Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 February	14 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. Sad that the same problems remain after the last AFD way back in 2008, but this is only going to go one way. SpinningSpark 23:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network Universe: FusionFall[edit]

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

The tags at the top says it all: No sources and non notable Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of third party reliable sources covered the subject in great detail - it easily meets WP:GNG. It's pretty disappointing to read "no sources" in the nominations when at least 4 of these sources were presented in the last AFD, but regardless, here's 4 from the last discussion, and 4 more that I found in my own research. All reliable sources per WP:VG/S, and probably more, considering how easily these were found:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2008/07/27/sdcc-08-cartoon-network-universe-fusionfall-hands-on
https://www.wired.com/2008/09/hands-on-fusion/
http://variety.com/2009/digital/features/fusion-fall-1200473887/ (Impressive coverage that falls out of the niche video game website area.)
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/cartoon-network-draws-up-mmo/1100-6154315/
http://www.ign.com/articles/2009/01/30/cartoon-network-universe-fusionfall-review
https://www.engadget.com/2008/02/26/gdc08-cartoon-networks-fusionfall/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/06/fusion-fall-massively-mul_n_148956.html
https://www.gamezone.com/reviews/cartoon_network_universe_fusionfall_pc_review/

AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. There's plenty enough sourcing to easily meet the GNG here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:BEFORE epic fail, especially since the last AfD resulted in a keep vote._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tags having zilch to do with AFDing an article or BEFORE. Plenty of coverage from the likes of IGN and Ars Technica. Now if someone would add the sources, trim the article a bit, and rmt the tags. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon Rupp[edit]

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

Notability / "TOOSOON" concerns. Being No. 1 on the iTunes hip hop charts for two days (per [1]) doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC. Apart from the existing references, which I don't feel establish notability, I find a bit of very-low-quality gossip coverage [2]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not yet meet the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A couple of mentions, not enough indepth stuff, agree it is TOOSOON. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC. Quis separabit? 03:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable...TOOSOON, needs more time to incubate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mz7 (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Martinec[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ACADEMIC. Unable to locate significant biographic data in secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication he meet the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He doesn't seem to have a GS profile, but a GS search for "Emil Martinec" is pretty impressive, even within the highly cited field of physics. There are nearly three pages of articles cited in the triple digits, which I think constitutes an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1 (and I'd have a hard time believing that there's insufficient material for a good well-sourced entry on his work). EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1. It appears that his papers' author lists are alphabetized (typical for many mathematical disciplines), so we can't infer much from author order, but his top citation counts on Google scholar are four papers with over 1000 citations each, and even his top single-author paper has 439. That's enough even in a high-citation field. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 with 27 papers in the triple-digit range on GS, a GS h-index of 48, and an h-index of 33 by the more restrictive criteria of SCOPUS [3]. Heterotic string theory is a major topic in theoretical physics, and their 1985 paper that introduced it has 1,297 citations in the Web of Science (and almost 2,000 by the more permissive counting of GS). The paper from the same era on the BRST quantization of superstrings has been comparably influential (1,444 citations on Web of Science, over 2,100 on GS). In academic biographies, institutional sources (e.g., the subject's current or former universities) are acceptable for uncontroversial claims. XOR'easter (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a bit. Subject sails past WP:PROF#C1. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep with around 10,000 GS citations (when I stopped counting). Nominator is advised to do WP:Before before making more nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Individual is sufficiently notable in field, though article could use improvement Lagrime (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agile CRM[edit]

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

NN company/software with no coverage in RS, sourced almost exclusively to PR/fluff pieces/primary sources and I can find no better. Major fluffy inflated promo piece. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP. Potential sources for this company tend to 1. Only list it as part of a listing of CMR companies (See the article's award section for examples of this) or 2. Are announcements of new services being offered by Agile CRM. Nothing indicates why Agile is particularly notable among other CMR companies, or makes a case for the encyclopedic notability of the company.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, company not notable, entire article written like a fluff piece. Maybe the originating author could also use a sockpuppet investigation. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 17:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promo for software, not notable ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ferguson (hedge fund manager)[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman; only trivial passing mentions in sources. Unless he appears on the next series of Dragon's Den, I don't think he needs an article here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I didn't realize this was a problem. I guess I will try to scour for additional sources. Thought it was an interesting topic that met notability requirements, but I understand if its not. Let me see if I can find anything. Uhtregorn (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just another person doing a job of ....er....work. Coverage run of the mill, not of a quality to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of indepth coverage. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Feel free to ask for a restoration at WP:REFUND if the situation changes. ansh 666 18:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John P. Cahill[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Searching for sources turns up very little, too little for WP:GNG. He ran for AG of NY in 2014 but lost, so fails WP:POLITICIAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete defeated candidates are non-notable, his other positions were non-notable as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in elections — if he does not win the election, then to make him notable enough for an article you have to demonstrate preexisting notability for other reasons besides the election. But while there are other claims here that could make him notable if he were sourced to enough media coverage about him to get him over WP:GNG for them, there are no claims here that would entitle him to an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing — and the only source cited here at all is his own self-published résumé on LinkedIn, which is not a source that counts toward getting someone over GNG. So no, nothing here is good enough. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see. Cahill's name has been bandied about as a potential candidate for Governor of New York over the past several weeks (see, for example, https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2018/02/12/poll-gov-andrew-cuomo-didnt-have-good-month/328046002/ and https://www.wsj.com/articles/candidate-for-governor-gathers-gop-support-to-take-on-cuomo-1518397433). If he pulls the trigger on a candidacy, he might become notable. I would wait a month or so and see what develops. SunCrow (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't "wait and see" just because a subject might attain a stronger notability claim in the future — Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and does not deal in the realm of predictions. If a person fails our notability standards today, then we delete the article today and then permit recreation in the future if and when the notability equation has changed — we do not keep an article just because the subject might become more notable in the future than he is today. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kemp (karting driver)[edit]

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

A not very notable person. A search for reliable sources yielded nothing. Even Autosport & Motorsport Magazine which are quite thorough in their motorsport coverage have nothing. Mattg82 (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks any even remotely indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails threshold of notability. Quis separabit? 03:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miyabi Matsuura[edit]

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

One of several dozen articles created by same user that has poor sourcing and I can find nothing to indicate they meet inclusion standards and the entry on ja.wp or zh.wp is no better sourcing wise and what is included for this particular subject is all primary. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of anything approaching an indepdent source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per WP:BLP; complete lack of secondary sourcing. BLPs deserve better than this. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS is dealbreaker. Agricola44 (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 18:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Takami Yoshimoto[edit]

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

One of several dozen articles created by same user that has poor sourcing (wikia or imdb) and I can find nothing to indicate they meet inclusion standards and the entry on ja.wp or zh.wp is no better sourcing wise CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no comment on the user who created the article, but this is a clear keep. While Yoshimoto's peak of fame was the 1990s—which means there is less on the internet right now—there is still enough to indicate her notability, with many articles talking of her past role on Ultraman Tiga, her acting career, and personal milestones like marriage and childbirth: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], etc. These vary in significance but they are a good indication of what is not on the net. I checked Web Oya to see what the Oya Soichi Bunko has, and they list her as appearing in 161 articles in the popular press between 1992 and 2017. She was also noted for her acting, and won the Best Actress award at the Japanese Professional Movie Awards in 1999[13]. Michitaro (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified above including significant coverage which enable both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG to be passed Atlantic306 (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. copyright violation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Brown (violinist)[edit]

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

Not a notable person. Article is promotional in nature, and the references are either about results in junior-level competitions, or performance announcements. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep power~enwiki, I disagree that Joshua Brown (violinist) should be deleted. The page is still being worked on and added to, and he is a notable person. There are 20 external references, numerous reviews of his performances with orchestra, and his competition record is at the same level as many other violinists who have wikipedia articles, including, for example, Ziyu He,Sirena Huang, George Li, Leonardo Colafelice, Kate Liu, Tony Yike Yang, etc. I see absolutely no difference between the merits of his page and the pages referenced above. Bilderart (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

power~enwiki I agree with Bilderart. The pages referenced are very similar to the proposed page for Joshua Brown (violinist). Age doesn't matter as much as accomplishments and experience, and the person in question seems to have both, as well as documentation attesting to said accomplishments and experience. I also don't see any performance announcements, as alleged, only references to prior concerts. I definitely don't think the page should be deleted.Knowledgetalk (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[14] was an example of a performance announcement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment power~enwiki Those concerts already took place. The article was meant to help establish the level of Joshua Brown and the fact that he performs in professional concerts on a regular basis (which he does), it was not to solicit business. It's too late to buy tickets, and the reference was added well after the concert. If you want to delete that reference, feel free, but I don't see the issue. Also, the competitions referenced are all high level international competitions, the same type of competitions as referenced in the pages I provided links for. I fail to see how those pages differ from this one. Bilderart (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article needs work, yes. As I already commented to Bilderart, it needs footnotes. Also, it needs not to have such an enormous collection of external links (there's a difference between what's considered references and what's considered external links); there's also citation overkill. In other words, the list of links needs to be cut way down with the remainder cited within the article. Also, the long list of appearances and accomplishments should be listified.

The one thing that strikes me as advertising is the section with the lengthy quotations from reviews. These are way too long. Also, it's crucial that there be balance—unless all reviews have always been unremittingly positive, there should be an indication of that, and the positive reviews mentioned should be balanced with negative ones. However, all of this is fixable and none of it justifies deleting this article. The one thing I haven't appraised yet is notability, hence my failure to !vote above. Largoplazo (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that there remains work to be done. The references need to be made into footnotes, but I'm not sure yet how to do that. There are citations for everything, so I will definitely do it as soon as I figure it out, or if anyone would like to help, that would be great. In terms of reviews, there have been no negative reviews. I will make them shorter, but it is similar to the format on the other pages I listed above, so I think it is pretty standard. In terms of notability, his website should provide some evidence, as well as googling joshua brown violin.Bilderart (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not yet meet the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No to the reviews. It's promotional. A sentence stating that he's received positive press from these sources, with links, would be sufficient. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright issues Of course it's promotional--this appears to have been copied from press releases. May be speedy deleted as either spam or copyright violation content. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for blatant copyright violation. I've nominated the article for speedy. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree that the page should be deleted on copyright grounds. The information in question (on the link given as example) is simply an orchestra that is featuring Joshua Brown later this year. The information is not from the orchestra, but rather from the performer. In the music world, the performer provides his bio on his website so that anyone needing it has access to it. I received full permission to use this bio from Joshua Brown, and the reason it matches the website linked is because they have access to the same bio. They did not write the bio. If there is some form I need to have Joshua Brown sign to show he has given me permission, I am happy to do that. This is my first Wikipedia article, and I learning as I go. But while I am new to this, I am 100% sure that I did not violate any copyright laws, nor did I take my information from any press releases. The information provided has been footnoted properly, demonstrates notability, and is not promoting anything. If somebody has specific changes they would like me to make, I am happy to do so. I have made all the edits that have been requested so far, and hope that this can be resolved.Bilderart (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:COPYPASTE, this is pretty much textbook copyright infringement. WP:COI is also a concern, as I've noted elsewhere. We welcome new editors, but not those who come here solely to promote a single subject with which they're associated, nor is plagiarism acceptable. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also noted at the article talk page, that even with the subject's permission, it's inappropriate to base an encyclopedia article on the content of his website. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 18:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Uboh[edit]

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

An very-negative BLP with possible paid/COI editing and no clear notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an article with a very colourful history: Originally this was a direct copy from the subject's personal website and flagged for deletion as copyvio. This was "remediated" by deleting the problematic contents from the subject's website and replacing it with a referrer to Wikipedia. The author of the article identified himself as paid publicist of the subject in the process - apparently with control over both the subject's personal website and attempts to influence Wikipedia. Despite a history of reminders about COI editing, the author kept introducing poorly sourced, fluffy contents about the subject, while omitting important facts. While the subject clearly has considerable media coverage in Nigerian media, I'm not entirely sure if those sources are reliable/unbiased as reporting seems to be either with a slightly negative or an overly positive slant (most of the relevant refs are linked in the article). The key claim for notability is the alleged uncovering of misppropriated funds. This may fall into WP:1E._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads as if it was meant to slander. The background appears to be cover for the allegations, and with questionable references. Also, the editor is not an active member of the community so the one contribution is an entry, and it is hard to argue, with sinister intent? This shouldn't be allowed.--JAMillerKC (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As sources presented say, this is already happening, so WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply. ansh 666 05:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections[edit]

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

As likely as it may be, the reality is that the title is misleading as the elections haven't actually happened yet so this is pretty much as crystal ball-y as it gets. Is it likely? Sure. Guaranteed? No. Unlike other subjects usually falling into crystal ball territory (ie. new singles from musicians) this is really just an assumption. No objection to recreation once/if there is confirmation. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to me that this is precisely what WP:CRYSTAL was written to cover: Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on weapons in Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This is pure speculation about a narrative many people will be interested in promoting regardless of the facts. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Textbook WP:CRYSTAL violation. Jdcomix (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:CRYSTAL. Ajf773 (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per multiple WP:RS the Russian interference is already happening. See:
- Russia Is Already Trying to Undermine the 2018 Elections, Top Spies Say
- The nation’s top spies said Russia is continuing to target the U.S. political system

Given that WP:RS report that it is already happening, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. Second, even if it did, per WP:CRYSTAL, "expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Given the previous and widely reported Russian interference in the US elections, this is an expected event that is almost certain to take place. Because this clearly meets WP:N and this is already occurring, this is a clear keep.Casprings (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've literally just explained why WP:CRYSTALBALL applies here...this isn't a yearly event or any type of multi-year event. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So it we use WP:CRYSTAL for an event that is occurring? Odd.Casprings (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't claim interference has happened in the 2018 election when the election itself has not yet happened. Trying /= doing. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They tried in 2016. That is notable. As are their current reported efforts. WP:RS's report that "Russian hackers are already scanning American electoral systems, intelligence officials have said, and using bot armies to promote partisan causes on social media." Current actions being done by a state are both WP:N and not WP:CRYSTALLBALL.Casprings (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We really can't debate about things that have not yet happened. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can about the interference. That is an event to itself and is already occurring. As such, WP:CRYSTALBALL does not apply to an event that is already going on, per multiple WP:RSes. It is that simple.Casprings (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's still speculation and only that but we'll see what the AfD outcome is. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply to events that are already happening [15], [16]. I think it was early to create this article now, but if you delete it, it will be back with new sourcing in less than three months, and I think that everyone knows that. So deleting now would be pointless WP:NOTBURO. Geogene (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Jumping the gun a little here. Hard to have a article on something that cannot happen yet ~~for another almost 2 years. Maybe take a look in a year and half and try again.~~ WP:CRYSTAL seems to fit since it cannot of happened yet, it cannot be verified in any meaningful way. PackMecEng (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The midterm election is in November; that's what this article is about. Geogene (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Geogene: Never mind, I'm silly. New year and all. Still has not happened yet. PackMecEng (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the election is not merely when folks enter the polling place and cast a ballot. In all our election-related articles we discuss events months or years prior to the day of the balloting. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah for normal things that we know are going to happen. An article for the elections themselves would make sense and does not violate crystal because of item 1. But this is a maybe might kind of happen with impacts that are very difficult to almost impossible to determine, especially before the election actually happens. PackMecEng (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the mainstream sources that covered the Senate hearing, the unanimous assessment is that the interference has already been monitored by the US. The article does not predict the effect this will have on the outcome, and in fact even the 2016-related article -- where we know that such interference did occur -- offers only some opinions as to that. If the title were "meddling" or "screwing with" would that make it easier to acknowledge that this topic is about something that's already occurred and ongoing? SPECIFICO talk 00:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could go for "Russia screwing with the 2018 United States elections" but that's just because it makes me smile. How about this, just merge the info in this article into United States elections, 2018. If it out grows a section there maybe a stand alone article would work. PackMecEng (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, Power~enwiki, Jdcomix, and Ajf773: I would ask you to relook your vote of WP:CRYSTAL, given that the interference is currently occurring, according to WP:RSes and US intelligence. I find it hard to accept a WP:CRYSTAL vote when WP:RS are either reporting that it is occurring or reporting that US intelligence believes it is occurring.Casprings (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the election hasn't happened yet. There's no reason to speculate on something that may or may not occur. Just because they say it might happen doesn't mean it will. Per WP:CRYSTAL, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." Jdcomix (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jdcomix But WP:RSes are not saying it might happening. They are saying it is currently happening. This makes logical sense because you don't wait to interfere in an election until election day. You do it now, which is the point. It is hard to accept WP:CRYSTAL when WP:RSes are stating that the action is currently happening. Its just not a logical argument. You can disagree with WP:RSes and believe that it isn't currently occurring. That is fine and, if those views are represented in WP:RS, can be included in the article. However, if WP:RS are reporting that the actions are currently occurring, I still do not see how you can argue WP:CRYSTAL.Casprings (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've already argued this, but even if this might be true, there's not enough RS coverage to warrant a separate article when this can easily be merged with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. I simply don't see the point of keeping this article until it actually happens. Jdcomix (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine. Then are argument is about WP:N and not WP:Crystal. That is my point. If the argument is about WP:N, the subject has widespread coverage and there is enough for an article. I understand the article needs to be expanded (if the end result is keep). I plan on doing that. However, the WP:RS coverage is there.Casprings (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article's creator has a knack for creating political articles that are regularly deleted. Notability cannot be determined for something that may very not exist in the future so, for the time being, we must presume there is no sign of notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Which pages are you making reference to? I have created pages but the vast majority are still around. I would ask you to AGF. I would also note that we judge WP:N by coverage by WP:RS. In this case, the coverage by WP:RS is certainly there.Casprings (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't assuming anything else other than good faith. It is a statement of fact: a 41.9% deletion ratio is a very telling statistic. Editors shouldn't have to waste time having these discussions to delete articles on topics you -- and largely you alone -- claim are notable; by now you should understand our notability guidelines, especially if you are going to work on current events (or, umm, possible events). You can claim we have RS but all I see is crystal-balling and news, both of which fall under what Wikipedia is not.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Many of these are deleted to make way for moves. Nunes Memo for example. Most of the others are from years before.Casprings (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While the literal election hasn't happened yet, the campaigning is happening, and russia looks to influence that with advertisements disinformation etc and that is what is mean by interference in the election. It is happening right now so crystal isn't applicable as far as I can see. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The hysteria must stop some day. When Russia really attacks, nobody will believe it… — JFG ^talk 22:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We really can do better than to weasel-smear the National Intelligence professionals of the US by casually calling their official warnings to Congress "hysteria". I don't understand what the second sentence ("when Russia really attacks...") has to do with our work here as WP editors. SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not smearing anybody, just having fun. My second sentence refers to The boy who cried wolf. In all seriousness, the warnings about US midterms are just run-of-the-mill US-news-of-the-day that do not warrant a dedicated article just yet. We don't have Russian interference in the 2017 French presidential election or Russian interference in the Brexit referendum, although that got a lot more press coverage in their days. — JFG ^talk 23:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, we do have a Russian Brexit interference article already! Golly… Quick, all aboard the nuclear fallout shelters! Les femmes et les enfants d'abord!^[FBDB] — JFG ^talk 23:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have seen widespread RS reports of the use of Russian social media posts, bots, and seeding of "likes" and "retweets" to amplify recent US social discord on various topics -- recently the Russian bot promotion of false narratives concerning the Nunes memo. As is increasingly reported now in RS, candidates are positioning themselves for key congressional races in the 50 states and the issues are increasingly defined by the preponderance of chatter on social media and other channels the Russians are known to have corrupted. Like all beginning articles, this one will grow and its focus will become clear with time. But the references and the facts they document already satisfy our notability criteria for a new article. SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not Wikipedia's job to take a position in US political affairs. WP:RGW etc. — JFG ^talk 23:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. The sources say that six heads of intelligence agencies expect Russia to interfere, not that they have yet. Since it was only reported in the news yesterday, there is insufficient material for notability. There is also a weight problem, since it is too soon to know the degree of acceptance in reliable sources. While this subject may merit an article, maybe even soon, it's best to delete for now, per WP:BLOWITUP as it is easier to create a good article than to improve a poor one. TFD (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The ultimate source of this speculation is the DNI "Worldwide Threat Assessment" report, which contains only one sentence mentioning mid-term elections, among a 28-page report. A very terse sentence too: The 2018 US mid-term elections are a potential target for Russian influence operations. Definitely not worthy of an article. — JFG ^talk 01:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That and the testimony (https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings/open-hearing-worldwide-threats-hearing-1) where multiple people, nominated by Trump and confirmed by a Republican Senate, stated over and over again that these efforts were ongoing. Please don't leave that out. I will add a transcript of that to the article once it posts.Casprings (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing happened February 13, that's WP:RECENTISM. If this subject becomes big enough in a few months, there will be time for an article. Until then, a one-line mention in United States elections, 2018 is largely sufficient. Please review WP:TOOSOON as well. — JFG ^talk 02:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:N, as a quick search of WP:RS will confirm the standards are present with this article. The attached document you provided is Director Coats opening statement for the hearing I linked.Casprings (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability will be assessed by our fellow editors during the AfD. Note that notability of a subject in itself doesn't automatically justify a dedicated article. Again, speculation on Russian interference would be better placed in the relevant election article. — JFG ^talk 02:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And the WP:N should be judged by the standards set forth and WP:CRYSTAL is not the relevant policy for this discussion. I have no problem with the article being judged by the standards of WP:N.Casprings (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's really not helpful to get comments from editors who have not read the sources cited in the article, let alone looked at other readily available sources on the subject, let alone kept up to date with the news reports and published analysis of the subject that mainstream sources have presented for the past 3-6 months. No, it's not about somebody's prediction when RS tell us this interference is currently being monitored. It's not just about one news story or about one intelligence report. Please review the available reference material. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.....The point that everyone is trying to make is that there aren't enough reliable sources saying that it's happening, and the election hasn't happened yet, which violates WP:CRYSTAL. Jdcomix (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone? Please. SPECIFICO talk 05:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For a second, lets disregard that the inference is ongoing according to WP:RSs. Your use of Crystal seems to depend on "the election hasn't happened yet". Election day hasn't happened yet. The election is currently happening. In America, it is just a matter of fact that our elections are LONG. Filling dates for candidates have passed. The Primaries election days start in March. Campaigns are already in full swing. The election itself is happening currently. An election is far more then the day you go vote.Casprings (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vacillating here. Elections are normally very short in Australia. And I don't know what filling dates are. The articles itself says that "The United States Intelligence community has assessed that Russia is preparing to interfere" and that "this is going to happen." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources support that the interference is ongoing. Therefore I changed the opening sentence.Casprings (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Casprings. It is already happening and warnings have already been raised by top intelligence officials, so it is pointless to delete per Geogene. The subject is obviously covered extensively in reliable outlets. Davey2116 (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's already a decent stub with ~~decent~~ huge growth potential, and we keep them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage for N, crystal doesn't apply as we're saying what reliable sources are saying and the campaigning for the election is happening right now, which russia is interfering in. Tillerson's warning was on Feb 6. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -It is already happening at the local level according to RS, it appears this story will only grow as the election nears. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not WP:CRYSTAL because page describes events (scanning, etc.) that allegedly had already happened. My very best wishes (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Present and former top intelligence chiefs and SoS Tillerson all agreeing that Russia will interfere in the mid-term elections in November, Dan Coats saying that he has already "seen evidence Russian was targeting" them and also that they never stopped TIME, NYT, CNN, Atlantic, Reuters, WaPo, even Fox News - stay tuned! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no requirement for this article to be a retrospective as some here seem to imply. There is already a large amount of significant coverage about methods which have been used, are being used and will be used by Russia to interfere in the US political process. CRYSTAL does not apply. Jbh ^Talk 17:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:SIGCOV, which topic already has, as do many 2018 election related pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those of you who are not familiar with the US election process (@Hawkeye7: you mentioned you were from Australia) they are long drawn out affairs. Not the relatively short things you see in most Parliamentary Democracies like Australia or the UK. Typically they start after the last 'filing day' ie the last day a candidate can officially declare their candidacy. (Although there may be campaigning/political activity before then especially by PACs and a great deal of 'interference' targeting the election can go on at this time as well.) Then there is the campaign for the party nomination which, depending on the office and state, can last a couple of months and ends with a 'primary election'. In the primary, depending on rules which vary, the entire electorate or only party members vote to select a party candidate. Following that there is more campaigning, again over months, until the general election where a winner from among the various party candidate is selected.
To say the election is not being held and the Russian direct action which currently ongoing is not 'interference in the 2018 election' is a fundamental misunderstanding of the US election process. Interference, as happened in 2016, starts well before even the primaries because selecting who will be running in the General election can have a very strong effect on the final outcome. The election is going on right now. Jbh ^Talk 21:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG with plenty of good sources ps. not all OZ editors are igorant of US electoral process (although some aspects can be baffling:)) pps. might be nice to have some words about this added to Foreign electoral intervention. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jam Urban Adventure Settings[edit]

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

Excessive detail about a non-notable topic; the only references are to primary sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not nearly enough in-depth sourcing to show notability. Definitely WP:FANCRUFT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Veysel Donbaz - Sumerologist[edit]

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

An entirely-unsourced personal bio (only refs are to amazon.com listings). I don't see any claim that meets WP:NPROF. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are a few sources out there, but they don't appear to be in-depth enough to show he passes WP:GNG, and his citation count is not of the level needed to show he passes WP:NSCHOLAR. If enough sourcing is found, and the decision is to keep, the article should be moved to remove the disambiguation of "Sumerologist", since this is the only article about someone by that name. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WorldCat appears to show quite a few books authored (joint) by Donbaz, with Neo-Assyrian legal texts in Istanbul being held in 60 libraries and Middle Assyrian Texts from Assur at the Eski Şark Eserleri Müzesi in İstanbul being held in 50 libraries- does this make his works "well known" (probably in this field?) thus meeting part of no. 3 of WP:AUTHOR (now where are those reviews:))? Coolabahapple (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, oh, here are a couple: review of Middle Assyrian Texts from Assur at the Eski Sark Eserleri Muzesi in Istanbul inAula Orientalis and review of Keilschrifttexte in den Antiken-Museen zu Stambul, II. (Chief Scriptures in the Antique Museums to Stambul) in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies :) Coolabahapple (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is a CV, though that could be fixed with editing. Several papers with low double-digit citations (h-index 9) is below our conventional threshold level for academics. Glad to switch positions if there's more here that could be found. Agricola44 (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary D. Fuentes[edit]

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

Not a notable person. No coverage apart from the press release mentioning his appointment. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being an assistant to the chief of staff in the White House is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to pass WP:GNG as the subject of media coverage — but the sources here aren't getting him over GNG, as one is a directory listing on an obscure social networking site and the other merely includes his name in a list of several White House appointments. To qualify for a Wikipedia article, he would require much more reliable source coverage than just one brief namecheck of his existence in one article that isn't about him. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. But editing for improvement and renaming are suggested by many. Sandstein 09:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Corruption cases involving prominent Israeli political figures[edit]

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

Very sparsely referenced article for a subject with severe WP:BLP and WP:PUBLICFIGURE implications. I suggest either deletion or merge with Corruption in Israel. ^Falling_Gravity 20:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 20:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 20:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rename to Corruption cases against Netanyahu or something similar (as 3000 and 4000 are possibly against people in his close orbit, not him). Bibi is a PUBLICFIGURE, hence BLPCRIME does not apply. These amply pass GNG and NCRIME (or political drama), and are covered as a group (hence the 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, ... case names).Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wait, where in WP:BLPCRIME does it say this does not apply to public figures?~~ Hmm.. this beside the point, I cited WP:BLP because the article is poorly referenced. Also, perhaps the article title could be Benjamin Netanyahu corruption allegations? ^Falling_Gravity 02:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging it with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Israel, as a main piece of content would workFerrellus (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I improved sourcing for each of the cases (+added a new case (1270) from today).Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not entirely sure WP:BLPREMOVE applies, since I wouldn't think the existence of the investigations themselves are especially contentious. In any case, it's certainly a noteworthy development in Netanyahu's Prime-ministership that ought to have a place on Wikipedia; even if most of it has to be scrapped and the article turned into a stub, I would consider that preferable to an outright deletion. — Thanks, Bawb131 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bawb131: What do you think about merging with Corruption in Israel? ^Falling_Gravity 17:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FallingGravity: My first reaction is that it probably warrants its own separate article, but I'm not terribly familiar with Wikipedia's editorial guidelines so I can't really mount an argument for/against. Either way, I wouldn't be fussed. — Thanks, Bawb131 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it should be merged. For starters a merge would have BLP implications in suggesting these allegations are indeed actual corruption and not, per Bibi, merely friendly exchanges of cigars between friends. The interesting angle here is political - these would be similar to the various Russia probes around Trump.Icewhiz (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -And rename and refocus on Bibi as the central figure, would be my suggestion. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -No ideas for a name change but we should definitely add "The announcement by police does not mean Netanyahu will be charged. Ultimately the attorney general decides whether an indictment will be filed, and that could take months." line from ^[1] to help decline bias. Ferrellus (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs heavy editing, though. It's an unorganized mess. cnte ^(talk) 21:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and improve. ansh 666 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce McArthur[edit]

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

This is a WP:BLP of an alleged, but not yet convicted, murderer. Per WP:PERP, however, a mere allegation and arrest is not sufficient grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- due to the extremely high BLP sensitivities involved, such as the fact that we can actually be the cause of a mistrial if the article puts a foot wrong, we need to wait until the alleged criminal is convicted before we start an article about him. And furthermore, an existing redirect for a person with a stronger claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name was deleted to make way for this, after an anonymous IP tried to blank it on the spurious grounds that "the serial killer should not redirect to an unrelated topic". Which isn't what was happening, because the redirect wasn't intended to represent the alleged (the word the IP missed) serial killer — it was intended to represent the inventor of the redirect target, and the alleged serial killer is not automatically primary topic for their shared name just because he's currently newsier.
I want to be very clear here: I live in Toronto, and while I knew neither of them personally I did have mutual friends with both Andrew and Skanda. Everybody I know is shook with a capital SHOOK, and we all want Bruce pitched straight into the fires of hell if he's found guilty. But that's exactly the danger here: in an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, nothing's stopping anybody from tarting this article up with inappropriate content that violates WP:NPOV and WP:RS and WP:NOR. And the danger isn't even just inappropriate content about Bruce, because there's also an underlying current of anger at the police for many aspects of how they handled the investigation, dovetailing in turn with another badly bungled missing persons case.
If and when he's found guilty in a court of law, then yes, obviously an article will be appropriate. Right now, however, when he's still only an alleged murderer who hasn't gone to trial yet, and there's still far too much that we don't know about the police's actual case yet, and people's emotions and speculations about it are still raw enough to be dangerous, is not the time for this yet. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with stricter monitoring of page: I don't think an alleged criminal needs to be found guilty before being featured in a Wikipedia page. I have not seen any Wikipedia procedure about this as colleague Bearcat wants to argue. In cases like this, the criterion is more like existence of overwhelming evidence of him being the alleged perpetrator based on ever-increasing evidence coming out almost on a daily basis including discovery of bodies of murdered victims in his property and official police forces implicating him directly in multiple murder cases. Having said that, I am with Bearcat about necessity of having a separate article concurrently with the McArthur article about the phenomenon of disappearance and at times murder of a number of gay men throughout the years in Toronto and the Toronto police's response over the cases. Of course nobody is linking all the disappearances solely with Bruce McArthur. werldwayd (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep this article on a mere allegation of criminal behaviour, one mistake of verifiability in its content can cause a mistrial that sets him free. Do you really think that's a risk worth taking? Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that's a relevant argument. The same could be said of the numerous media report - some of which are undoubtedly wrong (easy assertion to make given scope of reporting). The relevant thing to assess here is whether the "cat is out of the bag" in terms of amount of reporting - has he become WP:WELLKNOWN (negating WP:BLPCRIME)? Are the violent deaths of the five deceased notable irrespective of the suspect (in which case - we can have an article on the string of killings)? I suspect the cat is out of the bag on this one - and if it isn't - given the degree of coverage - it most probably will be soon.Icewhiz (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

e.g. - the disappearance of "Andrew Kinsman"+"Selim Esen" was notable prior to the connection to this subject - [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] - and a whole raft of other hits for "Andrew Kinsman"+"Selim Esen" (time filtered to prior to 2018) on gNews.Icewhiz (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper reporting is not an open door that can be freely edited at will by absolutely any random dillhole who doesn't understand or respect the tight line we actually have to walk in a situation like this. Newspapers have an editorial control chain and staff lawyers to minimize the risk of error, and publish corrections on the record when they do make mistakes — but we have none of that, which is precisely why the WP:PERP rule exists (and precisely why even newspapers that normally allow open commenting on their articles close it on their reporting about accused but not convicted criminals.) The existence of media coverage is not in and of itself an exemption from having to follow PERP: media coverage always exists for every accused criminal, so no accused criminal would ever be covered by the PERP rule if "media coverage exists" were in and of itself a reason to ignore PERP. There are special complicating principles that require a much higher burden of significance than "media coverage of a criminal accusation exists" before a Wikipedia article about the accused criminal is appropriate — if an accused criminal was not already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for more traditional reasons before they were charged with a crime, then there are exactly zero circumstances under which a Wikipedia article ever becomes appropriate prior to a conviction in a court of law. "Media coverage exists" simply does not cut it as a reason to ignore PERP in and of itself, because media coverage of accused PERPs never, ever doesn't exist. If "media coverage exists" were all it took to declare one particular accused but not yet convicted criminal a special exception to PERP, then every accused but not yet convicted criminal on earth would always be a special exception to PERP. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Well put. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Undoubtedly this series of murders is sufficiently notorious to support an article (and one ought to be created). Regarding the BLP concerns, in this case McArthur's name has been so widely disseminated by WP:RS that he can support an article, and McArthur's "fame" as a suspect means that privacy concerns are trumped by as per WP:BLPNAME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very nearly any accused criminal could always have the same claim, that they'd been covered enough and were therefore "famous" enough that we were free to ignore PERP, made about them. The existence of media coverage is not in and of itself a reason to suspend PERP, because media coverage of accused criminals never fails to exist. When it comes to accused but not yet convicted criminals, we require a much higher burden than "media coverage exists" to justify an article — there are much more important legal and ethical principles at stake than just the fact that it's been covered in the media. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Consider rename to something that covers the killings and not the BLP. The disappearance of "Andrew Kinsman"+"Selim Esen" was notable, per NCRIME/SIGCOV, prior to the connection to the subject. The disappearance of "Skandaraj Navaratnam" also seems to satisfy this criteria (and was linked to the other 2 previously). The possibility of a serial killer was also out there prior to being linked to the subject - [25][26][27] (and denied by the police a month or so prior to the arrest of the subject). It is clear the crimes themselves were notable individually and linked as a group before being linked the subject. Coverage of the subject himself, since being linked, has been extremely wide - arguably making him WP:WELLKNOWN. It is clear to me that the wave of gay disappearances in Toronto's gay village is notable. Regarding whether or not to place this on the accused BLP - it is more iffy - however as time goes by it will probably become more and more due (and it seems to be there at the moment as well).Icewhiz (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This appears to be the same situation as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Nassar, and that was a delete. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was deleted - it was also subsequently re-created. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It was deleted while he was accused and recreated after being convicted. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there was a USA Gymnastics sex abuse scandal in the interim that covered the case. In this case as well (where the case is clearly notable) we could possibly settle on an article name for the case and not the BLP.Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The interim was maybe 9 months. The USA Gymnastics sex abuse scandal article existed only a month before Nassar pleaded guilty. The premature Larry Nassar article came and went around 23 February 2017. The USA Gymnastics sex abuse scandal article did not exist for around 8 months because it was started many months later on 19 October 2017‎ only around a month before Nassar pleaded guilty on November 22, 2017. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Werldwayd and the others. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERX. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename and rewrite. An article about the killings and giving more information about them (there is almost none in the McArthur article) would be much more informative and appropriate, at least at this point. I remember a case when a small bomb was placed in a Brazilian jetliner, killing a passenger who was ejected from the plane by the explosion. Investigations soon found a very likely suspect, not a terrorist but a man with mental problems. The following weekend, the country's largest weekly newsmagazine ran a very detailed cover story on the man, basically grilling and destroying him before millions, at a point when he had not even been formally accused yet. The man committed suicide a few days later, the investigation was closed for lack of further evidence, and nobody ever knew if he was really guilty. This goes to show that presumption of innocence is in all civilized legal codices for a good reason.

I don't live in Canada, but I have several good friends in the Ontario LGBT community and I certainly want McArthur to rot in jail IF he's found guilty, but even if Wikipedia's guidelines didn't caution against this kind of article about a living person who has not yet been convicted after due process, my own sense of morality would require me to propose this solution. In the meantime, the killings and disappearances are very much relevant and should merit an article of their own. UrsoBR (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheReportOfTheWeek[edit]

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

WP:Notability. The only reliable sources are a NY Mag article and a short CNN Money piece. Most of the references are the subjects own YouTube videos, which also brings up original research concerns. Surachit (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changed my vote, with the addition of the Lenta.ru RS source, as noted by J04n Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Always like to know I'm properly attributed :)^[FBDB] !dave 13:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is featured in Lenta.ru, which makes three. -- [28]. !dave 10:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC), revised 18:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TheReportOfTheWeek channel is as notable as many other YouTubers that have articles on Wikipedia. User talk:ZSJUSA

Keep since the channel is large enough to be significant, plus multiple sources including CNN. Alex (Talk) 20:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after improvements. ansh 666 19:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Bent[edit]

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

References only interviews, youtube and social media, along with non-notable industry blogs. A WP:BEFORE showed only passing mentions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Drewmutt all the references are not interviews i think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbofficl (talk • contribs) 10:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think i did the wright thing by adding the article of Kyle Bent. All the References are not interviews. Alao check about him on google please. Anyeay you may decie about it (Fbofficl (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the deletion template, you may please enquire about KYLE and please take an action about it, and also i have added two referencs to the articles (Fbofficl (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep KYLE is a world wide famous musician, and so many searches are there on google (Fbofficl (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

This vote needs much more solid reasoning; see WP:DISCUSSAFD. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - User:Fbofficl has added some pretty good magazine mentions, including Good Music Daily and Vents Magazine. It appears to me that criteria #1 in WP:NBAND is satisfied, but just barely. I cannot find much else on the rapper except for brief mentions of the existence of songs/videos at publications like HipHopDX. I'm not too enthusiastic about the rapper's notability in general, but it looks like some general WP requirements hve been satisfied. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems to be consensus that the sources provided do not provide notability. ansh 666 18:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Earl Kreutz[edit]

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

Article previously deleted via AFD under slightly different title, sourced mainly to unreliable sources (references do not mention article subject) for an actor whose supposedly most recognizable role is in a film that has not been released. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while the page creator is now citing IMDb as saying that the film was released January 1st, that doesn't a) make it true in any meaningful sense; b) make the film actually notable. And given that as of over a month after its release, Rotten Tomatoes has literally zero reviews of it, doesn't even know it exists, it's rather hard to claim that it's notable when it has not been noted, much less that this particular performance was notable. Other content doesn't add up to much. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Delete - The subject of the actor Bryan Earl Kreutz has been discussed in depth by independent, reliable sources. Significant coverage of the actor Bryan Earl Kreutz meets notability guidelines with multiple independent news referenced sources that have been added as footnotes within the article. Furthermore these discuss the actor/producer Kreutz in this article in depth and by independent, reliable sources. Moreover these reliable sources include mainstream newspapers and magazines written and clearly visible with the editor of the newspaper or magazine article present. Since this 2nd AfD was placed on the article, even more improvements have been made. I’ve also added 2x references for verification including Don Burnett an Indie Fest USA award winner produces festival film nominee in 2013 with Bryan Kreutz. His Biography that is independent from the subject of the article provides reference of Bryan Kreutz as a notable co-producer in 2012. Additionally I added the actor Bryan Kreutz participating in the Celebrity orange carpet event Multiple Sclerosis (MS) 3rd annual walk in Los Angeles, CA in March 2016 alongside other Hollywood stars. I’ve added footnotes to the Bryan Earl Kreutz article and other Wikipedia users have edited the page, even since the article was nominated for AfD. There have been verified reviews of the page with only one additional editor adding aWP:TOOSOON. This WP:TOOSOON has since been proven to be incorrect as there are now two sources showing the actors notable film release date of 1-1-18. The referenced sources, many of which are independent sources, are not articles written by the topic or paid for by the topic. Also below is an additional source (Official Interview a Monster film Website- trailer showing the release date of 1-1-18 for the film at the end for this talk page discussion. URL to trailer from Interview a monster official website: http://www.interviewamonster.com/videos/trailer.mp4 The aforementioned independent reliable sources and in depth subject matter of the actor effectively meets the guidelines of notability, not just a basis of 1 mention for notability that is being questioned by the nominator of this subject for deletion. --Techform (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article lacks in-depth, non-trivial support. The majority of references are single line entries; however, there are a number of references that fail to even mention the article subject, plus one press release. The couple that come close to being in-depth appear to be provided by the author, so they lack independence. His participation in the movie Interview a Monster is limited as evidenced by his be listed as 15th in the credits. "Participating in the Celebrity orange carpet event Multiple Sclerosis (MS) 3rd annual walk in Los Angeles, CA in March 2016 alongside other Hollywood stars" has no bearing on notability - notability is not inherited from other subjects. BTW - A trailer is not an in-depth, non-trivial support. What does, "There have been verified reviews of the page" mean? The subject is still WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's take a look at each reference used.

St Louis Post Dispatch, perhaps the best source used, tells us little about Kreutz other than that he worked on the project under discussion.
Pr.com - press release, which does zero for notability.
Doncaster Free Press - zero mention of Kreutz
Daily Mail - zero mention of Kreutz. Also, under WP:DAILYMAIL, we are forbidden from using this source on biographies of living persons.
bryankreutz77.webs.com appears to be a website controlled by Kreutz, and thus not a third-party source. Does nothing for notability.
the Independent (UK) - does not mention Kreutz
phttp://old.mandy.com/home.cfm?c=bur456 Mandy.com] - someone's ressume, and thus neither a reliable source nor an indication of notability
Play Channel Magazine - what appears to be a local interview magazine, article written by one of the actors on the show being covered. As such, not a third-party source.
Inside St.L - one-sentence mention of Kreutz.
Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry - one-sentence mention
[TH Agency] - presumably, the subject's agent, and thus not a third-party source
Beaufort County Now - content provided by TheMovieDB.org, which is a user-edited site and thus not a reliable source.
HNA.com - a database and thus not a source of notability.

...and the remaining seem to be databases, and thus not an indication of notability, or seem to have the same biography as his agent, which suggests not a third-party composition. There is no "there" there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification - @Techform: I note your comment that "Kreutz has been discussed in depth by independent, reliable sources", but I cannot identify them. From the comments above, I am not alone in this difficulty. It would help the discussion if you list what you consider to be, say, your top three sources. Independent, reliable sources that discuss him in depth. Instead of just claiming that they exist, please list the very best ones here. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/13/585428954/israeli-police-push-for-prime-minister-netanyahus-indictment-on-corruption-charg

By Leah Williams - Centralia Morning Sentinel: ^[1]

By By Teri Maddox - News-Democrat BND.com^[2]

By Kim Robertson - Imperial Leader news 1st of 2 pages ^[3]

By Kim Robertson - Imperial Leader news 2nd of 2 pages^[4]

Hi, I appreciate the opportunity here from several parties reviewing for further discussion and the acknowledging of St.Louis post Dispatch as a good article reference on Bryan Kreutz. Also among the other references that are mentioning his name and even continuing on stories about his works. I took a good look at the refs and don't fully agree on your comments by minimizing Kreutz by just name mentions when there are indeed further reading mentioning him by the first name Bryan and related work. Here are my comments in the order they appear for the requested 3 additional references below.

Ref	Comments
1 Williams, Leah.	Has some references to Bryan Kreutz and is adequate to source for referencing.
2 "Living articles about food home & travel from in Belleville, IL - BND.com Belleville News-Democrat"	This article, archived from BND.com is actually about Bryan Kreutz in detail.
3 Robertson, Kim.	This article, archived from Arnold Imperial Leader is also about Bryan Kreutz in detail.
4 Robertson, Kim	(This is a second page; continuing to the Arnold Imperial Leader above.

Techform (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot use articles from "intensefaceboss.webs.com" as linked sources, both because they appear to be copyright violations and we avoid pointing people toward copyright violations, and because there is no reason to assume that they haven't been altered from their sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self serving spam bombarded with dud sources. He lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response for clarification I've placed a call and e-mail to each of the aforementioned women editors who wrote the articles in the last reference list. I'm respectfully asking the group to standby for the editors return replies and due process to supply these articles from their original source once they're placed back on the respective websites as archived independent newspaper sources. The goal here is to remain objective sticking to the facts, rather than stooping down to anything subjective with feelings and emotion from additional Wikipedia users to chime in out of a request.

Techform (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even with those sources, that would appear to be very local press, "local boy makes good" stories, which carry limited weight. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable and minor show business figure. I see no significant coverage of him in independent, reliable sources. A role in a non-notable, unreviewed film contributes nothing to notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G5. No prejudice to a new, clean article. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanne van Kerkhof[edit]

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

Article restored by what (much later) turned out to be a sockpuppet of the author Sander.v.Ginkel. Off course, the sockpuppet could not find any SvG-issues. Reliability now in doubt. Deliberate circumventing of the clean up project User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines. See the Dutch sockpuppet investigation. The Banner talk 16:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Subject did indeed compete at the 2010 and 2014 Winter Olympics, per [29] and [30], and the info about here sister stacks up ([31]). --Michig (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Sanne van Kerkhof competed in two winter olympics, which is very notable. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 10:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. She has competed at the Olympics, making her notable per WP:NOLYMPICS. Gap9551 (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete creation of a blocked user in violation of his block. Legacypac (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOLY. Other coverage here and here too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BoycottAdvance[edit]

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

Non-notable emulator that fails WP:GNG. Refs given do not appear to be significant mentions. Some paper books were mentioned in the previous AfD but no refs from them have ever been added to the article, so the fact that it is significantly discussed there can't be proven._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't yet done a thorough search, but the books brought up in the first AFD only contain trivial mentions of BoycottAdvance. "Retro Gaming Hacks" has a short, one-paragraph instructional on how to set up BoycottAdvance, and "Game Design Foundations" has only one sentence mentioning BoycottAdvance at all. I'd argue that both of these constitute trivial coverage, and can't be used for establishing notability per WP:GNG. If notability-establishing sources are going to be provided, people will have to look further than these books. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either of those would constitute as a reliable source in the context of Wikipedia's definition, honestly. Most of the time when I've seen editors add "video game hacking" websites, they're just self-published obscure blogs written by hackers and enthusiasts, not actual professional writers/journalists. Oops, never mind that. "Retro Gaming Hacks" sounded like a generic website, but it's actually a book written by a professional journalist, so ignore these comments. That being said, your concerns about it not being significant coverage seems valid, especially considering that this article is over a decade old and still hasn't developed outside of a single sentence as of writing this. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. Fails the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator.. Adding the standardized template. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of armed conflicts in 2017[edit]

I'm actually withdrawing this AfD nomination. Didn't realize that there are similar lists for 2014, 2015 and 2016. It may potentially be useful to have more of these. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

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

Redundant WP:FORK of List of wars 2011–present and List of ongoing armed conflicts, which are already tasked with the time frame that covers the year 2017. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:11, 13 February 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua S. McCaffrey[edit]

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

A not very notable script writer. While the writing team as a whole won awards, he only played a minor part in it, and was not a head writer. He was not achieved anything of significance alone. Mattg82 (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It is time to delete all articles that only use IMDb as a source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are credible notability claims here, but even a credible notability claim still has to be properly sourced. The mere existence of an IMDb profile is not an automatic notability freebie on Wikipedia, or an exemption in and of itself from having to clear WP:GNG on real references. No prejudice against recreation if somebody can reference it properly. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Neitzel[edit]

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

A biographical article without serious info about the person behind the sporter. The Banner talk 15:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Are you serious; with your experience? That has never been a guideline. Notable, see WP:NOLYMPICS. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note nominater has already been told many times to read WP:before. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to meet the WP:NOLYMPICS requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this subject is a notable sportsperson as they have competed in the Olympic games. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 10:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And in case anyone thinks that this subject is too short for Wikipedia, most entries in paper encyclopedias are the same size. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 10:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOLY. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NOLYMPICS, a bit of WP:BEFORE would have been nice. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Banner, sorry, but this is heading for a keep, with SNOW. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Metzke[edit]

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

A biographical article without serious info about the person behind the sporter. The Banner talk 15:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Are you serious; with your experience? That has never been a guideline. Notable, see WP:NOLYMPICS. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note nominater has already been told many times to read WP:before. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to meet the WP:NOLYMPICS requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this subject is a notable sportsperson as they have competed in the Olympic games. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 10:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- He has just participated in WP:ONEEVENT with no further career before or after the games... The Banner talk 10:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability guideliness are notability guidelinss and so meeting notability. If you disagree with WP:NOLYMPICS, don't nominate athletes for AfD, but start a discussion at WP:NSPORT. And by the way no further career before or after the games, how do you know? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is what you state in the article by not mentioning any further career. The Banner talk 10:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, it would have been better if you have added that in the sentence. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        "no further career", isn't that WP:CRYSTAL? --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 16:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        No, that is sloppy work. They do not pick up Olympians in the pub or so. People tend to select Olympians because they are worthy, but Sander.v.Ginkel fails to give evidence of that, as usual. And he will not add it in this article either, as he is blocked as a sockpuppeteer... The Banner talk 16:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOLY. Also coverage here and here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (nominator withdrew nomination). (non-admin closure) Kb.au (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Janni Bach[edit]

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

A biographical article without serious info about the person behind the sporter. The Banner talk 15:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Are you serious; with your experience? That has never been a guideline. Notable, see WP:NOLYMPICS. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note nominater has already been told many times to read WP:before. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Author is now blocked for sockpuppetry. The Banner talk 00:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Olympic competitors are notable by default, if there are other issues these can simply be fixed. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 10:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOLY. There's also coverage here about her being part of the first-ever women's handball team for Australia at the Olympics. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet the WP:NOLYMPICS requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOLYMPICS. Hmlarson (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NSPORTS (of which WP:NOLYMPICS is a subsection) clearly states that "standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." Merely being an Olympian is not enough, it has to be shown that she meets the GNG. I am not convinced of this based on the article and the links above. The coverage of her is largely either press releases (and therefore not independent of subject) or falls into the "directory entry" style of page which isn't substantial enough. Would be happy to be proven wrong by the presentation of sources that are reliable, substantial, and independent of the subject. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I do not know whether it is or is not better for the good of WP that we have the practice of always keeping these articles, but we always do. The basis is either that the fact of their competing at this level shows there must have been sources for notability, or that the very fact is so noteworthy that it in effect forms a separate guideline or an exception to the usual guideline (in actual practice , these two justification give the same result). We make the guidelines ourselves, and we decide ourselves by consensus how to interpret them. It is not a good idea to change an established consensus like this on a very important subject field without an extensive general discussion. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject at least meets WP:NOLYMPICS. But is that enough?

I have added a couple of sources with trivial mentions, but also an article from The Sydney Morning Herald about her and her husband Peter, also a handball player (photo), who likewise played for the Australia national handball team at the 2000 Olympics.

Wikipedia:Notability (sports) (permalink) says in bold in the lede:

The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.

but the transcluded FAQ (permalink) in A1 and A2 seems to suggest that a keep under a sport-specific criterion is only temporary and is in expectance of sources being found to reference the BLP to GNG/BASIC.

I'd be surprised if Danish newspapers had not written about Janni and Peter Bach, but back in 2000, not a lot of news were put online in Denmark. I'm willing to follow up and try to find offline sources. Sam Sailor 11:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request close as speedy keep Although the article is created by a user now blocked for sockpuppetry, the present improvements lift it above the critical level. Deletion would only mean recreation straight away but by another user with about the same content. Nobody will win anything by deletion at this stage. So, I withdraw the nomination. The Banner talk 12:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Whenever an article whose subject meets a criteria listed at WP:NSPORT is put to AfD, there's simply a snowshower of keeps without any deeper analysis of the subject's notability. Subject specific notability guidelines (like the GNG) are just that: guidelines. NSPORT goes so far as to say its criterion are "merely rules of thumb" to guide editors in determining whether an article meets the WP:GNG. I've seen similar issues in other AfDs where editors will treat WikiProject specific notability essays as hard-and-fast rules. Kb.au (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope that you have noticed that the author is a sockpuppeteer. The Banner talk 16:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy close as keep With people unwilling to address the sockpuppetry, I accept the improvements of the article. Any removal will now result in a immediate recreation, just giving more work The Banner talk 16:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Bjarnason[edit]

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

A biographical article without serious info about the person behind the sporter. The Banner talk 15:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Are you serious; with your experience? That has never been a guideline. Notable, see WP:NOLYMPICS. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note nominater has already been told many times to read WP:before. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the past you have used a sockpuppet to restore your articles. And now you are restoring your own articles with the same trouble as before. Is that serious behaviour, with your experience? The Banner talk 16:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC) See here for the Dutch sockpuppet investigation[reply]

I don't see any reason for your AfD you are restoring your own articles with the same trouble as before. You don't give a single problem of this article. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is your memory that bad that you already forgot User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up? The Banner talk 16:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember. But still it's not a reason why this articles has been listed for Afd. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Handball players become notable by their accomplishments in playing handball , not by any notability derived from "info about the person behind the sporter". We don't need general biographic information, though we normally do like to have at least a date of birth. We need verifiable information about what makes for notability . That seems to be present. (I don;t usually work on sports AfDs, but I came here because of noticing the deletion reason--it's been used also in bringing AfDs of academics--and always unsuccessfully. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So you think that you can make the Olympics without any further sports career? What about WP:ONEEVENT?The Banner talk 10:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

rather,I think that the fact that someone has made the Olympics shows they have had a prior and usually a subsequent sports career, for which there would undoubtedly be sources even if we are at the moment unable to find them. (fwiw, while prior is certain, subsequent is not, for someone might have retired immediately afterwards.) DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - Notability guideliness are notability guidelinss and so meeting notability. If you disagree with WP:NOLYMPICS, don't nominate athletes for AfD, but start a discussion at WP:NSPORT. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, articles can be restored if new notability is established, and as DGG said notability has been established. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 10:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOLY. There's also coverage here about her being part of the first-ever women's handball team for Australia at the Olympics, and other press coverage too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet the WP:NOLYMPICS requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (any admin out there that can speedy this?:), meets WP:NOLYMPICS ie. "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games", why are editors' time being wasted by nominations like this? Coolabahapple (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The creator is now blocked for prolonged sockpuppetry... The Banner talk 12:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks The Banner, yes and the creator made 1000s of inaccurate possibly/mostly(?) non-notable subject articles but with these ones the sng is straightforward ie. "did the person compete in the olympics? yes or no." i don't see why they have to come here. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you approve of BLP-articles without BLP-content, just because they took part in Olympics once? What about WP:ONEEVENT? The Banner talk 20:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No evidence of passing WP:NSPORT or any other notability guideline. ansh 666 18:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Embiid[edit]

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

Being someones dad is not a reason for an article (notability is not passed up). Apart from that no evidence of any notability. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 15:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 15:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 15:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a colonel in the military and a handball champion [32], could actually be grounds for notability (not presumed notability, though I'm shaky on the sports side). However, it would seem that in this case this individual is mainly covered/interviewed in relation to his son - and not all that much - doesn't pass SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete---yes, he's mentioned in a couple of reliable sources, but only as the father of. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SPORTCRIT. The New York Times describes him as "a former captain of the nation’s [Cameroon] handball team", which means he has represented his country at the international level. The article needs lots of work but don't let his relationship to his son take away from his own accomplishments.--TM 16:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While we are lacking his birth date, if we extrapolate that he was probably in the handball team in the 80s or 90s, then per our own article - Cameroon national handball team - it seems this team did not participate in much of all during those years (1979-1996) - it is not clear at all that he participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics) which per SPORTCRIT leads to presumed notability. Lack of any online sources prior to his son emerging is also not encouraging in this regard.Icewhiz (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but I am having trouble finding "captain of a nations team" in the criteria. So it would be necessary to show he had in fact taken part in a major international event, we cannot assume he did.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find this (the sole online piece (anything!) that didn't mention his son) - [33] - which has him as a lt. col in the Conseil International du Sport Militaire for Handball (the military team). The NYT piece is the only one saying captain of the national handball team (and is probably, as many other sources, conflating a half with a full colonel). Others are saying handball player. This one - [34] says he was president of the Cameroon Handball Federation.Icewhiz (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So we go back to nothing says he ever played in a major international tournament.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In 2013 he was a candidate for president of the Fédération camerounaise de handball[35], which says he was a former player for the FAP (see fr:FAP Yaoundé (handball) - indeed a military team). Given this is a Cameroonian source focusing on the sport, I'm going to guess it is correct. So unless he won that campaign (and looking, I think Mvita won and has been president ever since), I don't think he held the post. Based on the French wikipedia page, FAP was a top African team in the 1990s, so Embiid may well have played in major international tournaments with them. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following up, occasionally his name is (mis?)spelled, "Embid", which might help in searching I don't know. Also, he is mentioned in this book [36], which I only have snippet view for. This suggests he may have been involved in regional or global games, but it isn't clear. I don't have an opinion on whether or not he is a suitable subject for an article, I'm just showing what I've found. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as very few sources come up when googling "Thomas Embiid" with "-Joel" added. Actually just three under news, one in French about the foundation for his other son, Arthur, one listing Joel Embiid solely by his name in an article also mentioning Isaiah Thomas, and a third which used Joël, instead of "Joel". Not notable as a Colonel, but that might be because Cameroon doesn't have a robust online history. JesseRafe (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article was speedy deleted under G5 (non-admin closure) FITINDIA 09:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bejawada Police Station[edit]

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

Reviews and youtube videos do not establish notability, and I am having trouble finding anything that does. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 15:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 15:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I added some established soruces in the article Bejawada Police Station. Beside The film is too old plus it is a south indian film thats why there is not much sources about the film. In wikipedia many articles are available which are poorly soruced but in the article Bejawada Police Station I guess enough sources are added.--Rimjim Borsha (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I agree with Rimjhim Borsha. Tamil/Telugu/Bengali/Kannada films have very little citations in English sources. The writer must add reliable sources from Telugu-language media, If he fails to do so, the article must be deleted. Otherwise, keep the article. Makhamakhi (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Walker (artist)[edit]

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

Previously deleted blp article. Still non notable. scope_creep (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable artist who also doesn't pass GNG. Potentially recreated by a sock. It was remade a few years ago now and the account only had two edits, creating this article and linking it from the DAB. It was recreated in August 2016, the same time another one the socks recreated another previously deleted article. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NOQUORUM: With one opinion to delete and one to keep, and no comments for 18 days and two relists, this is simply the equivalent of a contested PROD. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zapatlela[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG nothing of note found in a WP:BEFORE search Dom from Paris (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep am seeing mentions in reliable sources such as Times of India that it was a box office hit that spawned two sequels but am not finding reviews online but as it was a hit theatrical release they should exist offline or in archives. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice to recreation as a redirect, though the parenthetical disambiguation would make such a redirect less useful. ansh 666 18:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How Now Brown Cow (album)[edit]

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

Non notable album. Lacks coverage about it in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Textbook failure of WP:NALBUMS. Mattg82 (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to band's page ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 18:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jon FX[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable individual. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It is a recreation of a recently AfD'd article that is essentially a little promotional paragraph and a list of works. Notability isn't obvious. _{Vermont | reply here} 12:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable music businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ebony Cavallaro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Award is not major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable. Just another journo doing their job. Prod removed because she had previously been discussed at afd even though she hadn't. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. The 2 sources provided are not third party. LibStar (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS ORPHAN article of local journalist. Agricola44 (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am familiar with her work on TV, but there isn't the reliable, substantial, third party sources out there that would allow us to write a fair and neutral biography of her. WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deletion. Amortias (T)(C) 11:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Professional Development[edit]

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

Not seeing any notability here, and reads like a press hand out (and is almost certainly a copyvio). A lot of links, that do not seem to mention the subject, or themselves are just press hand outs. Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Copyvio. [37] _{Vermont | reply here} 11:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR due to low participation. ansh 666 18:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lasizwe Dambuza[edit]

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

I'm not seeing anything to make him notable. The majority of the references are to interviews of him, which aren't reliable and there are only passing mentions of him. He seems to be famous for wearing a towel to an awards ceremony and being gay He has "60 000 followers on Instagram, over 70 000 likes on Facebook, over 900 subscribers on YouTube" - doesn't sound enough to make him notable Gbawden (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this young entertainer gaining visibility in popular culture, social media - the matter of notability rests on:
- who hires him and broadcasts or otherwise publishes his work, rather than self-promotion (e.g. uploading videos to YouTube),
- [perhaps] being gay in the music and entertainment industries in South Africa is fairly exceptional thus ups his visibility as a personality.

The page's references include items on People.co.za, Sowetanlive.co.za, and Huffingtonpost.co.za, but his artistic and performance output is at an early stage. How does this compare with notability for his peers in other Global South countries? N.B. I'm an inclusionist and pro-diversity, so am inclined to keep. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Éric Toussaint[edit]

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

Couldn't find appropriate sources Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a few sources: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. His books are also pretty popular according to worldcat: Your Money or Your Life is held by 896 libraries, and Debt, the IMF, and the World Bank is held by 290. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cerebellum Which ones of these are WP:SECONDARY WP:RS that we can base an article or even a stub around? For example, [43] from the L'Humanité is an uncritical interview from what looks to me a non-WP:RS. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found several sources as well. Probably meets the academic or author requirements, but neither of those were grounds for deletion. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7 both apply. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RNN Group[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability - not a single reference provided and searches yield little better - Linkedin, Facebook, own web-site but little else. No doubt a commendable and useful organisation but it doesn't cut the mustard with notability as currently presented. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. Non notable topic and promotional tone. Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. _{Vermont | reply here} 11:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Promotional tone. A significant contributor has declared that they are a paid editor, see User:Emilyjohnson1986. This COI editing is contrary to the terms of use. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#RNN Group. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.scope_creep (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undue advertising.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of stations using the Radio Data System in New Zealand[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:FANCRUFT that is only really interesting for a select audience Ajf773 (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Want to vote delete, but not confident enough in the subject matter to vote; simply think no one will miss this article. Just wanted to note a recommendation for AfDing the Australian list as well. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd nominate this one first and nominate the Australian list based on this outcome. Ajf773 (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, also this can change at anytime so it would be really hard to maintain and reliably source.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a useful, or sourceable to anything but original research observation, list. Yeah, the Australian list should go too. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanitta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:Notability Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage seems to all have happened in a span of months, while the work she produced has happened over years and got retroactively mentioned. I am not sure if the latter helps establishing "a lasting notability". --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 09:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the previous AFD was keep only 2 months ago and the circumstances are the same as she has coverage in multiple Bulgarian sources such as [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] , so passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources identified above and in the last Afd are sufficient, like it or not these sort of Bhad Bhabie pop stars meet the Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Nominator needs to follow WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles, and should write an actual reason for the nomination; if "per X" is unacceptable for a person's vote, then it should also be unacceptable for a nomination reason. ValarianB (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if one thinks she was only borderline notable at the time of the last AFD, subsequent coverage by Bulgarian sources since then has only increased her notability. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Prime (New Zealand). ansh 666 19:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Prime TV (New Zealand)[edit]

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

Non notable selection of programmes which has been unsourced since 2013. WP:NOTTVGUIDE Ajf773 (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of sources is worrying, but oftentimes people at content to Wikipedia and simply don't source it, or a source is blacklisted and can't be added/gets removed, but I can't find anything (and don't know Maori) so one would probably have to search for individual shows and match them up with the mentioned dates, but I'm not sure if that would be notable enough for an article. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 09:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you have to know Maori to source up an English language broadcaster in a predominantly English language country? Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lists of notable programs/series indexed by their originating network are standard and not the target of NOTTVGUIDE per longstanding (and repeatedly-tested) consensus (and per what I think is rather specific language at NOTTVGUIDE; the nomination here only gives us a WP:VAGUEWAVE regarding how that might apply here). We also categorize on the basis of original broadcast network, as it is considered a defining aspect of a television series. Category:Prime (New Zealand) programmes shows seven articles, which would seem enough to merit a complementary list that is already annotated with information the category cannot provide. Whether there are any additional valid entries, or this list includes entries that it should not, is a matter for normal editing and discussion to resolve. postdlf (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Prime (New Zealand). While sourcing improvement is needed here, lists of television series by network are not a WP:NOTTVGUIDE violation — it would be violating that if it were trying to list the current schedule as an alternative to a television listings magazine, but simply listing notable programs that have been produced by the network throughout its overall history is not a violation. What's more determinative here, however, is that this lists only eight shows, which isn't enough to really warrant a standalone list when there's also an embedded list already present at Prime (New Zealand)#Programming. If there were a lot more shows in the list, then the one in the network's main article could be restricted to currently running shows and this one could take over the "complete historical list of everything" function. But for just eight, there's not really a compelling need to maintain both lists. No prejudice against spinning it back out in the future if somebody can put more work into it than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 18:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LRP Publications[edit]

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

Highly promotional article. Edited by SPAs and a company employee. Dubious notability. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company. My searches are finding routine announcements of acquisitions and divestments: enough to confirm that this is a company going about its business, but insufficient to demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Uncontested. Sandstein 09:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous Region of Ezidkhan[edit]

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

I'm struggling to find reliable sources discussing such an autonomous region. The sources given either don't seem reliable/independent or mention such a reason. One of them[49], dated last August, even says " Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) has established a self-governance council in Sinjar, in a bid to separate the Yezidi region from Kurdistan." but although the article mentions the PKK it doesn't say the ARE was established by them (and the material is rom Ezidkhan. Although I have sympathy for the plight of the Yazidis there's been a long term attempt to use articles to promote their cause in an unecyclopedic way.Note that this article itself is copied from material I reverted at Ezidkhan yesterday as did User:Ravensfire last month after I reverted it then. Doug Weller talk 07:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going back a bit further in my memory and the page, the new article isn't much changed from an earlier version of Ezidkhan[50] that I took to NORN last October.[51] Doug Weller talk 07:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This could be a case where the name used in the Wikipedia article doesn't reflect that used outside, if I search "autonomous region of yYazidis" I get lots of results, but with the actual article title get almost none, most of the sources seem to mention the Yazidi people so the article title could simply be a mistranslation or an improper name given. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 09:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Donald Trung: You didn't put the phrase in quote marks, nothing showed up when I did that, and the first source I checked was about something completely different but used all the the words. Doug Weller talk 11:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waheed Mandoo Hammo was about the Prime Minister of this group, which appears to be self-proclaimed. There should be a mention of this at Ezidkhan, but without additional sources that show this is a functioning organization and not just an advocacy effort, the stand-alone article is WP:UNDUE. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inadequate sourcing. We already have the article Ezidkhan, where this material was added yesterday,[52] then reverted by Doug Weller as POV (presumably because poorly sourced) and then an hour and a half later, this article was created. That looks like a mere end run round the problems inherent in the text (poor sourcing, unencyclopedic promotion of a cause). Bishonen | talk 19:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After considering this discussion, the previous AfDs for this list, and the other AfDs mentioned by Ajf, I think the best course of action is to delete and indefinitely create-protect the three titles. ansh 666 19:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (Pakistan)[edit]

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

Recreation of an already deleted article only under a different title (using British English) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Pakistan) (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Pakistan) (3rd nomination). Unsourced and fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:GNG as a region specific TV listing is hardly notable when there is a general list at List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network Ajf773 (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt (both title forms) If they're going to be this persistent, time to block it from being created. Outside of three 'to the highest bidder' shows independently created, a Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V of the main CN list. Nate • (chatter) 07:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt both per above. MT Train^Discuss 09:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meege with List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network, and find sources for Pakistani shows. WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies for when there are no sources but as it concerns Pakistan someone with some knowledge of Urdu, Punjabi, Pashtu, Balochi, Etc. Should investigate if this article is not notable. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 09:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But then it's just dubbed. What shows are dubbed in what language can easily be explained on the main article; it's the same list of shows as the main 'list of'. It isn't like this network is carrying Spongebob or Andi Mack. Nate • (chatter) 21:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cartoon Network (Pakistan) and then protect the titles. samee ^talk 13:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to a redirect because it will just encourage another attempt at recreating the article and we shouldn't have these types of list articles on Wikipedia. Ajf773 (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It won't encourage. The redirects, after creation, can be protected to prevent recreation. samee ^talk 06:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt No redirect. It is merely of a question of time. It will be back with 3-6 months or sooner, possibly under a different title. scope_creep (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found another redirect that should be deleted and salted if that the outcome: List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network Pakistan. Ajf773 (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cartoon Network (Pakistan) and protect. Every television channel that exists does not automatically get one of these just because some others have one — it depends on whether the network's main article needs the spinoff for size purposes or not, which this one does not, and whether the list can be referenced properly or not, which this list isn't. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list of programs can already be found on List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network. We don't need a repeated list for every single regional broadcast of what is effectively an international television network. Nor do we need the lists inside the sub-articles of each regional article (therefore I'm opposed to any merge). The following articles of similar nature were all deleted through AfD's:

There are still three others categorised under Category:Lists of Cartoon Network television series which I'm also considering nominating for deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iberia Airlines Flight 933[edit]

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

WP:GNG WP:NOTNEWS Non-notable accident with no fatalities and no consequences, no notable passengers or other notable attribute Petebutt (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a B-class article with good coverage and good sourcing, I can't find anywhere that people have to die for an incident to become notable, and most people who do die in notable events are non-notable people. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 09:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article not remotely B-class -- it's rated Start, and the checklist for whether it meets B status or not has "criteria not met" for referencing and citation, coverage and accuracy, and grammar and style. Far from having "good coverage" or "good sourcing," the article's devoid of news sources, and is referenced by the likes of blogs, Flickr and fan sites like planespotters.net and taxiways.de. Indeed, an event need not have fatalities to be notable ... but it does need to meet the GNG. Ravenswing 12:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First hull loss of a DC-10. Hull loss instances for major passenger aircraft are typically notable, especially since the plane was carrying passengers when it crashed! Also made front-page news in random local newspapers the day after or third-page national news in random local papers, though was buried in the NY Times [53] [54] Furthermore the FAA itself established the incident led to a better understanding of wind shear. [55] SportingFlyer (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. major hull loss, coverage is indebth. Yes the article could and probably should be expanded but so far it seems pretty notable to me. The two above keep !votes also bring up some good arguments for retention in my opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable as the first DC-10 hull loss. Any issues that the article has are not a reason to delete it. Mjroots (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kept as notable topic per WP:SPLIT. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of the sword[edit]

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

Appears to be a content fork (WP:CFORK). While the subject is notable, it is covered more in depth on Sword. Enwebb (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per WP:REDUNDANTFORK, "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.". Therefore, no case for deletion is being made here. See also WP:SPLIT. Andrew D. (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conment the Sword article is at 71 kb's as of writing this, so a split wouldn't seem unwarranted. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 09:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title changed to Chronology of bladed weapons: Title of original article in catalan (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q11916205&oldid=31040745)--Mcapdevila (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.. ;Arguments against the fusion with sword

That chronology it's a compilation that includes diverse and relatively uneven documents about different families of bladed weapons: swords, dress-swords, sabers, rapiers, foils, machetes, daggers, knives, arrowheads, etc..., with the sword references being the most numerous but not the unique among the other listed references of the rest of bladed weapons. The reason to group them into a single list responds to a goal for simplification.. instead of making a different chronology article for each type of bladed weapon.

Some of the facts included.. not directly linked with sword

1146. Earliest clear references to naginata, which is not a sword
1540. "Pirotechnia", work of Vannoccio Biringuccio, armourer of Siena. Among other topics it deals with some iron mines and the reduction of the mass in a forge with bellows.
1742. "Dictionnaire Universel De Commerce", Jacques Savary des Bruslons, Philémon-Louis Savary. French name of the composite leaves with iron core and steel exterior ("lame de ettofe").^[54]
1750. News about the "varnished iron" or "iron" mines of Mondragón.^[55]
1760. Carlos III of Spain orders to Luis de Urbina, infantry colonel, a report on the bladed weapons factories of Toledo, Valencia, Zaragoza and Barcelona

At the time of this writing it's linked (called) as a sub-article from the history paragraph of the following articles

Wikipedia talk:Summary style#Multiple mains

This can be thought of as layering inverted pyramids where the reader is first shown the lead section for a topic, and within its article any section may have a {{Main|<subpage name>}} hatnote or similar link to a full article about the subtopic summarized in that section. For example, Yosemite National Park#History and History of the Yosemite area are two such related featured articles. Thus, by navigational choices, several different types of readers each get the amount of details they want or they need.--Mcapdevila (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree now that it a justified content fork, especially as the focus has shifted from swords only to all bladed weapons. Thanks to everyone who has weighed in so far. Enwebb (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 18:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Long Road To Tiznit[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NALBUM. Low-quality coverage of the album itself, and "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography." Enwebb (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've removed the puffery. Nothing much to say, it has not charted nor been written about in multiple reviews. Textbook failure of WP:NALBUMS. Mattg82 (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burden (EP)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NALBUM. Questionable notability, and "notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography." Enwebb (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There once was a time when our notability standard for albums was "as long as the band has an article, every album they ever recorded is automatically a valid spinoff". But that's not the standard anymore — albums now require chart placements, award nominations or wins, and/or critical attention that gets them past WP:GNG, none of which have been shown here. This just states that the EP exists, and sources the fact only to a post on the record label's Facebook page, but social media posts aren't notability-supporting sources, and content self-published by directly-affiliated people or organizations aren't notability-supporting sources. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NALBUMS, what more can be said for an article with just a track listing. Mattg82 (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tegernseer Landstraße[edit]

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

Questionable notability per WP:NTSR; web pages that mention this street are in mostly in German so I cannot tell if the coverage is substantial or trivial. Enwebb (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To translate " "Unsere Tela“ ist ein Projekt zur Geschichte der Tegernseer Landstraße in Giesing" = "Unseren Tela" is a project documenting the history of the Tegernseer Landstraße in Giesing so there's an entire project dedicated to documenting the history of this street, which to me is unheard of but people have different hobbies. I would suggest going through Unsere Tela and look for the sources they use and then find them, I can speak and read German but I'm too busy to look for them but I would suggest anyone with an interest in this street to do so. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 09:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This appears a main artery in Munich. An entire chapter in the book Architektur in München 1933-1945: ein Stadtführer is dedicated to it about the development of it during the Nazi era.[56] The Münchner Merkur has an in-depth coverage of it.[57]--Oakshade (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just added sources and footnotes to a couple of statements in the article. One source [58] backs up a lot of statements and addresses the topic directly and in detail (maybe still not enough to make it notable; there are still unsourced statements left that couldn't be sourced with the online references i found). There probably is additional information availabe in offline sources. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG applies. Also it is a named section of the B2R and the E54, as such a standalone article could be argued on their notability. The street is subject to historical analysis and exhibitions produced - see http://histbav.hypotheses.org/4859 Agathoclea (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 telenovelas and series of Telemundo. Sandstein 10:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mi familia perfecta[edit]

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

Article created without reliable sources and really in Google there are no reliable sources that talk about the project. Philip J Fry / talk 22:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 05:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of telenovelas and series of Telemundo Show has a trailer, so it's obviously going to air, but nothing more outside of Telemundo PR to be found yet. Nate • (chatter) 07:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. YouTube trailer has March 4, 2018, date at the end, but you'd think something near that release date would be well-publicized. Therefore, this should either be moved to a draft or redirected to the Telemundo list. — Wylie pedia 11:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 18:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tata CLiQ[edit]

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

Completely fails WP:CORP with two press release sources, two sources that are not even about the company, and no coverage found when searching. Nothing to suggest that there is anything notable about it. bonadea contributions talk 20:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 21:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 21:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. possiblyspeedy delete--this is essentially an advertisement DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no comment, relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question, has anyone tried looking for sources that weren't in English as this concerns an Indian company? --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 09:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assuming the name is the same in another language ... then available references all appear to be press releases and fail WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 23:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sumaira Tazeen[edit]

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

no in-depth coverage in RS. some information in the bio is OR and is not inline cited. allegedly created by a sock puppet. an investigation is underway at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rashid Ghafoor. --Saqib (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The sources in the article are minimal, but at least a couple do go into her work in detail. I see others in Google books. Minimally notable, but notable.104.163.148.25 (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I checked the 8 existing references at the article, I saw many possibilities for improvement. True, no inline citations and original research. But it can be removed. The Express Tribune article is exclusively on her art. Some art or museums-related articles are interviews with her about her work. I see some hope for the article, if improved. Ngrewal1 (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete as coverage is not enough to pass WP:NARTIST. Störm (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ngrewal. This article should not be deleted because it has potential for improvement. Davey2116 (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - apart from the Express Tribune article above, there's this Dawn article that is exclusively on her. 39.57.181.120 (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keaton Jones[edit]

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

This is a clear case of BLP1E, a person notable for one event, his video against bullying. The references to various celebrities do not really create notability but are a sort of woozle effect. The guidelines against creating articles about living persons with marginal notability are especially applicable to children, and it appears that the subject is eleven years old. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no comment, relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:BLP1E and failing WP:SUSTAINED. MT Train^Discuss 05:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think that this nomination is WP:TOOSOON as there's still plenty of news coverage about the person, and if in the future nothing new pops up this could be seen as WP:ONEEVENT, but simply deleting any article because it's a recent event is counter-productive. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 09:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook WP:BLP1E. @Donald Trung your entire comment is ridiculous. We don't 'wait to see' if 1E applies, it applies now. Linking to WP:CYRSTAL to try to argue that future coverage might crop up is exactly the opposite of the point of that policy. You have also managed to use WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS incorrectly and opposite to the intent of those policies. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 11:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a textbook case of where BLP1E meets NOTNEWS. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Noting also that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yutaka Tokiwa[edit]

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

1. BLP with only primaries fails WP:GNG. 2. claim of notability is h-index of 51, but that fails as unreliable per WP:NACADEMIC . I have concerns about excessive creation of non notable articles by the creator, and other accounts voiced at WP:COIN (COI denied) Widefox; talk 14:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn My assumption that we build all on secondaries / GNG was incorrect per DGG (other AfD) and David Eppstein, thanks for that. Widefox; talk 14:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this stub which I created certainly needs expanding, and I will endeavor to add to this article at my earliest convenience, however I regard the academic in question to be notable given his extensive contributions in this field of academic study. Admittedly some sources are in Japanese, but his published work is internationally noteworthy, as evidenced by the extent to which he has been cited in this field (18 papers cited more than 100 times each and an h-index of 52 according to Google Scholar) Uhooep (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That neither addresses the nomination of h-index not being used for notability, nor the fact that your earliest convenience likely isn't relevant as you're indef blocked. Widefox; talk 00:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist #1
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether the nominator likes it or not, heavily cited works are how we measure notability according to WP:PROF#C1, and this is a clear pass. The article could use expansion from its current stub state, but that seems possible. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the researched published by this person isn't just heavily cited but is published over the span of multiple years so this person has stayed notable for years and stubs can always be expanded as Wikipedia isn't written in a day. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 09:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. h-index > 50 and citations > 8K conclusively passes PROF. Agricola44 (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shama Khalid[edit]

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

no in-depth coverage in RS. most of the bio contains OR and is not inline cited. Saqib (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete - nothing in coverage. Fails WP:NWRITER. Störm (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it fails WP:GNG. samee ^talk 13:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, apparent PROMO. Searches for her turn up article on other, more prominent Pakistanis with the same name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Search for her on news return related article google book returns her books ^[5] ^[6] Pheeca93 (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the "hits" on her name in the google search above are to a politician who has the same name and who was governor of a province. Shama Khalid (politician) probably does merit an article. Note also that hits on an author's own writing in a gBooks search do noting to establish notability, what is needed are reliable, secondary sources discussion her books (reviews, interviews, literary criticism) but I have not found that sort of coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bravox[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability . Templated as lacking references since 2008. No independent sources and searches reaveal only sales sites and own web-site. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The 2005 "Car Audio and Electronics" article by the firm's US distributor indicates that the company's products have been sold largely under the covers by other brands which may account for a shortage of distinct attention in 3rd party sources. Be that as it may, however, my searches are not finding the coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist #1
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP & significant RS coverage not found. No secondary sources listed in the articles; we should expect better. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 endorsed WP:PROD. ansh 666 18:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drum Pads 24[edit]

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

Non-notable app. Fails WP:GNG, lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. — Za wl 11:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:50 year rule. SpinningSpark 16:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist #1
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Truro Civic Society[edit]

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

I do not believe this charitable organisation meets WP:ORG. It is a local organisation dealing with local issues of planning and heritage in an English city with fewer than 20,000 residents. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of civic societies, possibly starting out as a section within civic society. Civic society is notable, some civic societies could be, but there's no indication as yet that Truro's is. There is little in this article other than "It is the civic society for Truro" and that, together with a foundation date and any notable current or past chairs could easily be listed in a table.

Further, I expect that Bert Biscoe will be back at AfD soon, given the recent indef ban of A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (talk · contribs). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can only seem to find passing mentions of this society which doesn't warrant an article on its own, but as some mentions are by quite notable organisations I would support merging it into a list article as the content of the article isn't wholly unencyclopedic. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 09:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NORG & significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2 refs in the article, 1 primary 1 404, a small charity in a small town, google showing nothing but routine. Szzuk (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hostsharing[edit]

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

Not seeing any notability. The few sources seem to all be primary. Creator has admitted a COI.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This cooperative influenced § 43 of the Cooperative Society Act in Germany. Since then in Germany, cooperatives are allowed to meet in a virtual general assembly of members. And members can participate at meetings even on different continents. This is a historic fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostsharing#The_Virtual_General_Assembly

--Scoid (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an RS that covers this in any detail, we need independent RS to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG. If the claim to notability is that it "influenced" a law change, I'd expect to see a lot of references. If they can be found, I'll happily change my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 23:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to draft. No additional sources added, but it seems like it might have some potential. ansh 666 19:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Shomshak[edit]

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

Appears to be a run-of-the-mill game writer with no external signs of notability Mattyjohn (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 01:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise move to WP:DRAFT-space so it can be worked on. BOZ (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run of the mill coverage, nothing of note.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting one - he's a reasonably prolific author in an under-reported field, working in an era when most of the publications were in print and not online. Therefore, notability is going to be harder to establish than just hitting Google. Looks notable to me under category three of WP:CREATIVE, given that he's contributed significantly to both Dungeons & Dragons and the World of Darkness. Also likely to meet WP:AUTHOR as reviews exist of his works, both on and offline for example Orpheus and EverQuest RPG GM Guide. Adders (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist #2
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article isn't even a biography but just a list of works by a particular author, none of which appear to be notable on their own. SportingFlyer (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains^(talk) 02:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Bar Yosef[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 04:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I can't find any sources nor do I see that he is integrated into the encyclopedia by links from other articles. This may well be due to inavailability of sources in English, and I am open to reconsider my position if appropriate sources can be identified. This article appears to be a translation of the article in the Hebrew language wiki, which appears to be a bit more comprehensive and linked to other articles. Alansohn (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~Keep (see below). He was a historical Jewish Iraqi figure whose burial place is said to be in the tomb of Joshua the High Priest. However, there is nothing available on him online in Hebrew or English; I might be able to find a mention of him in David Sutton's encyclopedic Aleppo: City of Scholars, which I don't have easy access to. This article is copied from the Hebrew Wikipedia, which also uses offline sources. Being obscure and almost unverifiable, I would delete. Yoninah (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I noticed his student, Abdallah Somekh, has a page. That page gives Yaakov's name as "Yaakov Harofe". Using variations on that name, I find a listing of him under "Jacob ben Joseph ha-Rofeh" in Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World, online here: [59]. I think this passes ANYBIO, although his entry does say little is known about him. Also, I found a book on ebay that seems to be by hem, "Shemen Hatov". I don't read Hebrew, but if anyone does, images of the title page of that book which are available on ebay page may have more to say. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Smmurphy: great work finding out his real name. The ebay site is not so useful, but this site shows his handwritten manuscript. The Brill Online site will help write a very stubby article. Changing my !vote to keep. Yoninah (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cleaned up the page, added sources, and removed questionable, unsourced material. Yoninah (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks! I hoped someone (read: you) would. This is pretty far outside of my expertise and I'm glad you took the time to do it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improved sourcing. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The sourcing seems to be on the edge of meeting WP:GNG, so naturally people disagree which way it should go. No prejudice to renomination should sourcing not improve in the future. ansh 666 19:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Young Geographers[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines RainWizard29422 (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC) This article covers an International Association of Young Geographers that may possibly operate in multiple countries around the world, yet provides no sufficient references besides that of the organization's website. The article shows bias towards the organization, indicating that it may be written by an involved member of the organization. For example, there is no source proving that its magazine Dimensions is the "the world's first peer-reviewed academic journal for undergraduate students in geography." Looking at the references, all sources point to either the website of the IAYG, or the NAYG, its North American sub-organization. One link about the Philippine Geography Olympiad is simply an advertisement for a preexisting competition that has lasted for eight years. Additional sources include a Facebook post made by the organization itself. There is simply no evidence in a reputable source that this organization is a "major global nonprofit." Additionally, it's creation of groups in Nigeria and Liberia have no online mention besides a page on IAYG's website. None of the proclaimed achievements can be corroborated by any reputable news source. While the efforts of the high school student aiming to promote geography literacy are commendable, the organization does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines(See WP:GNG) While this is a deletion page, perhaps other alternatives can be considered such as establishing this article as start class. RainWizard29422 (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hate to recommend a delete for this type of article, but I can barely find any additional non-primary sources regarding this organization to show notability. SportingFlyer (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Out of full disclosure, I am a professor affiliated with the IAYG in Canada, so I definitely am not a neutral arbiter. However, I just wanted to add a few comments regarding this IAYG that may provide more context. While I'm writing with no official connection to the IAYG, I think my 6,000 colleagues in the organization (the vast majority professors, educators, etc.) would agree with the comments below! To begin, I do not believe that any of the authors of the article are affiliated or part of the IAYG anymore. Even after review & edits by two administrators, the article is not currently flagged for NPOV. That said, as a relatively new page, there is much room for improvement: quotes that have been directly lifted from the IAYG website should be removed based on WP:NPOV, in my opinion.

Notability is clearly established, especially when keeping organizations like the European Geography Association for students and young geographers in mind that also have Wikipedia pages (albeit also imperfect - like this page, the citations need to be broadened). The organization's work is built on that of a few predecessors, including some that have worked for 60+ years, and as a large global organization, its impact is clear. The Philippine Geography Olympiad, for example, is a program by one of the IAYG University Society System's local branches, not a random advertisement: it is instead an example of the work of IAYG University Societies across the world, and the length and visibility of the competition is a testament to the society's importance and the contribution of students in the IAYG's Society System. One of the reasons why non-primary sources on the IAYG may be difficult to find is because the IAYG is often organized at local and regional levels - finding individual societies or the programs of each society is much easier. For example, the National Association of Geography Students, Nigeria is the official university student branch of the IAYG in Nigeria - and while it may be harder to find primary sources detailing IAYG Nigeria, it should not be difficult to find primary sources about the National Association of Geography Students, Nigeria, which is a subsidiary of the IAYG. Admittedly, however, as an organization whose work is largely based in the Developing World - including some of the world's nations with lowest media coverage, it is often difficult to find sources about the organization's work because of the significantly decreased level of media & external exposure (associations in the developing world, like the Nigerian Association of Mathematical Physics often are very limited with few external references due to these natural limitations). In fairness, we need to keep that in mind when evaluating external sources.

Furthermore, as you can you can see on the website (www.younggeographers.org) and on websites like the official website of the IGU YECG, the IAYG has partners and local affiliates all across the world, as a highly visible, connected, and notable organization in the field of geography. Vis-a-vis the Global Geography Curriculum Development Programme, you will notice that governments from around the world have established partnerships with the IAYG - a marker of its impact and global respect within educational institutions. In the sources, you will also notice that the IAYG has a partnership with IGU institutions, also reflecting its status and notability.

I think the best recourse would be to look to the page's improvement. While I do not believe I should add any content because of a potential conflict of interest, I am happy to add pictures that will help corroborate the article's information about the IAYG's work around the world (including the developments in Liberia and Nigeria that RainWizard mentions). Looking through RainWizard's history, I am also concerned that it could be a personal matter, as User:EmperorNapoléonI spearheaded the deletion of one of RainWizard's pages about a middle school. While this may not be the case, and I sincerely hope that RainWizard is acting in good faith as a trustee of our shared resource, I do hope that personal clashes will not get in the way of a justifiable page for a large and notable organization - one that has already been reviewed by respected admins, and deserving of WP:Notability standards. Isaac Iorazev (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only issue is the article needs to pass WP:ORGSIG. An organization doesn't have inherent notability, and while I appreciate your suggestions to improve the article, that doesn't change whether it's notable for Wikipedia, and I can't find anything that makes me recommend anything other than delete, and I don't want to recommend a delete. Your Nigerian Mathematical Physics article at least has multiple instances of coverage from a newspaper. The GGCDP website appears to be a branch of the organization. For instance, if you could find any source from a non-organizational websites showing a working relationship with another institution, I'd recommend something other than delete. SportingFlyer (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SportingFlyer, thanks for the note. I'm completely in agreement. I spoke with IAYG NorthAm Global Communications officials earlier today (people more important than me!), and they told me that the IAYG carefully controls & monitors a lot of information that details the IAYG's working relationships with other institutions, which is why it can be difficult to find. For example, due to the nature of the IAYG's work, most documents are not normally disclosed to the public. However, I was able to receive permission to share access to some official documents (including those on non-IAYG/non-organization websites) with you for the purposes of corroboration, which will prove the IAYG's deep working relationships with other institutions. If it works for you, please email [email protected] (the email address for our local group) so I can share the access codes with you. Hopefully, this will resolve the issue! Iorazev (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Official documents from the organization won't show notability, unfortunately, nor will referencing documents behind access codes. See WP:ORGIND. Again, I am struggling to find any independent sources online, and the ones that could be arguably independent focus on the founder. Would there be anything in any geographical journals? Any work done with say the AAG? SportingFlyer (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - the subject meets WP:Notability criteria, but the page definitely should be improved with more sources and external information, as all new pages should. Pages like these, that detail subjects which meet Notability standards, shouldn't be deleted but continually improved, especially so early in its life. I think someone ought to put a Refimprove tag on it to attract attention of editors. JimNemcovic (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - Considering User:Iorazev's statements, this is what I have to say: Hello Iorazev, I read through your comments on the articles for deletion page for the International Association of Young Geographers. Many of your points are well articulated, such as the fact that lesser developing countries will not have enough coverage. Emperor Napoleon did delete my middle school article, but the only reason I am advocating for a delete is because, on similar premises to my own article that was deleted, the article contains no other sources besides links to its own website. While the IAYG website indicates it has formed geography associations in countries like Ghana and Nigeria, there is simply no further information besides a single page on the website about each of them. Even if news coverage is less in LDCs, there should at least by some online record of NGO or the governments mentioned on the IAYG website that they are collaborating with the IAYG. For example, I see the official seals of South Sudan, Nigeria, and Swaziland, but no official reciprocation on any of the government's websites. Also, you mentioned the Association taking charge of the Philippine Geography Olympiad. The post on the website is simply a flyer advocating registration. The competition itself has been running for eight years, longer than the IAYG, which was founded in 2017. This Filipino Government Website mentions the competition and the fact that it is hosted by a local university, but no mention of the fact that the IAYG coordinates it. (http://www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/advisory/2018/DA_s2018_002.pdf) Pictures would be appreciated as proof of the IAYG's activities, however, a few gatherings of members may not be sufficient enough to justify. I am willing to withdraw my deletion motion if IAYG can post some sort of Press Release with more elaborate statistics of their activities, which indicated corroboration from a more legitimate source. Again, the organization is commendable in its aims, and geography education should become a greater priority in society, however, at this time the organization is not notable enough for Wikipedia. RainWizard29422 (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

I want to correct a few points, because I believe RainWizard has a number of misconceptions of the IAYG that I as an affiliated individual can help dispel. To begin, while the modern branding of the IAYG is a recent development (the name was formally changed to the IAYG in January 2015 - not 2017 - and the U.S. branch to the NAYG in June 2016 to reflect a unified branding), and the growth of the organization into an influential institution has occurred largely in the last 6-7 years, the IAYG is built on a foundation of decades of work in geographic education. In fact, of the IAYG's predecessors, the first were established in the early 1960s! I think you have also misunderstood the nature of the Philippine Geography Olympiad. The IAYG's University Society System also includes branches all over the world, including the Geographic Society of the University of the Philippines, which is the IAYG University Society System's largest branch in the Philippines. The Philippine Geography Olympiad is a program of this branch, and the competition has indeed ran for 8+ years. As the Geographical Society of the University of the Philippines is a branch of the IAYG University Society System, it is an example of the work & coverage surrounding one of the IAYG's University Society System branches - and because it is a branch-led program, the branch's name is most prominent. This is actually a really good example of media coverage surrounding IAYG University Society System events, with mentions even on the Philippine government's website, like you said. As I noted before, one of the challenges with the IAYG's media presence is that to find more extensive sources, you have to research each of the IAYG's local and regional components.

I would highly encourage you to corroborate your claims with the true information about the IAYG, and I'm sure the great folks in Global Communications would be more than happy to tell you all about each of these events. As I noted earlier, I talked to Global Communications North America, who told me that they are happy to detail history, information, and citations about the organization and its local components. According to them, if anyone has specific questions or would like a more exhaustive review, they are asked to email the Global Directorate at [email protected], which will respond with all the necessary documentation and information as necessary. I'm proud to be part of a very transparent organization and will also help in any way I can, so please copy [email protected] if I can help as well :) Iorazev (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wrote this article, so obviously I should not comment on its inclusion or deletion. However, while there is much room for improvement (new articles typically need additional sources, etc.) I think it meets standards prescribed in WP:ORGSIG given the coverage of IAYG-sponsored events & local organizations in media. Information about the IAYG and documents demonstrating the relationships with governments and other respected institutions also attest to ORGSIG standards (I reached out to you, Iorazev for documentation). Also, this page was just reviewed & approved by admin Graeme Bartlett last week, and I do not think anything has changed since then (other than a case of vandalism) that would merit any change in status. That said, I care about the quality of articles I write, and will do my best to add more references and sources, improving it as any would. Adding to Iorazev's comment, I want to also remind RainWizard to consider this case objectively, as this account was involved in the deletion of a page relating to a middle school that RainWizard created and strenuously objected to. I trust that he is acting in WP:Good Faith, but it always important to be cognizant of particular choices taken. Best regards EmperorNapoléonI (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi EmperorNapoléon, the page has been up only since the start of the month and I don't see a talk page nor do I see a review & approve - but a review & approve by one editor doesn't change the fact the article has never passed WP:N. I have no reason to believe this isn't a good faith deletion request: even assuming it was made with malicious intent, the organization needs independent media sources to be notable. I can't find any after several online searches and no one here has provided them. I will happily change my vote to keep if significant independent coverage of the organizaton exists as I appreciate what the organization is trying to do. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that User:Iorazev has some misconception of the founding of the NAYG/IAYG. The NAYG was founded by Phillip Meng in summer of 2016. Social media posts by Rishi Nair, one of the top members in the organization, corroborate this evidence. https://plus.google.com/u/1/+RishiNfl/posts/ZRJXnNzho43?cfem=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RainWizard29422 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RainWizard29422, as a member of this organization, I believe that you are incorrect about the history of the IAYG. You are correctly referring to the unified rebranding and renaming of our organization, which was done internationally in 2015 and in the United States in 2016, and was celebrated as a "new start" especially since it marked the launch of many endeavors in the United States and pan-American activities for the first time (I should note that NAYG and IAYG websites were not connected until 2017, which may also be the source of your confusion). However, before the rebranding, the organization had operated for many years, hence why so many of its programs have been running for a long time. Furthermore, Rishi Nair is no longer a student representative of the NAYG. Alas, neither of us are definitive resources, so I beseech you to speak with IAYG Global Communications, who I am sure would be pleased to help correct your misconceptions. Iorazev (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To whoever is an administrator on Wikipedia, isn't it against the etiquette of Wikipedia for members of an organization itself to added substantial comments in the discussion of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RainWizard29422 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator, but they haven't voted on whether or not to keep or delete the article, they've been forthright with the conflict of interest, and they're in a good position to show whether this qualifies for WP:N as they may have access to sources that show notability I don't have easy access to (such as journal articles). Nothing of concern on my end. Please try and stay on topic as to whether the article meets WP:N. SportingFlyer (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per RainWizard. Very few secondary sources (if at all?) that mention this organization with a quick Google search. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 06:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Iorazev's contributions are a little bit suspicious. Per WP:SOCK and looking at WP:SOSP, and the fact that Iorazev's account seems to have been created solely for the purpose of arguing against the deletion of this article...I don't want to accuse directly but this is either a bewildering coincidence or concerning behavior. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 06:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi smileguy91, you're not wrong! As I stated earlier, I am affiliated with the IAYG, and created this account to help present additional information and context that might help with this discussion (in academic organizations, sometimes you have to dig deeper to find corroborating sources, after all). I think I've been very honest about this conflict of interest, and it is why I have not voted on this issue and have only added comments. I'm not sure what the protocol is but I think that's within the bounds of Wikipedia rules. In that spirit, I also want to ask about your connection with RainWizard29422 and comment on a matter. This morning, we received a public memorandum (it's been posted at http://www.nayg.org/memoranda/m0216/) on this issue. I'm curious to know how WP:COI applies to cases like these. Iorazev (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I probably need to clarify that I meant a sock of the creator of the article. I also really appreciate your disclosure about your connections to IAYG, and your resolve to not vote on this issue. That is commendable, and I appreciate your effort to abide by Wikipedia rules in this sense. I only intend to call one thing into question for the consideration of whoever participates in this discussion, and I want to emphasize that my delete vote ONLY has to do with the lack of notability of the article due to vaguely related (if related at all) sources, and not this. This account's ONLY contributions to Wikipedia are somehow related to this discussion, which is fairly consistent with WP:SIGNS of socking (which is against Wikipedia policy) by the creator of the article; however, correlation is NOT necessarily causation. Also, the memorandum you mentioned on the IAYG's website seems to have been written significantly after the creation of this AfD notice, and quite possibly (considering the 18:11 UTC timestamp of your above message, which is approximately 11:11 in Edmonton, Alberta) specifically written in response to this article. I don't see a plausible reason why the writer of the memorandum would write it on the 16th instead of the 14th, when this discussion was first commented on by you, who appears to be the same person as the person who wrote the memorandum or at least triggered its writing. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 04:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

smileguy91, I am not a sock puppet of EmperorNapoleon. That said, our answers and this memorandum are linked because we began coordinating with the IAYG's Global Communications team after the Deletion motion was filed. This is one of the reasons why I have chosen not to vote; I understand that I am an organization representative in a sense of the word, and my only role is to present information from the perspective of our organization to provide a fair and balanced debate, and assist in sourcing claims and addressing incorrect claims based on the best of my knowledge. I do not believe that organization representatives can be banned from this debate, though if there is such documentation, I will not participate. I appreciate, however, your vigilance in considering who participates in this discussion, which is why I asked whether you have any personal connections to RainWizard. With the concerns in the memo in mind, I curious as to why RainWizard specifically called on you to join this discussion. Iorazev (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For some reason, Iorazev posted several sources on my own talk page here: User talk:SportingFlyer/Archive 1#IAYG_Non-Primary_Sources I don't know how I got dragged so far into this discussion, but I have concerns about these sources. (Also, if we could incorporate that as part of this AfD, that would probably be beneficial.)

demoprep.us: independent, but possibly not significant - only a blurb, and written in marketing speak
brown.edu: not an article about the organization, but rather an article about a person
nags.futminna.edu.ng: an article created by the organization
deped.gov.ph: contains literally no mention about the organization, much less notable content
again, the Kenyatta University GIS Club map again contains no mention of the organization
The Laval University event only contains a passing mention of the organization as a sponsor.

I would expect there to be many more mentions if the organization were a notable stakeholder in these types of events; stakeholders almost always want to advertise their involvement with an event. It's clear the organization exists, but I'm still not seeing notability here. Plus the organization issued a memoranda on this AfD. This whole thing is pretty strange. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My apologies, I meant to post the sources here in response to one of your previous comments. I'm not sure where it actually ended up; I can remove the section if preferred. I'll continue to add articles based on what I find. Iorazev (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Currently, there are three votes(including mine) for delete and only one in favor. Haven't we reached our majority User:SportingFlyer? RainWizard29422 (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTVOTE. I'd also like to note to the closer my concern regarding the neutrality of this comment by the nominator, and the fact the nominator specifically canvassed Smileguy91 and MatthewVanitas (and only these two users) on their talk page regarding this article. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To both RainWizard29422 and Iorazev: as per SportingFlyer, please stay on the topic of how this article is WP:N or not. I understand that there is some kind of history between users in this discussion, but discussion about some previous disagreement (or just anything not directly related to this discussion) will just lead to WP:UNCIVIL and that's not good. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 05:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List of sources - as SportingFlyer said, I accidentally posted these somewhere else, so here is a running list of some non-primary sources I found:

*http://www.demoprep.us/2017/07/27/demoprepiayg/ This is an example of the IAYG's relationship with a local foundation. This is a relatively large program (I think), and is definitely an independent source.

*http://watson.brown.edu/HI2/people/international-fellows/kayode This is an example of an IAYG official invited to a humanitarian board. I'm not sure if this is relevant, but I thought I should put this here since I found it. (new to the rules. Sorry, everyone.)

*http://www.deped.gov.ph/advisories/da-002-s-2018 and https://kuniversity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=416eb26c74434d40ae0e1e0a90963a51. These are both events organized by branches of the IAYG University Society System. Unfortunately, I don't think the IAYG is mentioned in either - only the branch name is. Internal documents and primary sources will affirm that these are University Society System branches, however.

*http://igu2018.ulaval.ca/assets/documents/Invitation%20IGU-YECG%20Networking%20Event.pdf An example of both the IAYG's close partnership with another major organization (IGU-YECG) and an event that the IAYG is supporting. Independent source, evidence of geographic span of work.

I will keep looking for sources. Sadly, more official documents are often not for public access, though you can contact me if you are interested in access (just if you want to see them in person; I know that Wikipedia does not accept them)

I know that this list isn't perfect, but over time, I am sure that much more will be added. As I have said before, press coverage in IAYG working regions can be elusive due to the small media presence, and perhaps patience is warranted. After all, the article has really only been touched by one editor, and the IAYG has already authorized a call for media release in selected communities starting at the beginning of the next business week. It should be clear that the IAYG works around the world, and in light of so many new Wikipedia articles with barely any non-primary sources, it may not make sense to hold this article to a different standard, especially as we examine the rationale behind this AfD request. As I have said profusely, I am not neutral and am part of the IAYG, this account was created so that I could add context and sources to make the discussion more fair and balanced, and because of that I have not voted and have no right to make this decision (if it does say in the rules that someone connected to an organization cannot comment on its AfD discussion, I will leave this discussion too), but these are just my personal beliefs. Iorazev (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RainWizard24922:

Dude, are you still going forward with this? Those of us in the GBC group already told you that you're just doing this to get back at the President of the IAYG, and that its not done in good faith. You know that the organization works around the world and that you're holding it to a ridiculous standard, just like we told you. I can see that you're talking about being neutral, but you called the NAYG (the IAYG's US branch) a "threat" to your community, compared the leader to alexander Lukashenko, and was part of a group temporarily called "NAYG is a Fraud! Down with [the President of the IAYG]"! Also, you offered essentially a deal whereby the IAYG could "broadcast [their] message" on your forum in exchange for not having IAYG representatives respond about conflicts of interest and false information. Is that even allowed? (also I am familiar with the organization so out of potential conflict of interest I'm not going to vote) Rishi09123 (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, but reopen discussion at a later time I am the original creator of this discussion, but considering that no consensus has been made on this article, I'm afraid we just have to let this article be for the moment. While no substantial sources exist, we can give it a period of a few months for improvement. The online sources provided by User:Iorazev do establish contact between the International Association and a few professors and organizations, this article should be designated as Start-Class. If no reasonable evidence can prove the notability of the article in the future, we can reconsider deletion. User:smileguy91, User:SportingFlyer what do you think of this? RainWizard29422 (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are only those who have voted with you consulted in this? I echo SportingFlyer's question about neutrality. I agree with keep: I hate to see an article like this go and there is enough out there for GNG. The organization definitely exists, has reach, and claims are backed up with a few secondary sources (needs more, though not much different from others). Most AfC go under much less scrutiny than this article here, too. There are a couple of unsubstantiated passages that should be removed, but that does not impact general value. JimNemcovic (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve The subject appears to meet General Notability but article is not great and should have more secondary sources added. If Rishi09123's claims are true (they are similar to memo, first time I have ever seen a memo on Wikipedia), this is a very serious issue indeed. The user RainWizard seems to not work from a neutral perspective and has canvassed particular users (including in that last comment) which is also questionable. If this AfD is out of malicious intent, that would be against principle of good faith. Lagrime (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JimNemcovic and Lagrime, I appreciate your concerns about neutrality. Your comments are written out of pure interest of Wikipedia, which is well appreciated. However, I'd late to state some concerns and make some clarifications of my own. Reading the comments of users far more experienced than I am, I reconsidered my position from delete to 'Keep for Now.' Also, in my last comment I tagged only the voters who supported deletion because I wanted to see their take on my change in position from delete to keep. If I could, I would withdraw the deletion process altogether, but Wikipedia guidelines say do not remove until a consensus is released. Simply contacting SportingFlyer and SmileGuy91 was simply to engage a dialogue that would reach this consensus. As I tagged them here and not on their talk pages, I wanted them to provide a new perspective in light of what has been brought up some of the other comments. As restated before, we should rate this article as Start-Class. On the other hand, I am concerned that I am being targeted by members of the organization. The memo is exaggerated, calling a Google+ group found at (tinyurl.com/geobeecity) as a virulent Anti-NAYG group. Furthermore, I have been receiving unwanted text messages from members of the organization. I do not wish to take any action on these, and I feel that IAYG people like User:Iorazev have brought up quite valuable points. I guess considering the fact that User:EmperorNapoleonI led a deletion campaign for John Adams Middle School would be a source of conflict of interest, as well as any prior interaction between the blog site and NAYG//IAYG. I therefore wish to apologize for any inconveniences as I am still a novice as the Articles for Deletion process and did not know about the whole conflict of interest issue. I feel that since the process is already started, changing my position to Keep and Improve is the only thing I can do at the moment. I do not doubt that the organization exists, but once again I see that many of the organization's descriptions have few sources other than the website itself. Designating the article as Start-Class would be a more optimal choice considering we could let Wikipedians know that this is an article that needs work. Hopefully, as the organization becomes more established as a major geographic authority, we can find more sources to back up its key points. Respectfully, RainWizard29422 (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RainWizard29422, thank you for addressing some of these points. I am not very familiar with the conflict in question, though it is clear as SmileGuy said that there is some history here that may need to be uncovered. I am always wary of looking into these cases for fear of WP:UNCIVIL but ultimately closer will decide so full picture is needed. The important question is whether Rishi09123's claims are true. Are the claims that you "called the NAYG a "threat" to your community, compared the leader to alexander Lukashenko, and was part of a group temporarily called "NAYG is a Fraud! Down with [the President of the IAYG]" really true? And did you offer a "deal" so that the organization-related people would not respond? I don't know what rules specifically apply but that would put WP:Neutrality into question. Like SportingFlyer I also have concerns about your comment on voting. It is possible that it could be a rules misunderstanding but we need context. We will assume good faith and definitely do not want to level accusations at RainWizard without proof (after all there is no proof for claims right now) but if any are true, this would be very serious. Lagrime (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Charmelle[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. Being called a "rising star" is a strong indicator that it was WP:TOOSOON at the time for an article. The page is cited to interviews, passing mentions, online directories, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards (only nominations) and no notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a long line of articles on utterly non-notable pornographic film actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is only proposing a merge, and this could very likely simply be boldly merged or redirected. Another option is to add merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jah Jah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This could be easily merged with Jah. MB298 (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Yoshino[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre.

First AfD closed as "keep" in 2006 based on arguments such as If any JAV actress is notable, she is and She's a notable model none of which are convincing. PORnBIO has been significantly tightened since then, and I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near an adequate level of sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Rhetoric[edit]

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

There appears to be no coverage of this book in independent, reliable sources. It has not won any awards, and does not appear to be culturally significant. I don't see that there's a way in which it meets the notability criteria of WP:BK Mduvekot (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References are not about book and no independent coverage. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage by independent reliable sources provided, none found in my search. The author's notability may also be in question, since the lengthy bio article here seems to have only one independent RS book review (for a different book) and I found no others. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd recommend directing it to the author's page, but he seems to also have strong issues with notability as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this novel does not appear to have attracted WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK, no copies held by libraries, a gsearch brings up no reliable reviews, appears to be self/indi published?, difficult for these types to be noticed but WP not here for promotion. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 18:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monovox[edit]

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

Self promotional band page with sources that no longer exist Pink noise (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep have fixed some of the references such as wired.com. Notable for winning the competition for a $250,000 recording contract from GarageBand.com in 2000, and has reliable sources such as Wired, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and radio station article On Milwaukee.com and others Atlantic306 (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Atlantic306 (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Probably only known the unusual recording contract. [60] [61] Not really promo anymore as the band is no longer active. Mattg82 (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Roberts[edit]

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

WP:Notability Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no awards or coverage to show notability. If she had won a pulitzer maybe, but not just being a contender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annie (film franchise)[edit]

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

This page is unnecessary. The adaptations are already covered at Annie. It's not a film franchise anyway, since the adaptations are remakes and not part of a series or otherwise related to each other. ... discospinster _talk 01:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my opinion you need a page that organizes the multiple films and the franchizes. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing at the unsourced stub article that isn't already here Annie#Theatre and film and as the nom points out this isn't a "franchise" MarnetteD|Talk 06:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Aside from the already mentioned issues and redundancy with Annie#Theatre and film, there's also the fact that the same information is already included as part of the overall article on Little Orphan Annie, here: Little_Orphan_Annie#Adaptations. Having this as a separate article is really unnecessary. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneccesary unsourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 18:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of over-the-air broadcasters in English-speaking countries[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a useful or encyclopedically relevant list. This just indiscriminately lists any OTA television network that broadcasts in a country where English is an official language at all, even if the network itself is broadcasting in some minority language other than English (e.g. the French networks in Canada, the Spanish ones in the United States and an Afrikaans one in South Africa are also included here.) This was closed no-consensus the first time it was nominated, because the page's creator was the only participant and gave a keep rationale on the grounds that the article could be retitled and pruned — but 3.5 years later that still hasn't actually happened, so we can't just keep waiting for it. It's still not useful to maintain a list of all television networks, regardless of language, in countries where English happens to be an official language — if the matter of whether the networks actually broadcast in English or not isn't the point of the list, then the list doesn't actually have a point at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First close was a bad close and should have remained open for a longer comment period. We have 'list of' networks for nearly every country and templates to boot; this is a completely duplicative and useless article. Nate • (chatter) 01:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: Can you cite exactly what this is duplicative of? ~Kvng (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of the nine countries listed here, six already have standalone by-country lists — List of Canadian television networks, List of television stations in Hong Kong, List of television stations in the United Kingdom, List of United States over-the-air television networks, List of free-to-air channels in New Zealand, List of Singaporean television channels — and the three that don't have standalone lists all still have embedded lists in List of television networks by country. So exactly zero of them don't already have lists of their television networks in other places — and even for the ones that have standalone sublists, the overall List of television networks by country includes links to all of those sublists, so there's no guesswork involved in figuring out where to go. "English-speaking countries" isn't a criterion on which somebody needs to see just these nine countries repackaged together, separately from all the other lists that already exist on more natural and obvious and likely search criteria — nobody's going to fail to find what they're looking for, because nobody's going to be looking for it on this axis of distinction when List of television networks by country and several by-country sublists already exist. Bearcat (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat cited what I would have anyways; in addition the templates for each country exist and also organize the information the same way. This list is an 'OK for 2005' type of list we would slap multiple tags on if it was created in 2018. Nate • (chatter) 05:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. I now understand how this is duplicative. Duplicative is not always a problem. I don't see a strong reason for deleting it or a strong reason for keeping it so will sit this one out. ~Kvng (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Broadcasters are already listed by country. It could be refactored as a list of English-language broadcasters, but that list would be an equally indiscriminate collection of names. –dlthewave ☎ 18:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- It duplicates information that can be found elsewhere.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Scott (model)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being less than a winner at a national beauty peagent is not a sign of notability. Even winning is not a total gaurantee of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Simply doesn't meet GNG or SNG. _{Vermont | reply here} 01:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In 2016 there was an article in the Daily Record relating to her preparation as one of 40 contestants entering a national beauty peagent. She gets a mention in a Scottish modelling magazine around the same time. She has done some blogging/vlogging, including for BBC Scotland's "The Social" project. This does not appear to be enough to establish notability when judged against WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siyadh Shajahan[edit]

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

Non-notable individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Actor made his debut in 2018, and next to no coverage exists, and that which does is in no way significant or in depth. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. As the nominator said, fails GNG and SNG. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON, where there isn't enough coverate *yet*. _{Vermont | reply here} 01:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable actor with no significant coverage in reliable sources to support general notabilty guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Film is yet to release, officially he don't have any screen credits. --Let There Be Sunshine 08:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sure if it is even "too soon". Currently he fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The article can be recreated again if he passes GNG after release of the film. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another article about a non-notable connected to this particular film. Above comments have it right, although I suspect some WP:PROMO also. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - --119.30.38.137 (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite the unusual course of the arguments, there can be no other conclusion than "delete". 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Akan[edit]

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

Promotional article created by a PR firm. Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. Rare sources. Some too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being neutral and verifiable. Orphan article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMeWiki (talk • contribs) 01:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article was {{cn}} tag-bombed by the author of this AfD. A lot of sources are useless, and don't support the information they're claiming to support. It being authored by a PR firm isn't the main problem here, it's the notability and sourcing. So, I'll go for a delete. _{Vermont | reply here} 01:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsuitable for Wikipedia. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have to say why it is "unsuitable". Just saying delete/unsuitable is of no effect.104.163.148.25 (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the author of the article and its weak content, the subject (ie Johan Akan) does not meet Wikipedia's eligibility criteria. The subject is not famous, nor well-known, nor even known to the greatest number. Not everyone is eligible to have their own Wikipedia page. Being a model is in no way sufficient by itself. The content of this biography resembles a LinkedIn or IMDb page - beyond severely lacking multiple serious and reliable sources. Johan Akan has a limited career and like thousands of models he walks runways, poses, appears in a few ads here and there (his curriculum is very limited, even without adequate sources). All models do serve as faces for brands, highly common because it's the basics of their job. Wikipedia is not however, LinkedIn, IMDb, a casting website, nor a directory of models. WikiMeWiki (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: PLEASE NOTE that the above comment is the AfD nominator,WikiMeWiki _{Vermont | reply here} 11:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^WikiMeWiki 17:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Williams, Leah. "Local actors star in 'After Midnight with Ethan Steele' pilot". Centralia Morning Sentinel. Vol. CLIV, no. 152(9). cited in intensefaceboss.webs.com
^ "Living articles about food home & travel from in Belleville, IL - BND.com Belleville News-Democrat". intensefaceboss.webs.com.
^ Robertson, Kim. "Men from Imperial and Festus work together to chase the (Acting) dream". Arnold-Imperial Leader. No. May-5-2016. cited in [62]
^ Robertson, Kim. "Men from Imperial and Festus work together to chase the (Acting) dream". Arnold-Imperial Leader. No. May-5-2016. cited in [63]
^ https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Shama+Khalid%22
^ https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Shama+Khalid%22&tbm=nws

[1] ttps://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/13/585428954/israeli-police-push-for-prime-minister-netanyahus-indictment-on-corruption-charg

[Williams-2] Williams, Leah. "Local actors star in 'After Midnight with Ethan Steele' pilot". Centralia Morning Sentinel. Vol. CLIV, no. 152(9). cited in intensefaceboss.webs.com

[3] "Living articles about food home & travel from in Belleville, IL - BND.com Belleville News-Democrat". intensefaceboss.webs.com.

[Robertson-page-6-4] Robertson, Kim. "Men from Imperial and Festus work together to chase the (Acting) dream". Arnold-Imperial Leader. No. May-5-2016. cited in [62]

[Robertson-page-7-5] Robertson, Kim. "Men from Imperial and Festus work together to chase the (Acting) dream". Arnold-Imperial Leader. No. May-5-2016. cited in [63]

[6] ttps://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Shama+Khalid%22

[7] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=%22Shama+Khalid%22&tbm=nws

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]