately one of them, further worsened by the fact that there are no sources in the article. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:36, 3 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) 18:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 18:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little if any coverage in RS. Fails GNG and WP:NTV. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:SIGCOV. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FideliTrade Incorporated[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are mainly listings or other items that do not meet WP:RS. reddogsix (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Additional references have been added.Ty1695 (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The added references are neither in-depth, non-trivial support. They are brief single line listings. reddogsix (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete a respectable business, but none of the sources are really independent. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I couldn't check all sources (paywalls etc), I concur with both remarks by reddogsix. There's unfortunately a lot of people who believe an avalanche of in-passing mentions confer notability and provide enough to write an article, and indeed sometimes the impression such sourcing gives of apparent depth makes such articles survive. However, we really don't have enough to write a solid, meaty, independent article here. Given the issues of many non-notable businesses trying to promotionally get articles in wikipedia (note, I am not saying that was the situation here), we do need to be reasonably strict and consistent on this, at least where someone starts the discussion. Martinp (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KnightsBridge Foreign Exchange[edit]

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

Previously PRODed by User:Robert McClenon. I concur with their rationale: "Not a notable corporation; see corporate notability. Promotional in tone." SmartSE (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is limited to passing mentions. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not significantly improved after it was PROD'd and dePROD'd. Has author been asked about conflict of interest? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - not our typical retail forex speculative broker article, but a fairly normal business with fairly routine press coverage. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Herzig[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Cannot find any substantial coverage of him in reliable sources as required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Many notable academic journals and conferences have been mentioned, as well as established academic universities and philanthropic endeavors. Please reply on my talk page, as I have completely redone this page and believe it provides more than substantial evidence to Dr. Herzig's notability.BlakeRM (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not received SIGCOV in RS. I also do not think the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC, though they hold the post of Clinician Teacher at the Department of Ophthalmology & Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, and have authored a number of papers in ophthalmology journals. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopelessly promotional. For example I checked out the source provided for the statement, "Herzig has been recognized as a leader in the use of laser technologies in refractive surgery", and found that all that it said was that he had been "honoured" by a hospital staff association for unstated reasons along with dozens of other people. The rest of the article is written in the same vein. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doctors are typically not notable unless they are recognized as particularly significant or innovative in their specialty (i.e. WP:NACADEMIC); don't see that here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 13:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant Doom Trip[edit]

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

There don't appear to be multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage or indeed anything else to satisfy WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG Hzh (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - A tribute to a notable band featuring other notable bands, but the album itself has attracted little notice. It has a fairly substantial review at AllMusic and a mention at Consequence of Sound [13]. Those might be enough for WP:NALBUM #1 but I consider that to be a bit of a stretch. Otherwise the album's only notice has been in a few fan blogs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Consequence of Sound article only gives a passing mention to the album, so it does not count towards establishing notability. I haven't been able to find multiple sources beyond those that merely give trivial mentions, simple listing, or blogs. Hzh (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metafest[edit]

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

Non-notable festival, no coverage to be found. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' No sources, no coverage, no obvious notability criteria met ... Wikitigresito (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no refs. Szzuk (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Douglas Engelbart. Up to editors to determine what if anything to merge. Sandstein 16:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Numbers[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No independent sources cired. Google search for "Purple Numbers + HTML" gives scarce results Staszek Lem (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be a fairly minor web editing tool which soon became obsolete, the refs are unreliable, I considered redirect to the inventor who is notable Douglas Engelbart, but I think this isn't even a plausible search term. Szzuk (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, there's a ref here in the afd warranting the merge. Szzuk (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything to support this article to be here. PK YellowWisdom (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Douglas Engelbart. I don't see much in the way of sources, but it's mentioned at [14], so a redirect to the inventor and a brief mention of it in that article would make sense per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did find a reasonable source^[1] but still just worth a merge/redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call a brief mention among hundreds of wikis "a reasonable source". 14A (128)

The idea is fringe and will hardly ever be used. Just imagine the readability of this page littered with "purple numbers" at the end of every paragraph (i.e., basically each sentence) like this: 14B (129)

I don't think this looks nice, see here for a real example. 14C (130)

Staszek Lem (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by reasonable source, I didn't mean that's enough to justify a stand-alone article. But, as I said, redirects are WP:CHEAP. It doesn't take much to justify a redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; a redirect could have been a good option. But what about WP:UNDUE to merge into his bio? I do not see much sources about Engelbart which speak about purple numbers. If there aint then we shouldnt. What's more, in this article I do not see reliable third-party refs which discuss he subject in any detail, only a bunch of enthusiasts. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers Matias[edit]

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

Article about three young brothers who publish a lot of on Wattpad and Youtube but do not appear to have much real notability. Article almost entirely written by one editor, who has edited almost nothing else and may have COI. PamD 18:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete huge mostly unreferenced puffery; no independent evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Massive puffery. I stopped counting after counting about 30 Youtube links provided as "references". 104.163.158.37 (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so much extra info and not notible Waddie96 (talk) 06:19, 5 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. If anyone really does want to merge the content here let me know. Hut 8.5 21:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John James (American politician)[edit]

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

Simply running for office is not a notable event in itself. This individual is not particularly notable and the sources used include his own website. Cssiitcic (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won yet — if you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. As usual, no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat — but nothing stated or sourced here has demonstrated that he's already eligible to have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If James wins the Republican nomination in the August Primary, that might lead to him becoming notable in the build-up to the general election, in some cases candidate for senate do become notable for such. However at present he is not notable, and with Michigan also having a gubanatorial race this year and the senate race involving an incumbent, it is open to question if there will be enough coverage that James could become notable for anything short of winning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable, does not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer talk 21:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect to article on election. A senate race is notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gurinder Singh Mann[edit]

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

This article is a WP:COATRACK for sexual assault allegations that have never achieved more than passing coverage. More substantial discussion hasn't happened and almost certainly won't happen because the subject fails WP:PROF. The "Global Institute for Sikh Studies" appears to be a one-man website. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Fails WP:PROF. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the humanities, we judge by books. Two books published by Oxford University Press is sufficient for anyones's notability. A major contributor to standard subject encyclopedia adds to it. Full professor at a major US research university confirms it. Notability depends on the publications, not the website. How to deal with the problematic material is another matter. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Fails WP:PROF.VickSPaul1 (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Global Institute of Sikh Studies is a one man show. Other Professors also have books published by Oxford University Press but are not given wikipedia pages and their pages are deleted. §[reply]

find me a person with two books published by OUP that has been deleted for reason of not meeting WP:PROF. Possibly some may have been deleted, but for promotionalism or copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any coverage in reliable independent sources. If his books are significant there must be reviews. Happy to reconaider if some sources are put forward. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know where this "I'm not seeing any coverage" stuff is coming from; clearly, those editors are not looking in the right places. I just added nine published book reviews of four of his books as sources to the article [updated later: 12 reviews of 6 books]. That's enough for a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR. His (former) named chair also gives him a clear pass of WP:PROF#C5. As with some other recent cases, the sexual harassment case is not notable in itself, but needs to be mentioned as a significant aspect of the life of a subject who is notable for other reasons. But the subject should be distinguished from a different person also named Gurinder Singh Mann, director of the Sikh Museum Project in England [15] and author of two more books (Sri Dasam Granth: Questions and Answers, and The Granth of Guru Gobind Singh: Essays, Lectures and Translations). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C5 for having held a named chair, and passes WP:AUTHOR as well. XOR'easter (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Griffin Gallery[edit]

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

This probably did not meet the requirements of WP:NCORP even before they were revised, and surely does not now that they have been. Several of the artists who have shown there are notable, and several have received coverage of their shows; but selling a notable product does not necessarily make the seller notable (a car salesman does not become notable because he sells well-known brands of car). I have not found any of the substantial in-depth coverage of the gallery itself that would allow us either to keep this or to write an article on the topic. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the notability of the artists is not inherited by their dealer/gallerist.104.163.158.37 (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, i opened all of the refs and they only mention the gallery in passing in relation to some exhibitions, some of the refs weren't at all related. Copy vios deleted, tagged with coi. Szzuk (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed the sources are only in passing. Theredproject (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Champion Shave[edit]

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

Non-notable razor company. Article fails WP:NCORP as the only coverage of the company that exisits is trival, concerned only with Usain Bolt's finances, or are press releases (lots of PR Newswire seen when conducting a before check). Note that the company does not inherit notability (WP:NOTINHERITED) simply due to the fact that it has a famous founder or famous spokespeople. Nothing indicates why the company is unique among razor companies, nor why it is significant enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nominator. We could have nominated this for speedy deletion as well. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:Corp; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 14:38, 6 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Roth Deutsch[edit]

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

I can't seem to find any coverage in independent, reliable media that would convince me that Deutsch is a notable artist. As far as I can tell, she has had one solo-exhibition at the ARC gallery, which has an interesting history, but isn't sufficient to support a claim per WP:NARTIST, which requires either a significant exhibition, significant critical attention. Representation in the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums is also not applicable. A group exhibit in the Noyes Art Gallery is not a significant exhibition either. Vexations (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here is a CV [16] --Theredproject (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources do not establish notability.104.163.158.37 (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A rename/redirect/merge has been proposed late in this discussion, with no subsequent discussion. This "Keep" should not be considered a factor against taking one of those actions if a consensus can be reached to do so on the article talk page or other discussion venue. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Weasel[edit]

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

Subject previously deleted at AfD, still appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. I am unable to find significant in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. The one incident that did garner some very limited coverage appears to have been considered and discarded in the previous AfD. He has made it onto some charts since then so I am not calling for a G4 speedy here. But I am not seeing a real claim to notability. Am I missing something? Ad Orientem (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not just any chart, he's number one on the official Billboard comedy chart which is backed by Nielsen SoundScan, which factors in all retail stores, proving he has the top-selling comedy album in the world at the moment. This certainly proves notability. It is also sourced and referenced that he also had the top viewed and shared satire news stories of 2016.--YeahImadethis (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know the only area where charts are a factor in ringing the WP:N bell is for music. We require significant and in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. I'm not seeing it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENTERTAINER covers comedians. 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. A comedy album charting that well counts as one significant role. What else has he done? Dream Focus 21:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It also says "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." he has over half a million followers on his "verified" twitter account, though it is not sourced on this page. Another consideration is "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." and being the top selling current comedian in the world should count as prolific and significant, and his news satire stories being shared/viewed that much and the coverage on it should be unique. Apologies for the length. --YeahImadethis (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The number of followers that a person has on social media is irrelevant to notability or lack thereof. To count as fulfilling the "large fan base or significant cult following" criterion, a claim has to be reliably sourceable to evidence of real-world impact (e.g. a fan club organizing a full-on "fans of Dave Weasel" convention attended by hundreds or thousands of people from all over the world) — how many people clicked "like" on a piece of user-generated content has nothing to do with it. And every single person who exists at all could always claim that their contributions in their field were "unique", by simple virtue of the fact that their contributions were theirs instead of somebody else's, so simply listing the things a person did does not satisfy that criterion either — that criterion is passed by reliable source coverage analyzing the ways in which the person's contributions were innovative and influential on people who came after them, not by simply listing his workography and deeming it inherently "unique" just because it's his. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is fair, you are correct. Comedians should be held to their own standard seperate from actors and other public figures as they are more like musicians in that they rely on ticket, album, stream sales for their craft. Just a thought. --YeahImadethis (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but flag for improvement. Topping the comedy albums chart on Billboard certainly is a credible notability claim for a comedian — strafing the bottom edges of the chart for a week or two probably wouldn't be, but reaching #1 certainly demonstrates a significant following — but the article does still need to be referenced better than it is right now, to more evidence of reliable source coverage about him, supporting more content than just stating that "he exists, the end", before it can be considered a good article. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - #1 Billboard Comedy album (and verified) is a very strong indicator of notability. Readers will want encyclopedic information about this topic. Currently we don't do much of that, and it may not be possible yet, but there is a little bit of useful, verified information which is better than nothing, therefore Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia with this article. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and redirect to I'm 30. There's very little coverage on Weasel, certainly not enough to pass WP:GNG. If he were a business person known for working at only one notable company, the consensus would be to include his info in that company article. In this case the album has almost no coverage either, but did hit #1 on the Billboard Comedy chart. Also interesting that he did a fake article for his fake paper, which apparently went quite viral, but here's still no corresponding profile coverage of him or the paper. I found this archive btw - which must be the deleted article, and also has limited sources. [[17]] Since WP:TOOSOON also comes to mind, this is better off as an album article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advok8.in[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources at all. All the coverage comes from either advertisements/paid advertisements, or press release. Lacks significant coverage; fails notability guidelines for organizations and companies, as well as general notability criteria.

All the sources provided within the article are clearly paid advertisements for the company's app. Three of which are identical to each-other upto every single word. The "Sarita Magazine" source has a different title, but again the content is identical to the rest of the three, making 4 identical articles. I couldnt read one source, as it was neither in English, nor in Hindi. The launchstory.in is different, but i am not sure about its reliability; looks highly doubtful. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After nomination, the creator has removed the paid articles from sources. Here is the previous version. Also, one doesnt need to be familiar with hindi language, or Devanagari script; the titles of sources in reflist/references are exactly the same. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For future records, the author tried to speedy delete the article under G7. special:diff/835395676 —usernamekiran(talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage to prove notability. The COI hasnt been disclosed either and this appears to be an attempt at promoting the company. MT Train^Talk 08:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the media channels have covered advok8.in voluntarily till now, moreover that language was Kannada which is neither Hindi or English. As soon as we are covered by more media houses they will be cited in the article too. Authenticity is a very subjective matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max shrey (talk • contribs)
copied the comment from talkpage.—usernamekiran(talk) 14:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Max shrey: Hi. I wonder if it was voluntary, then how they managed to copy each other to every single word. Anyways, the community will come up with decision through consensus whether to keep the article, or delete it based various wikipedia policies, and guideline. The discussion is going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advok8.in. You can present your side/opinions if you want. But you should also declare in first comment that you are the article creator. Regarding future/upcoming coverage, kindly see WP:CRYSTAL. An article about any subject can be created when the subject meets general notability guidelines. Also kindly see and follow the tips given at WP:COI. And kindly sign the talkpage comments by adding four tildes (~) like this: ~~~~
Best, —usernamekiran(talk) 14:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copied my own reply from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Advok8.in. I thought it was talkpage of the article. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP and GNG. Also complete promo. Cesdeva (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article that fails WP:CORP. FITINDIA 19:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plain advert of non notable business. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Clearly advert stuff. Two press releases, citations from own website, and a mention at TOI are not enough — F R ⁺ 10:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Discourse regarding the article's tone and sources can continue on its talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Green Tomato Cars[edit]

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

Just a minicab firm. Notability not demonstrated. Most of the refs are trade papers and the like. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not "just a minicab firm", as The Daily Telegraph put it, it is "London's second largest minicab firm" (and since Uber has gone pear shaped, it might be the biggest). Plenty of reliable sources. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to trash one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly promotional article, written by someone who ~~clearly~~likely has a CoI. I know AfD isn't clean-up (why not?), but G11 exists as well and I'm not going to get into the middle of a dispute among admins, but I fail to see how any of this article keeps a NPOV. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Withdrawn. I did my best to remove the promotional tone and content of article. But I'm certainly not voting keep. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not promotional, I've just cleaned it up. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333:--If the edits, executed by you, were your definition of cleanup, well.......~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, this was a good-enough tagging.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Humourous name, but notable enough (as the second largest cab firm in London) nonetheless. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Ritchies massive improvements as well as the abundance of sources on Google. –Davey2010^Talk 16:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trade press sources are necessary for some types of topic as they provide a good insider perspective on technical issues. Andrew D. (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure advertising. The contents of the article is exactly what they would use as a press release, brand names and all. Juudging by the advertorials and well-managed references, they have quite enough disguised press releases in circulation without our adding to them. It wouldn't matter how notable the firm might be --not that I trust the refs to be objective enough to show it-- because Not Advertising is one of our basic principles. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I (and El Cid) cleaned the article up (see the stats), are you suggesting we don’t know how to write a neutral encyclopedia article? I’d be interested to know what sort of press release would talk about a product recall leading to financial problems. And last time I looked, WP:N is still a thing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I judge by the state of the article. Articles I've written or rewritten have been deleted also. I agree that there is one RS about financial problems that might be more than a notice. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without minimally under-emphasizing your immense content-creation/upgradation-skills, which is surely justified by the numerous GAs etc. developed by you (to be fair, I've only one and that speaks volumes....), going by your edits at this article, I guess the answer about neutral and non-promotional prose will be no.And, I guess that's got to do something with the screening of PR stuff, business-website-spam-mentions etc. from reliable sources.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--I've pruned the article, by removing all unreliable sources and accompanying content and post-cleanup, me thinks that it's a borderline keep.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have - you've just removed the sources you don't like - and have addressed your concerns on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It sounds like a normal wikipedia article about a firm.Marcnut1996 (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may seem a bit 'wow, we're a great company' in style, but it is not unambiguous advertising -- and actually, its alright. It is a notable firm per above. No reason to en masse delete. Personally I would get rid of the awards section if none of those awards have an article about them, but that is neither here nor there. We are not a trophy cabinet. talk to !dave 16:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cleanup, and part of Transdev. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. Taxi for Haworth! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While some of the references aren't the best (App Store etc), the other sources show a sufficient level of notability. It has also been cleaned up enough to not be devastatingly promotional. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article seems fine as written, sourcing could be better but there's more - CNBC,[[18]] WTOP,[[19]] and Washington Times[[20]] have some coverage of the DC launch. A Bloomberg article is paywalled, but the Google summary mentions the company.[[21]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Newroderick895 16:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kladdkaka[edit]

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

Article with just one source. Needs to be restarted. Newroderick895 15:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some WP:RS, and I can see more online - seems notable. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per improvements. Per kladdkaka being very popular.BabbaQ (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been improved and this is a very common cake in Sweden, one of the first things people tend to opt for when they have friends or kids coming over and they want to make something quick and simple. /Julle (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is not particularly difficult to find references in reliable publications such as major newspapers and other Swedish news outlets. Another ref has been added, and I think that as it is currently written it is clear that the subject meets WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 09:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after addition of sources it reaches WP:GNG. Several more exist, and then I'm not even counting the probably hundreds of recipes, some examples:[22], it has its own day [23], is common enough to get wine suggestions from Systembolaget [24] and called " a classic" here [25].Sjö (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has its own day?? Truly, I have wasted my life living outside of Sweden. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6 November. Which is also the day we eat this. (Though to be honest, Sweden in November requires a lot of chocolate - it's grim.)--bonadea contributions talk 19:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's two basic arguments in play here.

The first is whether some of the sources, specifically Destructoid and Rock, Paper, Shotgun are WP:RS. I don't know the full history of WP:VG/S, i.e. is it just an essay, or real policy, but those two sources are listed there and it seems like a cogent analysis of the source space, so I'm going to accept that they're both WP:RS.

The second is whether the actual cited references are really indicative of WP:N, or if they're just recycled press releases. I can't discern any consensus on that point.

I don't know if this should be closed as keep or no consensus. Given that they're effectively the same thing, however, I'm not to going sweat it. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AdvertCity[edit]

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

This article has referenciness, but they are not reliable, independent, secondary sources, and Google doesn't offer much hope of replacements that are. Fails to establish notability by reference to non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the publisher (i.e. going beyond listings and recycled press releases). Guy (Help!) 14:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Destructoid and rock, paper shotgun are very good references. There are some bad references, but passes GNG. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rock, Paper, Shotgun and Destructoid are blogs and not sufficient to establish notability. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JzG: Unfortunately the opinion you are presenting is not supported by consensus. Whether a source's container is a blog-type news site, a print magazine, a podcast or a town crier, what matters is journalistic/editorial oversight. You can refer to WP:VG/S to see existing consensus in the evaluation of industry-specific sources -- Rock, Paper, Shotgun isn't just some blog shite and has been the subject of lengthy discussions resulting in consensus for its general appropriateness; on the other hand discussions about Destructoid resulted in a more case-by-case careful approach, requiring that individual authors be evaluted separately when necessary, however unfortunately in this case the author Alasdair Duncan (not Alasdair Duncan, not the 60-year-old actor, not the Je Zaum artist) shares a name (surprisingly, at least to me!) with other people having coverage online, complicating research. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an opinion, it's what we say about them in our articles! That's why I linked them. Now, you may mean that "consensus" among fans of games is to ignore WP:RS and declare them reliable anyway, and that is possibly true, we have the same problem in a number of areas. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I said this on your WP:RSN post, I'll say it here, too: While, yes, they do post in blog format, Destructoid and Rock, Paper, Shotgun are extremely prominent; they have good reputations in the industry, they exert editorial control and basic fact-checking and so on. I wouldn't cite them for things outside of the narrow field of game reviewing (since that's their reputation and the expertise of their staff), but within that field I think it's absurd to suggest that they couldn't at least be cited for the "significant commentary" that WP:NVIDEOGAMES requires. As far as games commentary goes, they're top-tier sources. --Aquillion (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Contrary to your comment about "recycled press releases" - there has never even been a press release made about this game. When I have edited this page in the past I have always made sure to quote only legitimate review sites, and I have previously verified all the references here and they all looked fine to me at the time. Rock paper shotgun have covered the game on two separate occasions; for an indie game you can't expect much more than that these days. Slow Riot (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Slow Riot (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Delete - The article has been WP:BOMBARDed with sources, but from an in depth read, they are all essentially the same news release about how the game's on Kickstarter. The nominator is highly incorrect in his assertion that those sites are not reliable sources, see WP:VG/S, but it lacks WP:SUSTAINED. In terms of post release critique there is very little, and the article uses weasel words to cast it in a better light, such as using user reviews, which shouldn't be used in a Wikipedia article. The game lacks notability and does suffer from recycling of similar sources. Yes, it is hard for an indie game to get on Wikipedia, but that's kind of the point. Wikipedia is not a directory of indie games, if your game doesn't get on Wikipedia that doesn't mean it sucks. Just that it didn't pick up notability from the media._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a lot of bad sources here, and the article needs serious cleanup, but Destructoid and Rock, Paper, Shotgun trivially pass the bare minimum of "significant commentary" required for WP:NVIDEOGAMES. I don't feel that the fact that they're published in a blog format is sufficient to disqualify them; their staff are almost all established professionals in the field (granted that the reputation of both outlets is sufficient that being hired by one can turn someone into an established professional in the field), they have basic editorial controls, and they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I would still be cautious about using them for other things, but I think it's absurd to suggest that they're not usable for uncontroversal "significant commentary" in a direct game review, at a bare minimum, since they have a strong reputation there. --Aquillion (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there are several bad references which can be removed, which I would be happy to help with if the article is kept (for example there is no need to mention, let along include a source about a lack of metacritic score). There are just enough usable references left to establish notability. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In support of the comments about the sources being poor: The Rock, Paper, Shotgun references are simple announcements. If these are the best sources available, which seems to be the conclusion at the RSN discussion, then the article is pure WP:SOAP. The Destroid ref is no better. --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is still plenty of systemic bias in favour of the interests of young male Westerners in Wikipedia. In the case of pornography the ridicule has been enough for us to tighten our notability guidelines quite dramatically, but there is still plenty to do about other topics such as popular music and computer games. We discount blogs and other such unreliable sources for most topics, so we should do the same here. Where are the books from university presses and the academic papers that have coverage of AdvertCity? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hammer Film Productions. MBisanz ^talk 13:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Ilott[edit]

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

An essentially sourceless CV of middling film-industry executive. I'm not seeing any sign of industry impact (awards, say). Calton | Talk 14:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Hammer Film Productions. He doesn't seem notable apart from his connection to that company as former CEO and notability is not inherited. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Can't see enough articles or mentions for the subject. My Lord (talk) 05:49, 11 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 George Ezra. MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Ezra & Friends[edit]

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

DePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was = Non notable podcast Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Appears like it might be notable due to the guests that appear on the show. Froome2017 (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – To George Ezra. Fits perfect within that article. If the show takes off it can always be spun off to its own piece.ShoesssS ^Talk 14:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect , a podcast, that it. Szzuk (talk) 16:43, 11 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garhi, Nepal[edit]

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

If you believe geonames, "Garhi" is simply a synonym for the Udayapur District; it is also, however, a common name component (or its variant, gadhi) which appears to mean "fort", if Sindhuli Gadhi and Rasua Garhi are any indication. What I cannot find is a specific "Garhi" village whose principal name isn't something longer. I am open to the notion of redirecting this back to Garhi, but the current claims of this uncited article are untenable as it stands. Mangoe (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, we'll probably end up deleting this as there is just not a enough information to locate it properly. I've looked in Geohacks The Times Atlas of the World around "40 kilometres south-west of...Kathmandu" and turned up nothing. Without precise coordinates or a definite source I don't know where we go from here. However, I'm not going for delete just yet as I came up with a couple of sources that suggest that a place of this name does, or once did, exist. In this book there is "Finally the fourth generation of Narkunwar Singh, named Jai Singh Chand left Baligarh in Garhi, Nepal, crossed the river Kali and came west in search of a permanent homestead." But it's only snippet view. In The Crown Encyclopedia and Gazetteer there is "G3 78 811 Garhi, Nepal" which appears to be a map reference, but again, only snippet view so I can't be sure. If anyone can actually access either of those sources and confirm that they do verify existence then we should keep per WP:NPLACE. SpinningSpark 17:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That "811 Garhi" is actually "Sil Garhi" and points to a spot at the west end of Nepal on the map. Mangoe (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:V issues as above. I explicitly do not support a redirect to Garhi, as that is a disambig page and Garhi, Nepal is a pretty unlikely search term anyway. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:07, 13 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 Refer to talk page. There's reasonable agreement here that this shouldn't be a stand alone article. I think we're looking at a merge somewhere, but I don't see any agreement on a target. There's already a discussion happening at Talk:Asian Highway Network. It seems like that's a better place to continue to hash this out. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AH374[edit]

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

PROD declined by myself - initial report said No sources, original article creator is blocked sock which was proved to be incorrect, as user was blocked as NOTHERE. No opinion on subject Nightfury 13:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I appreciate the nom's non-partisan rationale, but I am instinctively inclined to thinking that this piece of major road automatically passes WP:GEOROAD as an international road. Having said that, per Wp:ATD, I'd be happy with a redirect to something ike this, if this turns out not to. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a talk pae discussion about it too. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 14:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, non-notable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If ASEAN did bother to number this highway, it is almost certainly notable. However, not every notable highway needs an article. I'd follow SN 54129's idea and merge this into a list. WP:USRD merged most farm to market road articles into "listicles", where each section of a list is a mini-article. (See WP:USRD/RCS.) Something similar could be done for these three-digit ASEAN-signed routes, provided we can source the info. -happy 5214 22:44, 4 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Brown (writer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Laurence Brown (writer)

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

After cleaning up this article to remove sources that fail to meet third-party source criteria, I am convinced that there's nothing notable about this man. He has written books, but that is not sufficient evidence by itself of notability unless it can be shown that the books are notable. Neither he nor the books have been covered by third-party media or other sources not connected with him to the extent that notability is established. George Custer's Sabre 05:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Anyone contributing to this discussion would be far better advised to do based on this version of the article rather than the current one, from which the nominator removed every assertion of notability before first attempting to WP:PROD it and now bringing it to AfD. The nominator's justification for this removal was "Sorry but all of these sources are either commercial (ie Amazon) or sources associated with the author". While this justification would have been mostly valid (primary sources are sometimes acceptable for content, though not for notability) if the end result had been a viable and properly sourced article, this behaviour is completely inappropriate if, as in this case, the end result is a version of the article (effectively no content at all) even more likely to be deleted than the previous one (badly sourced content) - it is usually a far easier matter to determine if an article should be kept if there is existing content that can help one to look for better sources than have to rebuild the article from scratch. (And, as a final side-comment, given the reasons for removing the rest of the article, it is rather strange that the one remaining sentence is sourced to an Amazon subsidiary (Goodreads), and is in just the part of that site where the content is most likely to have come from the author or their publisher. PWilkinson (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith my friend. The article was a puff piece based only on sources connected to the subject. On a BLP I have the right and responsibility to remove content that is poorly referenced. Check the BLP guidelines. They say: “Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” That’s all I did. The key instruction I followed was this: “Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.“ Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre 12:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete. So he’s published a few books. There hasn’t been significant third-party reporting on these. He is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.150.206 (talk) 14:32, 2 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) 13:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Writing books does not necessarily make someone notable. This man is not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.149.61 (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is funny, we now have two ip "deleters", one that has made a single edit above, and another who has made only a few, that said this person does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG so is a delete, WorldCat only lists The eighth scroll in 6 libraries, doesn't list any others, a gsearch does not bring up any useable reviews, just seller and blog sites. ps. it would be nice if nominator used tildes when signing:) Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure of the GNG. We need reliable sources especially for a living person, which are lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO article on non-notable writer. Searches produce nothing useful, first hit [26] on my gNews search for his name + "Islam" was an essay by him published by an English-language newspaper in Saudi. Older versions of article offer no support for notability and I can find none. Fails WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Taylor (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Delete: as blatant promo article; this is not LinkedIn. Quis separabit? 00:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable.Acnetj (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as subject seems to (barely) meet WP:GNG. We probably need criteria specifically for business people and entrepreneurs. -The Gnome (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a bit notable. George Custer's Sabre 05:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep. "Not a bit notable" seems harsh considering the guy founded one of the most known websites and while he has not received the most coverage, what can be found should be sufficient to satisfy WP:BASIC:

Thanem, T. The Monstrous Organization. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 9780857938176 – via Google Books.
Gallo, Carmine. 10 Simple Secrets of the World's Greatest Business Communicators. Sourcebooks, Inc. ISBN 9781402206962 – via Google Books.
Virk, Rizwan (2017-10-19). Treasure Hunt: Follow Your Inner Clues to Find True Clues. Watkins Media. ISBN 9781786780577 – via Google Books.
Vas, Gratian (2017-12-06). Little Things about Great People: Inspirational Stories. Notion Press. ISBN 9781946390417 – via Google Books.
"Buffalo.dj, new start-up from Monster.com founder Jeff Taylor, will represent and record DJs". Boston.com. Retrieved 2018-04-04.

At the very least, a redirect/merge to Monster.com should be considered. Regards So Why 10:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as no one has commented on the references recently provided
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wrt notability guidelines, would also agree with a merge and redirect to Monster.com. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 06:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Stray Kids. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changbin (rapper)[edit]

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

Individual fails WP:NMG - He has not officially released any solo music nor has he acted which tends to be the case with idols currently, all sources are about the group he is in; not him personally. Abdotorg (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Abdotorg (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Abdotorg (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stray Kids as an alternative to deletion. ~ GB fan 13:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stray Kids. He has done nothing notable outside of the group. Nyantatata ^-^ ^{(Say hi!)} 01:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Cullen328 "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://web.archive.org/web/20180315133422/http://viltin.hu/viltin/" (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 12:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VILTIN Galéria[edit]

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

Not seeing any notability. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's an advertisement. I may not be able to read Hungarian, but google translate makes it clear enough that this is the gallery talking about itself. "Our mission", "we are involved". Vexations (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was giving it the benefit of the doubt as google translate is not always an exact tool.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Then again, it appears to be copied from a previous incarnation of their website. Google still has a cache. [27] Likely a copyvio, if they haven't licensed the content appropriately. Vexations (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's enough overlap for G12 so I have gone ahead with a speedy deletion nomination. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable award given by a non-notable organisation. Aside from obvious press releases at the time of the awards, seemingly usually in local news media, there doesn't seem to be much to support it or indeed the (unlinked) organisation. Sitush (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article is the target of a vast paid editing ring, most likely related to this, and most recently they've even indulged in faking references. The article was originally created to promote this subject, and as I mentioned there, any coverage is incidental as the name is notable and these people seem to capitalize on the confusion. 50 to 60 plaques awarded a year. —SpacemanSpiff 22:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt the article and Block the involved editors---UPE Spam.I will repeat my PROD-rationale--Non-notable award by a non-notable body.Hardly covered nationally, other than in local news.Further, mentions in resumes aren't an indicator of notability of award, (esp. given that the notability of the recipients is itself doubtful) and coverage in unadulterated PR stuff fails to instill any confidence, either.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable award which sounds more like a PR exercise. FITINDIA 19:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This award is a notable government award and is awarded by the Government of India to outstanding persons for their outstanding achievements. No government award requires promotion or any other thing like that and this award cannot be achieved by anyone until and unless he has done something extremely outstandingly new or trending in his field. That's why a very few notable persons are given this award every year which I cited on the article's page but it was removed idk why, but those citations can still be found in the article's history. Huge media coverage is also available to support the awards notability but some people refuse to accept it even though they know that it is completely acceptable. Some people are confused that this award is given by private organisations but they are highly mistaken. ONLY and ONLY the GOVERNMENT OF INDIA gives this award. It is a government award and the government of India gives this award by itself and notable things by government don't require any promotion, they only require that people should have proper knowledge about it. Hence I think that this article should stay on the free encyclopaedia. It does not matter that what anyone says about this award but that doesn't change its notability. Sincerely —N1197L (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC) — N1197L (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep because the‘Indira Gandhi Priydarshini Award’ is mentioned in government scheme at serial No.-20 in ‘Awards.’ section of this link http://www.deccanherald.com/content/12096/government-schemes-projects-named-nehru.html while ‘Indira Gandhi Prize for National Integration’ is at serial number 19. Given that it proves that this award is being conferred by notable government body. I believe that this subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) John Carter Lambert (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)— John Carter Lambert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to closer: being mentioned in a government scheme, or even being a government scheme, is not itself anything of relevance to GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED, for starters. John Carter Lambert appears to be an SPA and the claim is dubious: yes, it is mentioned in an ambiguously-titled report from the Deccan Herald that is just a list of things named after the Nehru-Gandhi family but there has been no evidence that the government recognises it other than that particular list in a (not massively reliable) newspaper. Our article claims the awarding body is the All India National Unity Conference, about which no information can be found other than as an awarder. - Sitush (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable award invented and conferred by non-notable organization. It is NOT conferred by the Indian Government. The coopting of Indira Gandhi's name is pretty blatant. And this wiki article seems to be an effort to confer notability on some dubious wiki article subjects. Softlavender (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dato Roman Yek Siew Lee[edit]

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

That a person has the title of Dato' indicates that they are highly regarded in society, and as a corollary may indicate they meet the criteria for inclusion as a Wikipedia article. I note that the only references given in article are from WordPress and so are Wikipedia:SELFPUBLISH-d sources that do not assist any assertion notability for Mr Yek Shirt58 (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, refs are all blog entries, tagged orphan. Szzuk (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biomedical Research[edit]

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

Possibly-predatory journal from a possibly-predatory publisher (at least, Beall considers Allied Academies predatory) of questionable notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was created by an account blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user, so there may also be spam problems here. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as its indexed in selective databases and service (JCR, Scopus, however those need to be confirmed via WP:IS since Allied Academics likes to fudge things like these to look better) and meets WP:NJOURNALS. The journal has a longer history than at Allied Academics, having been published by Andrew John Publishing before being acquired by Allied Academies/OMICS, and from some other outlet before AJP. This is a case where Allied Academics acquired an existing notable journal in ~2016 when they purchased the Pulsus Group. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reluctantly. This is on its way to becoming non-notable, but notability is not temporary, so there we are. The journal currently still has an impact factor, because it was listed in the Science Citation Index Expanded. The 2016 IF will be its last one, though, as Clarivate has dropped the journal from coverage. For the moment it is also still in Scopus, so as Headbomb writes above, this meets NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Krabue[edit]

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

Disambiguation page only lists one actual link. Zyc1174 _chat? ^{what I did} 09:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - all listed entries are legitimate uses of the term, and per WP:NGEO are notable as legally recognized populated places, even if no separate article has been written for them yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarginalCost (talk • contribs)

Comment: That's the issue. We don't create disambiguation pages for potential articles with the same name. When and if two or more Bang Krabue articles show up, then a disambiguation page is created, otherwise it's useless. Zyc1174 _chat? ^{what I did} 04:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is perfectly fine usage per WP:DABMENTION. Bang Krabue is mentioned in all the blue-linked articles. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful and compliant dab page. PamD 10:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 4 links, all to articles on, or mentioning, different uses of this term. Boleyn (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rape threats against the daughter of U.S. President[edit]

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

I first thought of speedy, but whatever this is non encyclopaedic concoction with no any informative purpose other than news as it is–Ammarpad (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Per WP:TNT really - it is a mess. I could see how Kim Ki-jong could be an article (the crime definitely is notable - [28][29][30][31], and it seems this pro-North Korean figure was known previously - but probably need Korean sourcing for an article on him - the attack on the ambassador definitely passes NCRIME). I could also see how a List of sexual attack threats against the daughters of US presidents could possibly pass NLIST - possibly - which what this article was to begin with - version as created - all be it as a rather jumbled mess the threats that got cut out.Icewhiz (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My initial feeling was a delete, especially as the original contents at conception was a bit of a wild collection of references. However I though that a more generic article about "Threats against the Family of the US President" might have some merit. When I referenced the existing article Threatening the President of the United States, I came to the conclusion that you cannot really disconnect the two. A threat against the Family is effectively a threat against the President. Given that article states there are thousands of such treats each year (even tens of thousands under Obama) and only few have become notable, this particular article should probably get deleted after all. As individual cases become notable, they should get their own articles which might lead to a list article "List of threats against the President and his Family". This particular Korean case is already covered in Assassination threats against Barack Obama#Plot by a South Korean man. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with caution; people get ideas. The subject merits no presence here. -The Gnome (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jake Brockman is correct - there is a general page that covers the vast number of cases, which would generally be non-notable by themselves, and if they were to become sufficiently notable then they would become their own pages. This article adds nothing. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this looks like WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. Article would have to be completely rewritten, so WP:TNT it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geneseo station[edit]

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

Proposed railway station with no significant sources. "Little other information is known" says to me non-notable. Note only source says line "was" meant to be completed 2015 Nightfury 11:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 11:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 11:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search doesn't give any sources other than that given, which is irrelevant as noted - it clearly isn't acting as a reliable source. Notability most definitely not provided. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Quad Cities (train) (if that's even notable) or Delete — WP:CRYSTAL and WP:JUNK. It's only 4 sentences, and the last 3 are misstatements. No idea what "construction expectations ... have commenced" means in the article. Both sources used for the location of the station actually say that the public does not yet know which site has been picked for the train station. I've looked for substantial sources online, and as far as I can tell, there isn't even that much about the old train station in town, let alone the new one. What little news there is about the proposed station just repeats that plans are being made and sites are being decided: You can swap the years on the articles and not know the difference. Here's what I've found about the stations: "Cochran family gives mini depot to Geneseo Historical Museum" (2016-09-07) says "The depot, located on First Street, was built in 1899. After passenger trains ceased service to Geneseo, the depot was converted into office and business space." It shows, at the Geneseo Historical Museum, the last-generation Rock Island Railroad station sign and a model of the station shown at Old Geneseo Train Station in 2014. "Geneseo knows where it wants Amtrak station" (2012-11-13) has contradictory statements that IDOT "wants to put the new Amtrak station just to the east of the old railroad station in Geneseo. ... they're looking at a couple of different places for where they could put the new train station. The only one the department is currently disclosing is the one near the old train station though." It also says "IDOT and the city say they'll have a site picked out for the train station by the fall of 2013. Construction will then start on the station in 2014" which was right when Illinois' state finances went sour, which means it's probably postponed for years again. When someone uploads a photo of a 21st-century Amtrak ticket for Geneseo, let me know. --Closeapple (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belvidere station, a whole series of not-stations on the similarly-not-restarted Black Hawk (Amtrak train). --Closeapple (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL and traincruftery. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phelex Foundation[edit]

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

Nothing notable about the org. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn, no refs. Szzuk (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miles Millar. MBisanz ^talk 13:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Millar Gough Ink[edit]

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

There are... a heckuva lot of notable topics surrounding this, to the point where if there is any one of them that is somehow the most valid redirect I don't see any obvious reason why.

Coverage appears to be mostly or entirely passing mention (e.g., [32], [33], [34]) in connection with related subjects, but not about this company directly. Doesn't look like it's possible to write really anything beyond what's already there, just founders and list of connected works. No depth of coverage that I can find. GMG ^talk 17:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep production company behind many exceptionally notable shows and movies. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, yeah. But.. that doesn't mean there are any sources that treat them in any depth which can be used to write an article with. Notability is not inherited from related projects or people. GMG ^talk 14:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources such as here discuss the collaboration in depth. Perhaps the title and focus on the company is the hangup. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an independent published source; it's a bio to promote one of their shows. Besides that, it only mentions the company in passing in a single sentence. It's about the people. The people seem to be clearly notable. But in order to establish notability about the company (and have anything to write an article with), we need sources that deal specifically about the company, and not things or people related to it. We need sourced that deal with the company in-depth, and not just passing mention. GMG ^talk 15:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miles Millar and add link from Gough as well. The section can then discuss their collaboration and works produced. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect/merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to miles millar. Refs in the article are trivial. Szzuk (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Perspective on Human Rights[edit]

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

An article on human rights in Islam is a good idea, but this is an essay per WP:NOTESSAY. It begins with a much shorter, less detailed and unsourced replica of History of human rights, then jumps to a description of the rights granted under Islam quite similar to Islam and humanity, sourced only by the Quran and Al-Risalah al-Huquq. There's a great deal of personal interpretation, especially in the second half, and I can't see much worth merging here either to History of human rights, Al-Risalah al-Huquq, or Islam and humanity. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as presently construed - ESSAY, POV issues (the multiple "peace be upon him" are a minute though noticeable feature here), and lack of RS (the Quran and Al-Risalah al-Huquq would be PRIMARY, the latter would also imply this is shia). An article on this subject, if created, should be based on modern academic texts.Icewhiz (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Essay based on primary sources. For the article to even exist, essentially it would have to be deleted and re-built using WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this palpably personal ESSAY as per WP:NOTESSAY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article fails NPOV and is a fork of the articles discussed in the nom made without discussion (also, Islamic ethics#Human rights). The tone and most of the material is not encyclopedic. The title doesn't match the content - the content is mostly about the Quran and a 7th century hadith and ignores anything that happened in the the area of human rights in Islam between the 7th century and the 20th. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot (magazine)[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Reboot (magazine)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) As mentioned on the talk page, the article is wholly unsourced both here and at hrwp. There are some possible refs for the conferences in the gamesindustry.biz, but that publication is an affiliated media partner and not about the magazine anyway. Didn't find Croatian/southeast European sources either, but ping me if you do. No worthwhile redirect targets. czar 01:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. czar 01:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 01:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. czar 01:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant, independent coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:40, 10 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. —SpacemanSpiff 13:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harinath Reddy Master[edit]

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

Prod Tag removed; somewhat promotional article where the subject does not appear to be notable. He appears to have appeared on several minor dance competitions, but otherwise there is no significant coverage. Searches turn up little but Youtube videos and social media. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. The subject does not meet the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for people. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:12, 8 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. As the article currently is, delete. No prejudice against rewriting an expanded version or merging into the author article. Tone 08:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, madame: pismo iz Čedada[edit]

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

It's a book. The author doesn't have an article, even at the other wiki. Not a single source. Fails WP:GNG. Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, nominator, but Boris Jukic (b 1947) does have an article on the Slovenian Wikipedia which lists this book as one of his. The article is https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Jukić and it has been there since 2010. Jukic has significant coverage in GBooks and elsewhere (assuming I understand the Slovenian language sources correctly) and also many hundreds of library holdings according to worldcat [35] and presumably even more in non-members. He appears notable. Move the page to Boris Jukić and rewrite it as a biography. James500 (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, James500. I did look but was too hasty in my reading.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - James500 has argued that author Boris Jukic is notable, but that means little for this book in its own right. Someone could create a Boris Jukic article here and if that survives on its own merits, then individual books could qualify for their own articles if they pass the notability guidelines. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, and even more so, the input by Doomsdayer520. -The Gnome (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Doomsdayer520 noted - to the tune that even in the Slovenian Wikipedia where the author has a page (and thus presumably there is more consideration on him and his works), the book does not have one. It should not have a page here, either, though an author page would certainly appear to be notable, if created. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:58, 4 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full Noise (aircraft)[edit]

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

One of hundreds of individual racing aircraft nothing to indicate that this is noteworthy for a mention in wikipedia so really cant support a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep Not notable enough for its own article. I understand it's a first for New Zealand but we can't have an article for each individual aircraft. - Samf4u (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change my vote. Was not aware of Category:Individual aircraft, thanks for enlightening me Petebutt. - Samf4u (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If not deleted, Move to base name: no need for disambiguation, article should be at Full Noise. PamD 22:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The precedent is set for named aircraft to have their own articles. If we were to use samf4us argument then every article at [[Category:Individual aircraft]] would have to be deleted.--Petebutt (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Not sure I understand the logic, thousands of aircraft are named but very few are noteworthy. The inference is that having a name is notable which is not true. MilborneOne (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree with MilborneOne, whether an individual machine is notable and whether it has a name are unrelated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with the current two refs it seems to make WP:GNG and criteria 3 as well. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Both of the sources are "news" type mentions rather than article on the individual aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree with MilborneOne, these sources are not nearly enough to suggest notability, never mind to establish it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article subject fails WP:GNG. Just because it has a name and is mentioned in a couple of specialist journals does not make it notable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to that, WP:GNG requires "Significant coverage", which "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The Swiss F/A-18 simulator AfD, for example, made it abundantly clear that we do not accept a few mentions in the odd journal as establishing notability. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did you read the two refs cited? They are more than "mere mentions" of the aircraft. The individual aircraft is the sole subject of both articles. - Ahunt (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahunt: Yes. I saw only news items padded with race trivia, not proper in-depth articles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment that the Flypast entry is one of many bits of "news" that they have in each issue and really not what you consider an article. So in reality it a just a mere mention. MilborneOne (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of aircraft have been given names, that certainly isn't enough to establish notability. Nor are the sources strong enough to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I would suggest we have an article about Full Noise when the aircraft starts achieving some noteworthy results, as opposed to merely taking part to the race. This would be in line with existing articles such as Rare Bear, Dago Red, Voodoo (aircraft) and a few others. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The idea that giving something a name makes it notable is absurd. Pan Am used to name every one of their aircraft (Clipper Whatever). While a nice tradition, that didn't make them notable. Are we also to write articles about every boat with a name? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Border sessions[edit]

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

So this page was created on NL WP with the same content and was speedy deleted but I found that the event is supported by the city gov of The Hague as per the web of the event and on a quick Google search yields some coverage though in Dutch thus AfD'ing it here for community to decide.. Saqib (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I feel like one of the CSD criteria should apply here (A7?), not sure which one though. Zyc1174 _chat? ^{what I did} 10:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that A7 is there (and I don't think any other CSD) - certainly indication of a innovative technical conference suggests some importance, or could be clarified extremely rapidly even if not.

I was originally agreeing delete, but there is a high quality secondary source I found on last year's conference which could be used to add a significant amount. If someone can find something further, whether in English or Dutch, there would appear to be sufficient notability to Keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: I think would be better if you provide links here so notability could be ascertained.. --Saqib (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib:, apologies - Makery report on Border conference Nosebagbear (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Perhaps, someone out there hopes for the subject's increased notability through its inclusion in Wikipedia. Unfortunately for that, the causation moves in the opposite direction. -The Gnome (talk) 13:20, 4 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Stoddard[edit]

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

Article created "on request", most substantive edits are by a series of WP:SPAs, no evidence of passing WP:NMUSIC, no reliable sources. Notability asserted by inheritance. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Out of all of the bands listed in his discography, just two of them have Wikipedia articles by which I can evaluate their notability — and he wasn't a core member of either of those bands (neither band's article even mentions his name at all, in fact), but merely a session musician. But being a session musician on other bands' albums is not in and of itself a free pass over our notability standards for musicians just because the person's existence is technically verifiable in an album booklet's credits list — and he doesn't pass WP:GNG as an individual, because none of the references here are reliable sources, and neither are they about him at all. Bearcat (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established by the refs. Szzuk (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jode Gannon[edit]

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

All substantive edits to this article, including creation, are by three WP:SPAs. It lacks reliable independent sources to substantiate notability. The main claim to notability is by association: playing at festivals where more notable acts also appeared. One "hit" on a non-notable chart, signed to a relinked label. Google turns up nothing other than gig listings and the occasional namecheck. Guy (Help!) 07:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is one reference in the article which points to a picture of him on stage singing with no commentary. Szzuk (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Mueller[edit]

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

article on candidate for Attorney-General of Nevada fails WP:POLOUTCOMES Chetsford (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won yet — if you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. As usual, no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat — but nothing stated or sourced here has demonstrated that he's already eligible to have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for attorney general are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Subjects military service was unremarkable, subject's legal practice is unremarkable, and they are a candidate whom as of yet holds no political office.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 06:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I will protect this and a few other capitalizations. DGG ( talk ) 15:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amina oyagbola[edit]

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

So basically this BLP has been previously created and deleted under a diff title at Amina Oyagbola but since this one cites some ref and is not very promotional so instead of speedy, I would go with AfD.

I would say none of the posts/offices the subject has held are notable on their own. she has some trivial coverage in independent RS but I could not locate any in-depth coverage so apparently the subject does not appear to meet GNG... Saqib (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a previous AFD closed two days ago, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amina Oyagbola. The outcome was "speedy deletion (A7+G11) and protection". The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so I didn't knew about that AfD.. I wonder why Amina Oyagbola does not mention about AfD closing. So in this case. Speedy delete this one and salt it. Thanks to The Mighty Glen for saving time of others. --Saqib (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Badland Brawl[edit]

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

I put this up as a PROD, which was rejected by the original article creator after the original creator added a couple of YouTube videos as supposed references. It still fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. YouTube videos reviewing a product (one of which has only 15 total views as of this writing) don't impart notability. As I said in the original prod: "No reliable independent evidence of significant notability among thousands of iOS games. Routine product reviews alone rarely constitute notability. Also, quack." 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The creator has tried VERY hard to push notablity when it doesn't exist. Article is actually well written, so I hope they stick around, but iOS freemium games rarely are notable, and this is no exception (Although the touch arcade reference is good.). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The promotional lead could be cleaned up, but I'm not finding any reliable sources and most of the article is a game guide. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Binju Ali[edit]

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

Actors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:ACTORS.. also fails GNG.. Saqib (talk) 04:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TOOSOON Dial911 (talk) 07:04, 12 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheba.xyz[edit]

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

This is basically advertising of non notable new business. It fails the substance of WP:NCORP criterion. Once you strip that single so-called "award" you're left with speedy spam material –Ammarpad (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into the article. If you strip the notable part of anything, that would not be notable any more. So you are correct on your point, as you striped the National Information and Communication Technology Awards from the article and the importance goes down to zero.

The company own the National ICT award in 2017, please check the related wiki article about the event and their name is listed there. Along with that check the news and article on Sheba.xyz by yourself and then decide if it was right to add a deletion tag on the article. Please read the references mentioned on the article and by searching on the web. I request you please remove the tag as it does not fit on 'reason' you mentioned on your request for deletion.--Nasir Khan Saikat (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasirkhan (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a startup, the refs barely mention the company. Szzuk (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Turkey[edit]

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

No indication of notability, previous PROD was removed without reason by a user whose only edits are two removals or PROD tags. Such a small community is unlikely to be notable. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the prodder. "Hinduism in Turkey is not a notable topic; this article has remained unsourced for 10 years" still remains true. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Turkmenistan[edit]

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

None of the sources indicate notability. Probably not a notable topic due to community's small size. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are no refs, the article has been around since 2007 with now just 20 or so edits. Szzuk (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Uzbekistan[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage, sources appear to be minor mentions in articles talking about something else; I doubt such a small community has coverage indicating notability. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the SYNTH and blatant religious bigotry evident from the assumption that all Indians are Hindus or all Hindus are Indian is also a problem on that page. There are millions of Christians in India akd lots of Muslims too. Someone went through and created hinduism stubs and redirects for every country and territory on earth. Legacypac (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mareroo[edit]

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

Genames calls it an unverified populated place, and I couldn't verify it either. Coords land on the mouth of a dry riverbed, with one building not too far off, and that's it. GHits are thrown off by someone with a similar name, but when you exclude him, yes, it's all clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only source (which is very outdated) shows no population and satellite images show empty desert. NWWT (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. And keep deleting 'em until those happily creating such feathery material get the message. -The Gnome (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Towns passes Wikipedia Pillar 6. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aleem Iqbal (Lord Aleem)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Sure he has a few newspaper mentions but not for anything that amounts to notability. He runs a rental car business and had one of them damaged. He suffered some verbal racial abuse. He auditioned for a role on Top Gear. He is apparently rich. None of those is anything like notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable YouTube personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete summarily and with the sound off. Lack of notability, plenty of ego. -The Gnome (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Babuta[edit]

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

Junior champions don't meet WP:NSPORTS, and he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes GNG. Listing here some coverage on him in Indian newspapers. [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. --Saqib (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the refs noted in the afd are good. Szzuk (talk) 09:19, 11 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Hayter[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a stunt performer and bit part actor, not referenced well enough to make him includable yet. Actors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because the article lists roles -- if he doesn't have a strong distinction such as an Oscar or Emmy or CSA nomination, then the notability test he has to pass is not "has had roles", but "has received a WP:GNG-satisfying volume of reliable source coverage for the having of roles". But for sourcing, what we have here is a directory listing in Turner Classic Movies's IMDb substitute -- not a notability-assisting source, for the same reason that the real IMDb isn't -- and one newspaper article that's substantively enough about him to start counting for something. But it takes several pieces of reliable source coverage, not just one, before a person has enough reliable source coverage to pass GNG. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when his notability and sourceability jump to another level, but nothing here is enough in and of itself yet. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I, with a heavy heart, say, for lack of notability as per WP:ARTIST. Clearly, WP:TOOSOON, ergo without prejudice. -The Gnome (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NACTOR as the roles are all minor. Under-sourced and my searches are not finding anything better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 5 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. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Novak[edit]

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

Semi-advertorial WP:BLP of an actress notable primarily as the host of a talk show on a web video platform, which is referenced solely to her IMDb profile with no evidence of reliable source coverage about her in media shown at all. As always, having an IMDb profile is not an automatic free pass into Wikipedia in and of itself -- a person has to receive media coverage, not just have a profile in a directory of every person who works in film or television at all, to clear our notability standards. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless additional citations are added to the article to reinforce notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation in the future with appropriate referencing. Hmlarson (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not passing WP:ARTIST. Practicing BEFORE informed me about many other Novaks. Was I so unwise? -The Gnome (talk) 12:07, 4 April 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Adam9007 (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marin Software[edit]

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

Unremarkable company advertising tagged Legacypac (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw per WP:LISTED Legacypac (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Gravity Falls episodes#Season 1 (2012–2013). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Land Before Swine[edit]

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

Sources are SoundCloud, Tumblr, etc., most of the article is copy pasted from [41], and there's no indication that this episode in particular is notable for any reason; it seems to fail the GNG. XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 22:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Gravity Falls episodes. As per WP:TVEP. This episode does not have sufficient sources to show it passes GNG. This is also an uncredited copy of a page on another wiki dating back to 2013. [42]. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of independent notability. If that waddles off, then redirect. -The Gnome (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvement. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Jerome[edit]

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

WP:BLP, with some advertorial edges to it, of a writer whose claims of notability are not properly sourced. This is referenced almost entirely to primary sources, such as pieces of her own writing about other things and/or the self-published websites of professional colleagues and an organization she's directly affiliated with -- and it also significantly pads out its sourcing by coatracking and referencing highly digressionary content about her husband and the organization, as well as non-notable public readings in her own home town and a section that, until I poleaxed it, listed and "referenced" every single work by some other writer that Jerome ever reviewed for a literary journal. As always, however, you don't demonstrate a writer as notable by referencing the article to sources in which she's the bylined author of content about other things -- you demonstrate a writer as notable by referencing the article to sources in which she's the subject of content written by other people.
Of the 51 footnotes here, I count literally just three that actually represent reliable source media outlets that are fully independent of Jerome herself -- but of those three, one just namechecks her existence a single time as the provider of a statistic in an article that's in no way about her otherwise, one represents a book review in her local alt-weekly, and the third is about her winning a literary award on the second tier of notability: notable enough to be mentioned in an article that's already well-sourced, but not notable enough to bestow the writer's notability all by itself if it's the only properly sourced notability claim the writer actually has.
So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually find the correct kind of sourcing to write and reference an article about Jerome properly -- but the sourcing here isn't remotely acceptable, and the article body doesn't say anything about her that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be sourced much, much better than this. I'm also okay with draftifying per Shalor's request below. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! If possible, can this be transferred back into the student's userspace if this is deleted via AfD so they can work on the issues you've brought up here? I'll work with them on the article while it's live, of course. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that would be entirely acceptable as well. I've added support for that to my original statement. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Contributors can copy the text from the edit page and work on the text in order to re-submit it, if they gather enough evidence for notability. Thus far, this is one of the relatively rare instances of a text with obviously lots of good work (I try not to use the term "work of love") in it, about a subject that, however, try as the contributors might, has not yet established WP:GNG, nor does it meet WP:ARTIST. Here's hoping. -The Gnome (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Just wanted to make a quick mention that I've made mention of this at Women in Red to see if they can help with the tone and sourcing, along with the work the student is doing. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for now. What's the urgency on deletion? This being part of a student project, and currently being edited by several people trying to bring it up to code, It won't hurt to wait on this. Wikipedia isn't going to be damaged if we allow the student, instructor, and other editors a little time to get this up to at least a basic framework of what it should be. — Maile (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this AfD nomination acts as a wake up call to whomever is interested in working on the article (and establishing notability), then that would be a most welcome outcome, too. Every AfD nomination is presumably submitted on good faith and under house rules. "What's the urgency," you ask? And "where is the harm"? I'm sure you mean well but those questions are a bit surprising (especially coming from an administrator). This is a community of volunteers, taking off time to do encyclopaedic work; keeping Wikipedia clean is part of the work. In my view, if the interested editors do not make haste, the deletion could go through because "temporarily unworthy" articles are not allowed in Wikipedia. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have received nominations and awards for her work over the years. Her poems have been mentioned in a book.[43] I think this person passes WP:AUTHOR because her works have "won significant critical attention." Lonehexagon (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: on the basis of the ReLit award and nomination for the 2010 Dorothy Livesay Poetry Prize.[44] But the article needs further attention as indicated above.--Ipigott (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ReLit award, founder of CWILA, seems notable enough. PamD 08:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But needs willing eyes to check for inaccuracy, sloppy cut-and-paste, etc - see talk page. And it appears that an instructor has set a 2,000 word target for the students' contributions: just the way to encourage bloated writing, addition of irrelevances, stretching of sources, etc. Not helpful. PamD 09:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It's improving and she possibly scrapes through WP:GNG with the award. Theroadislong (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A literary award is not an automatic GNG pass in and of itself — it's the depth and volume and quality of reliable sourcing that can be provided to support a notability claim, not the claim itself, that determines whether GNG is passed or not. The ReLit Award is, in reality, an award whose reliable source coverage is spotty at best: sometimes you can find enough sourcing to get a ReLit winner or nominee over GNG, and sometimes you can't. So it's a second-tier literary award for the purposes of WP:AUTHOR: notable enough to count if the article can be well-sourced, but not "inherently" notable enough to count as a guarantee of a Wikipedia article without regard to sourceability issues. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update. The WikEd consultant has worked with the creator to improve the article — while it does still need some more work before it could be assessed as a good article, there are enough properly reliable sources now to cover off the reason why I listed this for AFD in the first place. Accordingly, I'm withdrawing this nomination and just tagging the article for maintenance. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 5 April 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic Surgery & Plastic Doctor & Plastic Hospital Office for Barbie Version[edit]

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

Ultimately WP:NOTNEWS. Merely the app version of Elsagate. There are many different apps and Flash games like this, and this was just a routine controversy. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Game violated TOS, it was called out in the media and it was gone shortly after. Non-notable otherwise. Nate • (chatter) 02:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without anesthesia for lack of notability (either for being great or for being crap). -The Gnome (talk) 12:21, 4 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Bundo (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The page refers to only a single item: a rabbit, and the two books that have been written about the rabbit. Since the two books about the rabbit are already widely discussed in the rabbit's article, this disambiguation is unnecessary. BarbadosKen (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No need to delete, it's convenient for many readers who just want to read about the book. Davey2116 (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Readers looking for the books can find link for them in the rabbit's article. The (disambiguation) in the parenthesis in the article name is needed if there are more uses for a common use term. Therefore, there is no need for the disambiguation page in question. BarbadosKen (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are partial matches. Ordinarily I get around this by citing the character in the work, but that's for different characters. In this case, it's all the same one. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The disambiguation page is functionally redundant to Marlon Bundo#Children's books. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:PTM. wumbolo ^^^ 13:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only other items are partial title matches._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above comments. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:26, 9 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Hatch[edit]

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a person notable only as an unsuccessful candidate in a political party leadership election. This is not a claim of notability that gives a person an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL -- if a person doesn't already have preexisting notability for other reasons, then they have to win the leadership, not just run in the convention and lose, to be deemed notable as a politician. But this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources (a piece of his own writing about something else, and the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations), and the only exception is an opinion column about something else which merely happens to briefly glance on Hatch's existence as a digression from the main topic, not a source about Hatch. Which means that none of these sources count as evidence of notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect with New Democratic Party Socialist Caucus#Leadership campaigns as Hatch was that faction's candidate in the 2001 challenge to Alexa McDonough's leadership and he is mentioned in that article. Nixon Now (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking independent notability. Where is the WP:GNG? I checked all over the house. At best, have it as a redirect to the NDP caucus article. -The Gnome (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above but no problem with the merge proposal also mentioned above. SportingFlyer talk 06:16, 9 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 John Walker (programmer). J04n(talk page) 16:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Digital Imprimatur[edit]

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

This article does not meet Wikipedia standards on notability. The subject warrants nothing more than a sentence at John Walker (programmer). Perrythwi (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable.Acnetj (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per ATD and PRESERVE this cannot be deleted because it can be merged and redirected to its author John Walker (programmer). James500 (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge best covered in the author'author's article. WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE make clear that deletion would not be an appropriate outcome when inclusion in a broader topic is warranted. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable from my point of view. PK YellowWisdom (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 14:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Papermaster[edit]

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

Non-notable CEO of a company that does not exist on Wikipedia. Best source found was this, but others are interviews and other primary source stuff, or mere mentions. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NPERSON/WP:GNG. Was previously PRODded in 2015 but removed by DGG. talk to !dave 08:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent reliable sources.Stuartyeates (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems this guy has coverage for a company called Nano Global as well.[45][46][47][48] Willie d troudour (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the subject is notable also in the field of cryptocurrencies, per sources. Again, I shout in this echo chamber, after failing to register a complaint in the bird shop, we need special criteria for businessmen, investors, entrepreneurs. -The Gnome (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Gnome: Shall I meet you there? I do agree. talk to !dave 14:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NU NRG[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails all 12 points of WP:BAND. Has been tagged for lack of sources for 6 years, and my own searching failed to come up with anything. Lots of listings on music services and the like, but nothing that qualifies as a WP:RS. That fact that they have not existed as a band for 13 years, while not in itself a problem (WP:NTEMP), means it is unlikely that any future coverage will emerge.

One of the members of the band, Andrea Ribeca, was just the subject of a deletion review, but that's not really germane to the band's notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's thumping bass reasoning. Also, WP:ARTIST. -The Gnome (talk) 12:41, 4 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.

^ "Handbook of Semantic Web Technologies". Google Books. Retrieved 2018-04-12.

[book_Hand-1] "Handbook of Semantic Web Technologies". Google Books. Retrieved 2018-04-12.

[1]