Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 20 February 22 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maneesha chanchala[edit]

Maneesha chanchala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BLP notability guidelines. Vermont | reply here 23:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NACTOR - lacks reliable independent verifiable sources to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:20, 24 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths by motorcycle crash[edit]

List of deaths by motorcycle crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which in my opinion, this is. Kees08 (Talk) 07:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:NOT is inapplicable because this isn’t a proposal to delete the information on this list from Wikipedia. With or without this list, all the information remains because all the entries are biographical articles, with the details of the motorcycle crash. The list simply repeats select facts from notable articles. There’s nothing indiscriminate or random about it. Whether to have such lists is under editorial discretion, not policy, as explained in WP:CLN. I don't see how this list violates any guidelines in WP:AOAL. Consensus on this can be seen at the Featured list List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication, and the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of people by cause of death. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the editor on the talk page from 2010 (not pinging because I am not shopping for votes), that this seems suited to be a category instead of a list. The intro has little room to be expanded because I do not think there is much to write about it. The line between a list and category can be fuzzy sometimes, but I think this one is clearly into category territory. Kees08 (Talk) 05:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not an unusual point of view, but the guideline over at WP:NOTDUPE it says "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." This isn't a rigid policy and "should be avoided" doesn't mean "is never allowed", but it's not the strongest ground to stand on. In general, we tolerate lists that are poorer substitutes for categories, or categories that are poorer substitutes for lists, because as long a both exist everyone can pick their poison. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CLT as a list article that more or less duplicates a valid category. That being said, the scope should be cleared up a bit - the list as titled would seem to include deaths in racing, but there's another category/list article for that; perhaps they should by synced-up title-wise. ansh666 08:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 09:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 09:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to List of people who died in motorcycle crashes. The title is horribly awkward, but this does not mean that the list is filtered too much by an arbitrary identifier. !dave 11:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there are many similar lists on WP and I can't see why this one would be particularly not notable. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - valid list. PhilKnight (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a broad enough category to sustain a list and in keeping with other lists of people by cause of death. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Limor Blockman[edit]

Limor Blockman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article does need help, but Dr Limor is notable enough for an entry. I added additional citations to her page. A quick search shows several secondary sources discussing her work.Jewish Journal, HuffPost. I also noticed she seemingly was married, so she sometimes appears under the name Dr. Limor Blockman-Michelman, Dr. Limor Blockmanmichelman, or Dr. Limor Michelman, depending on the language and publication. Lonehexagon (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states that a subject may be notable if they receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Anyone can submit an article to any newspaper, so I don't see how that's relevant here. The key factor is that both the Huffington Post and The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles are unaffiliated secondary sources with an editorial process, and the authors of the articles were unaffiliated with the doctor. Wikipedia does not discriminate against local coverage (WP:ITSLOCAL). Lonehexagon (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Huffigton Post does not have editorial control,and is therefore not a RS for anything except the opinion of its columnists, Certainly not BLP, and most certainly not the notability of BLPs. The JJGLA alone is not sufficient to support notability . Thje rest of the references are hopeless. I'm not saying she might not be notable , but just that there's no satisfactory evidence of it. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:02, 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 delete. There's good consensus here that we don't have the sources we need. It's worth mentioning for the record that there's no requirement that sources be in English. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talca International Film Festival[edit]

Talca International Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I looked for sources to cite to demonstrate notability, but there is a paucity of sources other than event notices, lists of film festivals, and passing mentions under the old and new names of this festival, under its acronym, and under its English title. Largoplazo (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm seeing some news coverage such as this El Heraldo article which discusses their cooperation with FELINA and describes them as the two most important festivals in the region. This is not very strong by itself, but likely much more could be turned up by someone with better access to newspaper archives. SpinningSpark 23:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolutely nothing in English. A few mentions similar to the one Spinningspark links in Spanish, but they all feel vaguely promotional. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not referenced, does not really pass WP:GNG. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:05, 28 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 Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. Spartaz Humbug! 19:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan[edit]

Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL / WP:BIO1E. Dead 32 years old scientist (or a procurement officer - deputy director of commercial affairs for the Natanz uranium enrichment plant - the scientist label seems to be related to the group as a whole, possibly applied to this individual per the group affilation). No coverage of him of not besides his death and circumstances leading to his death. His death is already amply covered in Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists - not much to merge, and topic-wise these deaths are treated as a group, and not individually. Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect The article is pretty much only about the assassination, with minimal personal detail. Mangoe (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - I think this is a clear B1E with a clear destination for redirect. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article should be expanded. However, his notability is clear. There are few scientists who are killed due to their involvement in the nuclear program of Iran. The reliable news sources such as huffington post, Guardian, washington post have covered it.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly his death has been covered - widely. However that is a WP:BIO1E situation. How is he notable besides his death?Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So we can move it to Assassination of Ahmadi-Roshan--Seyyed(t-c) 15:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no other appropriate article, however in this case we have Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists (and had Ahmadi-Roshan been a single death, it might have been un-notable to being with. The string of related deaths here lends notability to the topic).Icewhiz (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:00, 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 delete. czar 04:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inlage[edit]

Inlage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

directory entry by a WP:SPA, no claim of significance, no reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:00, 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 redirect to KDE. Spartaz Humbug! 19:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KWordQuiz[edit]

KWordQuiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article shows no evidence of notability. It has once been deleted in the past. Codename Lisa (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article expansion may be preferable. I don't see the "no notability" part. Sure, it may be small, but it has a notable enough wikitable, a large table below it, references, but not enough sections. I disagree with the deletion. Xyaena 14:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. If you 'don't see the "no notability" part', then it is clear sign that the article must be deleted. Notability must be stark! —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at Category:KDE I'm not sure if every single application by KDE deserves its own article. I would like it if Okular had an article but honesetly the sources don't seem that great either. Wqwt (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:00, 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 delete. czar 04:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jovita Veronica Alvares[edit]

Jovita Veronica Alvares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vanity profile. Fails WP:ANYBIO.  M A A Z   T A L K  14:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inadequate sourcing to establish notability.104.163.148.25 (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another article on a non-notable Pakistani Catholic. We have an awful lot of these.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added additional secondary sources. She has won awards for her work[1] and been covered by secondary sources.[2]. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the Dawn.com reference you added is very poor quality. It does not help to add minor mentions like this. Please read WP:RS, as I have suggested to you previously. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.inb.com.pk/2017/01/24/jovita-alvares-wins-imran-mir-art-prize/
  2. ^ https://www.sindhidunya.com/jovita-veronica-alvares-sindh/
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:53, 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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 19:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Razmik Amyan[edit]

Razmik Amyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One source for wining one award, not notable. Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep He did not simply win an award. Honored Artist of Armenia is the HIGHEST award in the Republic of Armenia. Harut111 (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not National Hero of Armenia?Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the highest cultural award in Armenia. Besides, he has got dozens of other awards. Harut111 (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also there are at least two other Honorable awards, Merited Artist of the Republic of Armenia and People's Artist of the Republic of Armenia, (Honorable, not awards of merit), so I cannot find any reference to it being the highest award (even for artistic merit). If he has won other awards then feel free to add them and we can see if he meets our notability criteria.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merited Artist of the Republic of Armenia and Honored Artist of Armenia are the same ones. I don't know anything about People's Artist of the Republic of Armenia. I think it is not in use anymore. Harut111 (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We need RS to support any of this, Nor can I find even any reference to Honored Artist of Armenia being the highest award of merit for artistic achievement. It might help if you could provide a link to substantiate the claim it is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:MUSICBIO and then provide an RS supporting one of these criteria, at least (if he is that famous criteria 2 should be easy, one charted single).Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artsakh-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Honored Artist of Armenia looks like a seriously good award, established by statute, in the personal gift of the President of Armenia, only awardable after recommendation by other, reputable, Armenian authorities. I have not found any citation which says that it is the most prestigious award in Armenia; on the other hand, I have found nothing which suggests that any other award is higher. It looks to me to deserve similar respect to e.g. the British honours of KBE and DBE. Narky Blert (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:51, 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avid Bioservices[edit]

Avid Bioservices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biotech company that failed and has turned into a contract manufacturing organization (CMO). This article was "owned" by people flogging its stock and I caused some ruckus among them by turning it back into a WP article (see the talk page). Now that their lead drug candidate has failed and they have become a CMO with no big "cash out" for the stock flogging abusers of WP let us delete already. It is barely notable, if it is notable at all per plain old GNG. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:24, 22 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. hoax / made up. —Kusma (t·c) 13:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DolceVita Institute of Technology[edit]

DolceVita Institute of Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This institute doesn't exist and the whole article is fake. The creator is user:Bianbum, aka Giuseppe Macario, which is responsible for the creation of a whole universe of fake websites. As you can read by this la Repubblica's article: "He claims to be professor at the alleged-to-be 'DolceVita Institute of Technology', whose website is offline, and that on Wikipedia is defined as the first and only Vatican institute in the Technology area. A proper fake news, as the Vatican stated after laRepubblica's control " ("[vanta] una docenza persino nel fantomatico 'DolceVita Institute of Technology' con sito irraggiungibile e che sulla propria pagina Wikipedia si definisce come la prima e unica istituzione nel settore dell'Ict nello Stato del Vaticano. Una vera e propria fake news e come tale viene liquidata dal Vaticano, dopo una verifica da parte di Repubblica.") It would also be advisable to double-check and triple-check everything related to Macario. Ripepette (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom; research only brings up a web of wikipedia and facebook articles and a strange twitter account, and a questionable Italian article. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as hoax. The only ref that mentions this group claims that it only exists in SecondLife, and a credible Italian newspaper says it's a hoax. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons specified by everyone else. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 01:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete for the reasons already cited. The "official website" ([1]) is currently not reachable, and "La Repubblica" is authoritative enough (see article [2]: "viene liquidata [come fake news] dal Vaticano, dopo una verifica da parte di Repubblica" – "Dismissed as a "fake news" by the Vatican after la Repubblica's own verification". Lion-hearted85 (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and tagged as such. This is a WP:HOAX article, a location that is apparently a user-generated space in the game Second Life. Chetsford (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:02, 25 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Batti Gul Meter Chalu[edit]

Batti Gul Meter Chalu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased film in production that fails WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFILM. Shooting for the movie has started, but no in-depth coverage has been produced about the production of the upcoming film, so WP:NFF is failed. Additionally, the film has yet to receive the widespread coverage and consideration as a lasting or significant impact on the film industry to meet WP:NFILM criteria. A move to Draft is also an acceptable outcome in my view. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm seeing lots od coverage for the film already. Seems a strange nom to me. Notable film with stars. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The film has a cast of notable actors, but this in itself does not make the film notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. WP:NFF is the major concern, as the coverage about the film itself is in my view lacking in significance. Per NFF, Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theaters or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable, and the film was reported to have begun principle photography on 12 February. Cruft about the appearance of notable actors in a future film does not meet these requirements.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets the notability criteria. "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theaters or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable". This one has significant coverage in the media, a simple google search will tell you that, which is what "notability" is. An expectation of "in-depth coverage" for any unreleased film, not just this one, is silly. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not related to the amount of information that exists around a topic, but rather the verifiability and depth of said information. WP:SIGCOV exists for this very reason. As for your other concerns, news about actors slated to appear in the film do not themselves lend notability to movie. Your statement "An expectation of "in-depth coverage" for any unreleased film, not just this one, is silly" is also not applicable, as WP:NFILM clearly lays down notability criteria for released film (and so future films do not pass by default) and WP:NFF (Which is intended to allow articles for legitimately notable future films to be created without passing NFILM]] requires the production of a film, not just it's cast, to be notable. All of these need to be fulfilled through the citation of in depth sources, this article lacks this quality.--SamHolt6 (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not verifiable? The fact that major publications have written about the film, including this and this, to list just two, is reason enough to merit an article. Your concerns are invalid for an unreleased film. Repeating the same arguments will not help either. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a personal opinion that clashes with established policy.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets the notable guidelines. Echoing Krimuk, we cannot really expect an "in-depth coverage" from a film which is in a nascent stage. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Asserting that an article is notable can be boiled down to personal interpretation, but WP:NFF is a policy for this very reason.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it is true that 'we cannot really expect an "in-depth coverage"' as @Yashthepunisher: and @Krimuk2.0: argue, then a WP article isn't warranted, either. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 01:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WP:TOOSOON at this point. Re: we cannot really expect an "in-depth coverage" from a film which is in a nascent stage -- then the article should not be created yet. If no suitable sources exist, the only purpose for this page to be here is to promote the film, which wikipedia does WP:NOT do. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please define "in-depth coverage" for an unreleased film that's currently filming, and direct me to the specific policy. Thank you. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:12, 25 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. G11 by Bishonen (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Khan[edit]

Bobby Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self promotion. Notibility. PabloMartinez (talk) 21:44, 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 delete. I'm going to hold off on the salting for now. If somebody wants to go down that path, pursuing a topic ban might be a possibility. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ipsito Das[edit]

Ipsito Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A previous page on this person was deleted at AfD in 2013, with another instance deleted as CSD G4 shortly afterwards. The sources in this latest version are also poor: largely WP:UGC sites, some self-referential such as on the FStoppers portfolio where he is described as an " IMDB recognised professional Fashion Photographer". The closest to substantial coverage may be the MyFashion19 item: "To rebrand her-self she communicates to International Fashion Photographer Ipsito Das known as master of rebranding in fashion industry. Who has already covered several fashion shows like MBFW, Victoria’s Secret for several fashion magazines."; that may help verify the subject as a working photographer, but neither that nor anything else appears to indicate WP:CREATIVE notability. AllyD (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His own "about us" (plural) page reads in its entirety "Ipsito Das is IMDB recognised professional Fashion Photographer was born in Kolkata in 1985. Born and bought up in family where culture was nurtured in painting,". Really, if this is all he can say about themself, I can't be bothered to explore what might have been overlooked for this WP article. I realize that this is a lazy way to approach an AfD and therefore am putting this on my watch list and am open to persuasion that I'm utterly wrong about him/them. -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I request this article to be "CONSIDERED" as well --Adrtii loghania (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC):Ipsito Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)- (<\include>Wikipedia:Ipsito Das Thank for revision of the article. This article contain much of the reliable source link which is WP:NEWSORG sites should be treated as valid resource. valid references sites are here under :WP:CREATIVE. We have http://www.ftkindia.com is a news website under category WP:NEWSORG. another reference http://www.myfashion19.com/ipsito-das-fashion-photographers-terns-magazine-publisher/ website under category WP:NEWSORG Kindly let us know even in those two are website under category WP:NEWSORG what could be the reason for deletion. I also found several News Organisation published news.[reply]

  • Delete and ideally salt. The editor has in the past inserted the photographer's name in articles of several fashion shows when there are hundreds of them doing the same job and aren't mentioned. MT TrainDiscuss 07:34, 22 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Capital[edit]

American Capital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. First source is affiliated, second doesn't currently mention it. Google News only pulls up a million other companies with "American Capital" in the name but not this one. I strongly suspect that the article creator (Info456) and largest contributor (AAO2012) are employees of the company. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per assessment above. London Hall (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Delete per nom but since this was listed on the Nasdaq exchange there is a good chance that analyst reports exist and if so, the topic would be notable. I've searched and I cannot find any analyst reports available hence my !vote. HighKing++ 13:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Inflict[edit]

To Inflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable short film lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Initially To Inflict had 2 verifiable sources that were of course older from 2013 and retrieved last on 2013-09-08. One of the sources showed "To Inflict" as a notable story on the Indie Fest USA website. Being 5 years later now there is no longer a mention of the film because the website updated their latest films for their last festivals and the upcoming festival — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techform (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - Unfortunately none of the "references" provided are in-depth or non-trivial. Just because the article meets the "Other evidence of notability" section of WP:NOTFILM, it does not mean it is automatically notable. The section states," These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying films that Wikipedia should probably have articles about. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for a film meeting one or more of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film." Where is the Indie Fest USA story? reddogsix (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And those sources, even if they were in-depth, do not match what the Other Evidence listing calls for, as none of them were published 5 years after release. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sign of meeting WP:NOTFILM, per nominator. The "two added sources" are a one-sentence mention in an article, which does not convey significant notability, and a database listing, also not indicative of notability. Digging up the IndieFest page that was linked to via archives, I am not seeing mention of this film, much less in-depth coverage. There's no there there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 17:44, 23 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) Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 23:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Thajudeen[edit]

Syed Thajudeen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Purely promotional, plagiarised article. Non-notable. I couldn't find any sources other than his own websites. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 19:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep. The article was a terrible promotional junkpile, so I trimmed it. If one actually searches in Google books or Gnews, there are many sources. Being in two museum collections means automatic notability via WP:ARTIST. needs at least one source to be added or could be deleted via PROD.104.163.148.25 (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(21 minutes later) I've added nine sources, one of which is an Oxford dictionary of islamic art... so perhaps time to withdraw this AfD? 104.163.148.25 (talk) 03:20, 22 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Miles[edit]

Ellie Miles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability criteria for rugby union players as the Women's Premiership is not fully professional (see the WikiProject's list), which is how the "major competition" requirement of WP:SPORTSPERSON is assessed for rugby union players. Furthermore, fails WP:BASIC due to the lack of depth in the coverage presented in the article's citations. Any number of people are casually mentioned in local newspapers and specialist subject newspapers; this does not render them notable. Furthermore, this article is more or less orphaned, only being linked to in the mainspace from Miles (surname) and Tunbridge Wells Girls' Grammar School. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 07:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 07:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 07:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 07:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 07:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It has sufficient sources around it to meet WP:GNG. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: GNG requires reliable sources giving significant coverage, not just any sources mentioning the subject trivially. So let's go through them:
      1. Her section on the Harlequins website – nope, fails WP:IS#How to meet the requirement
      2. Her section on the Women's Elite Rugby – nope, fails WP:SIGCOV
      3. An article on the Harlequins website – nope, IS# again
      4. An article on another club's website that mentions her in passing – nope, SIGCOV again
      5. Kent & Sussex Courier on the fact she ran a school rugby club – nothing wrong with the source this time, but the subject matter hardly creates notability. Curiously the Bexhill Observer frequently discusses what the local parish priest, Fr David Reynish, has been up to. So I guess that means he's notable? o.O
      6. Rushall life – nope, in fact that's not even an allowable source, see WP:BLPSPS
      7. Kent & Sussex Courier – nope, see 5, this time it also fails SIGCOV
      8. Kent & Sussex Courier – see 5
      9. Tunbridge Wells RFC – nope, fails both SIGCOV and IS#
      10. Schoolgamesfinals.org – nope, she's not even mentioned in the prose bit, so SIGCOV again
      11. Tunbridge Wells RFC again – can't comment on SIGCOV because offline, still IS# issue though
      12. Another article on the Harlequins site – nope, obviously IS# again
      13. The Rugby Paper – maybe, can't comment on the SIGCOV though
      14. Times of Tunbridge Wells – fails SIGCOV yet again
    So in summary, while 13 of these sources might be fine as sources of information for the article, only four of them (if being charitable, otherwise nil) actually qualify as sources that can support the subject's notability - and three of them are from the same publication. Sorry, but from where I'm sitting it looks like Ellie doesn't meet WP:GNG in any way, shape or form.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 21:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This might be case of an article too soon. Perhaps the best option might be to draftify or userify. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I saw that Time & Leisure magazine recently covered her as a fast-rising female rugby player who is getting more women involved with the sport. It's significant coverage about her, which I added to her entry.[1] Lonehexagon (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is an interview. Which means it is not an independent source. Please read WP:RS.104.163.148.25 (talk) 10:31, 23 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 04:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:GNG, a subject may be suitable for an article if the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In this case, she is discussed in The Kent and Sussex Courier,[2] Time & Leisure Lifestyle Magazine,[3]. Miles was also honored by the Turnbridge Wells government[4] which was mentioned in the Times of Tunbridge Wells.[5] Lonehexagon (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Assessment of new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 19:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lonehexagon, please read WP:RS, as all four of the last sources you suggested are not reliable. Two are name mentions only, without detail. We do not use ISSU sources (see WP:RS). The other source is an interview. All four reference suggestions suggestions fail WP:RS, just as the article subject fails WP:GNG.104.163.148.25 (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What does ISSU mean? I did not see that term in the page you linked to. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I checked and she does fail NRU so we're left with gng. I opened the new refs and they don't support gng, I opened a couple of the refs in the article itself to corroborate the rebut of the sources above and it appears correct. Szzuk (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • Weak keep There are no women's leagues listed in the notability essay and there are no citations to support "fully professional" which is odd. This athlete plays "top level of women's rugby union in England", Women's Premiership. Re: statements about references failing WP:RS, when I search for "interview" or "Issu" on WP:RS, there are no results. Perhaps, you meant something else. Primary sources are ok for supporting information. Hmlarson (talk) 23:17, 26 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. Unanimous consensus to delete, salting Alex Shih (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Datari Turner[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Datari Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sigh, here we are again. Paid promotional piece of a borderline notable subject that tried again at AfC. This is just a CV that exists to promote the subject. He is borderline notable at best. When Wikipedia is the most significant coverage you have ever received (as it is in this case), then you should not have an article, even if you can afford to pay for one. If anything, the current version makes even less of a claim to being halfway important as the original version deleted a few months back. No reason to keep it this time around either. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - page already deleted before. Twice, even. Adding speedy deletion under WP:G4 and recommending a block of the creator. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this is eligible for G4 because the draft was an independent page history and is significantly different from the previous deleted versions. – Joe (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I still believe this falls under G4 as it is using the same name as the previous 6 pages, and has dependent page history (albeit the older del. version is in strikeout). Besides, a speedy delete gets this over with quicker, right? Kirbanzo (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • No harm this going through AfD now that it is here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • True, but let's leave the speedy delete there in case an admin thinks G4 applies. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wasn't aware Joe was an admin. I apologize. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Tony just beat me to nominating. This article has been deleted and recreated six times, representing an astonishing seven year campaign by the subject to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. The last AfD was less than three months ago, and it has been salted after the last two deletions, and yet here we are again. That a paid editor has ignored the community consensus and pushed it through AfC is unfortunately not surprising – after all his paycheck depends on it. But Turner was not notable last time and he isn't notable now. The sources added are the same mix of low quality advertorials, promotional interviews, and trivial mentions that we saw last time. I'm not sure what the best way to stop yet more volunteer time being wasted on this is—salting the article, salting the draft, a TBAN for JacobPace—but whatever it is, we should do it. – Joe (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - 6 times over 7 years?! This is worse than I thought. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Would definitely appreciate more input on this discussion by other users on Wikipedia. I'm not really sure what I did wrong here. This article was created and submitted as I was told to without directly setting it live in the mainspace. JacobPace (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you do, keep Wikipedia:Canvassing in mind.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Subject fails WP:NBIO so we deleted it - and paid editors recreated it several times. If you are a paid editor, I recommend you disclose it, but if you are unpaid, please refrain from creating pages that have already been deleted. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kirbanzo, no offense, but you really need to look at the situation before commenting. JacobPace has declared a connection in multiple places, including the article talk page. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I don't understand, Kirbanzo. He is the creator of several notable TV shows and films. JacobPace (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The issue isn't the declared paid status, the issue is that the article only exist to promote the subject. Just because it is sent through AfC does not mean that it is not promotional, nor does it mean that the community will decide it is notable. The issues here are twofold: Jacob took on a client who has no place on Wikipedia because he isn't important enough, and the article is only a CV that tells is minor facts about a non-notable biography in order to make the subject seem important. Those are individually good reasons for deletion, regardless of following the TOU. Re: creation of notable things: notability isn't inherited. The question is the subject himself, not what he has touched. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Couldn't have said it better myself. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JacobPace: No doubt you were told that, as a paid editor, you have to put any new articles through AfC. But who told you it would be a good idea to recreate Datari Turner? The fact that a dozen or so editors have previously agreed that he isn't a suitable for inclusion ought to have been a hint that it wasn't wise. – Joe (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Joe Roe: Makes sense. This was just an effort to keep the client happy but sure, this makes sense after seeing the consensus here. My question is this: if paid contribution is allowed yet 'promotional pieces' are not, what is the solution to that? Is a paid contribution not promotional in nature? Thank you. JacobPace (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @JacobPace: You know, I don't think I've ever heard a more succinct explanation of why paid editing shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (edit conflict × 2) - reading through the article, I fail to see any information on this person which confers notability to our usual standards, seemingly WP:NBIO in this case, perhaps more specifically WP:NMODEL or WP:FILMMAKER. Notability is not inherited nor can it be purchased. Well, okay, it can be purchased, but not in this manner. I applaud the author's efforts to do all the right things but unfortunately some topics are simply not suitable for the encyclopedia, and this individual is one of them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - More or less a re-tread of my comment from the second AfD applied to more-or-less a re-tread of the last incarnation of this article. Fails WP:NBIO and most importantly WP:NOTINHERITED. Take this sentence for example "In 2007, Turner was the spokesmodel for Jay-Z's clothing line, Rocawear." Lines like these are clearly intended to draw a thread of notability between notable subjects and Datari Turner. Given that this article has been deleted 6 times (with the implication that Turner of some other organization desperately wants him to have a Wikipedia article), let me recommend that we end this farce with a dose of salt and prevent this article from being re-created in perpetuity.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was a bit cautious while reviewing this draft as I went through all the previous discussions and controversies. I suggested the creator to fix the copyright issues as well. Besides, I requested Primefac to un-salt it so it can be approved. All because it seems to pass WP:GNG now. I think we would have treated the subject differently if it would not have paid influence on it. However, the subject of the article and its creator trying desperately for their Wikipedia article should not affect our assessment in general. Neither its previous deletions should affect our views. At the moment, the subject has significant coverage in secondary and reliable sources like Hollywood Reporter. And that is why I approved it. Just wanted to explain my intention behind approving it. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course we should treat it differently: it helps inform promotional intent, which is the whole point of the disclosure process: to see if it violates our policies, which we know it does, see WP:NOTSPAM. The GNG doesn’t matter, as N required passage of NOT as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:NOTSPAM. Sometimes, it becomes hard to arrive at an objective assessment. One policy advocates something and then other something else. Thank you for the information though. I am more educated now :) Dial911 (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- For goodness sake, we the English writing Wikipedians of the world decided that this article was not notable a mere three months ago. I believe that we should drop the stick and bury it under a mountain of salt along with the poor overly beaten dead horse. -- Dolotta (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of course – this is a paid advertisement and Wikipedia does not allow advertisement. Oh, and the person isn't notable either – where is the in-depth coverage in substantial reliable sources (not the Hollywood Reporter for sure, that's just a reprint of a press-release, also reprinted by Variety)? Dial911 has clearly acted thoughtfully and completely in good faith, so I don't want to criticise; but this could have been declined as "what Wikipedia is not". If all AfC reviewers routinely declined promotional articles submissions on those grounds we'd have fewer of these discussions, and could perhaps get on with improving our encyclopaedia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Justlettersandnumbers, I triggered a fuss by approving it. I am sorry for that. Dial911 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dial911, I don't think you should be – you made the call that you thought was right at the time, and that's all any of us can hope to do. You were perhaps not as familiar with the history of this editor as some us are. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dial911, this is a subject that led to an ArbCom case which got an admin desysoped, which is why there are so many people commenting on an obscure biography AfD. I agree with Justlettersandnumbers, you weren't aware of the history and that you'd likely be triggering another AfD with a bit of drama. Just in the future remember that WP:N also requires passage of WP:NOT in addition to the GNG. Make it a learning experience . TonyBallioni (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TonyBallioni, Lesson learnt. Will not forget to check for WP:NOT besides GNG. Thank you . Dial911 (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Wikipedia is not a place for people to engage in self-promotion. It is not a web hosting service. It is an encyclopedia, where we only cover notable subjects. Turner fails all applicable notability guidelines and the continued attempts to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes is very disturbing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and speedy delete Blatantly promotional material.TH1980 (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - re-adding speedy delete under WP:G11 due to concerns over eligbility for said criteria being raised. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Admin thought otherwise about WP:G11 eligibility (don't know why, a lot of people agree it is a case), so speedy delete was removed. Still strongly recommend deletion. May re-add later. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Struck second vote by Kirbanzo. Kirbanzo please allow the AfD to run its course, it seems the a snow delete is likely, no need for unseemly haste.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm only wanting haste as this is just the latest of several times this article has been deleted over seven years. I want this over with as soon as possible as this is basically a WP:SALT argument at this point. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT. Speedy deleting at this point is not a strong enough solution. A nice long vote will seal this off from recreation. Legacypac (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt My tuppence worth. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 19:25, 23 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cavan Cunningham[edit]

Cavan Cunningham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An actor is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he's had roles — having roles is the job description, so if all an actor had to do was list roles then we'd have to keep an article about every actor who exists. What passes WP:NACTOR, rather, is not the list of roles itself, but the quality of reliable sourcing that can be provided to show that he received enough media coverage for the having of roles to clear WP:GNG — but two of the three sources here just namecheck his existence a single time in coverage of the show, without containing enough content about him to contribute toward passing GNG, and the third source is his own self-published website. And as for the Gemini Awards, those were ensemble nominations for the entire cast, not nominations that singled him out for standalone recognition as a supporting or guest actor, so they're not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced better than this. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can reference a new article much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 25 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Malcolm Sleight[edit]

Brendan Malcolm Sleight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. The BEM is one of the lower decorations in the UK [3] it is 36th out of 41 decorations so in itself I do not believe that is confers sufficient notabilty. All the sources are passing mentions or quotes from the subject in an official capacity Dom from Paris (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Dom from Paris Thanks for the message/prompt I been on holiday, just catching up. I know I have five days to respond, but I need a good hour to sit down and digest. I am quite new to this - so please bear with me ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MertonMoments (talk • contribs) 13:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Emmanuel has just been approved, another one of my new articles. Also has BEM - any hints and advice how I get this artcles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Malcolm_Sleight to the same standard ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MertonMoments (talk • contribs) 13:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The BEM is certainly not sufficient alone to prove notability. We usually assume someone needs at least a CBE (three levels above) for that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 9 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 04:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 18:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - first of all, the article is a stub - normally a stub doesn't warrant deletion but what's in the stub article doesn't constitute WP:GNG. Second, BEMs can be easy to get - pretty sure someone could get one just by helping people evacuate a building during a notable fire in Britain. Unless he has some truly noteworthy awards, this article should be slated for deletion. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as a point of info, the BEM hasn't been awarded for gallantry since 1974. The BEM is awarded for valuable services to the community, but less valuable (and often more local) than those for which the Order of the British Empire (MBE or higher) is awarded. Of course, this is terribly subjective, but it's still not notable enough for an article, any more than the MBE or OBE are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 28 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 Leonardo Padura Fuentes#Mario Conde books. Spartaz Humbug! 19:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Havana Quartet[edit]

Havana Quartet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Deletion Starz declined to continue development on the series. A pilot was not filmed. There has been no further news on this project since its cancellation. Wikipedia is not a repository for ever single failed television project that never moved development. As it stands, not enough occurred with the project to make it notable enough to exist on Wikipedia and therefore it should be deleted. BoogerD (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No deletion The category Category:Unaired television programs “Unaired television programs“ exists and therefore there is no need to erase this article. It is also unknown if the programm is shopped elsewhere as Starz is not the owner to any rights here and therefore Entertainment One might shop it, we don't know jet.--Robberey1705 (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @BoogerD: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall talk 18:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 18:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree now that a merge and redirect is probably the best option. The information is actually relevant to the books series and the author but it doesn't need its own page. BoogerD (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the work has not been created and released. It is too soon to have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you read Leonardo Padura Fuentes#Mario Conde books? This namespace could redirect there because it's a phrase used to describe Padura's four Mario Conde novels, and there could reasonably be a brief mention that there was this interest in an English-language series. The mention could follow directly on from the fact that there is already a mini-series adaptation called Four Seasons in Havana. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 18:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 17:47, 23 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Levinson[edit]

Dennis Levinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable county politician. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"." Can only be sourced to local newspapers. Rusf10 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete saw this and thought, he's probably from New Jersey, and there's probably one newspaper article source about how he's running for office. And then I clicked on it. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 17:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / Redirect to Atlantic County, New Jersey to County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey - As the current, directly elected county executive of Atlantic County, Levinson has a credible claim of notability, but a rather thin article at this time to support such a claim. As the county executive for this entire century, he is a credible search term and a merge of any relevant content to the article for the county would be -- and should have been from the start -- the appropriate course of action here. Rusf10 (and JPL) are both well aware that WP:Deletion Policy and WP:BEFORE all mandate consideration of alternatives to deletion, which has been systematically ignored here and in other, similar articles. Per policy "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." I look forward to an explanation of why redirect or merge were never considered as options up front and why none of those participating here have reconsidered their blanket delete votes or explained why they have declined to do so. Alansohn (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because of a lack of notability. If I search for Dennis Levinson, I don't expect to be taken to the Atlantic County page. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And why not to Atlantic County, New Jersey#Government and politics?Djflem (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, he's just not notable enough and alansohn's proposed redirect target is inappropriate. ATD does not mean nothing can be deleted. It simply means to consider alternatives to delete, not an alternative must be found. And it does not mean once someone suggests an alternative (no matter how poor it is), that deletion can no longer be considered. I can only think of one other user (besides alansohn) who takes ATD to such an extreme interpretation (and that person is no longer contributing). It really irks me that alansohn throws out these really poor redirect targets and then demands that every person who disagrees with him provides him with a personal explanation of why. It's not the first time.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And why not to Atlantic County, New Jersey#Government and politics?Djflem (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's an article about the county. Yes, there is one sentence about him there. He's not notable enough and if people actually do search for him, they're not going to learn much from that redirect. And when he's no longer in office one day, the redirect will still go there and at that time there will be nothing about him--Rusf10 (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the creation of County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey, this discussion is basically moot; note that I struck out my original merge / redirect arget above and replaced it with the new article that already serves the purpose. The material regarding Dennis Levinson has been effectively merged into the new article, with the addition of more history about the creation of the county executive form of government and the other individuals who have served in the position. Thanks to Djflem and all of those who have put up the good fight by working to expand and improve this encyclopedia! Alansohn (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to better target: County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey.Djflem (talk) 19:11, 25 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jagatjit Industries Limited[edit]

HagennosTalk 14:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jagatjit Industries Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable -- references are press releases or disguised press releases DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : A good number of references have been added to the page after the tag was added. Its a 70 year old company which has been listed on stock exchange and owns some popular liquor brands.Ackley aki (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 18:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : For reasons stated above. But the article needs some work and might have to many citationsFightforsocialjustice (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Delete One of the previous editors has stated that this company has been listed on the stock exchange and as such, I expect some analyst coverage of the company. I cannot find any. If somebody can find some analyst reports, I will change my !vote. The references to date are based on company announcements or interviews/quotations from company officers or mentions-in-passing. I'm of the opinion that this topic should meet the criteria but in the absence of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, I'm leaning towards a delete. HighKing++ 19:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could not find anything which will satisfy WP:NORG or WP:ORGDEPTH. HagennosTalk 14:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. In general, promo 'cruft -- no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roshan Abdul Rahoof[edit]

Roshan Abdul Rahoof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable source found. His just work in only one film. And participated in Dance, where he won fourth prize. I don't see any notable things. Siddiqsazzad001 (Talk) 15:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 15:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 15:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's WP:TOOSOON. The movie this actor has worked in hasn't even been released yet. It may be appropriate to have an article on this person in the future, but not yet. He does not yet meet WP:NOTE. A similar article on Priya Prakash Varrier was correctly deleted for similar reasons. --Yamla (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify According to WP:Draftify if the article is not notable AyaanLamar (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC) — Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Reverted draftication and improper close by AyaanLamar and left talk message. -- ferret (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Yamla above, actor in one unreleased film fails WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NACTOR with four months still for the movie to release. MT TrainDiscuss 18:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G5. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G5 --HagennosTalk 05:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only one unrelased film ATK55 talk 06:41, 25 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.and his one movie is in production and not yet released. this topic can be notable after release of the movie. 119.30.32.139 (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Is there no end to the number of articles created TOOSOON in relation to this film? - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 26 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. The problem with the "delete" arguments is, by and large, they assert WP:BLP1E without going into any further depth, and several were challenged by the "keep" arguments without follow-up. Therefore, I have to conclude the latter have made the strongest position. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Hogg (activist)[edit]


David Hogg (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another student survivor of Stoneman Douglas High School shooting speaking up, not distinctly notable per WP:BLP1E. There is also a Wikipedia:Systemic bias issue at hand - Mass fatality events of the same magnitude in Asia and Africa often don't have articles at all or come up for AfD while this is 4th or 5th spin off article from the shooting article (which is not particularly long) from one news-cycle. Icewhiz (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN WP:RECENTISM. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note – the page David Hogg was moved to David Hogg (US politician) to "make room" for this David Hogg, a controversial and not discussed move. CookieMonster755✉ 16:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that I moved the page to David Hogg (activist) and converted to DAB due to undiscussed move. CookieMonster755✉ 16:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had moved the pages around based on pageviews; the US congressperson Hogg was only getting <10 pageviews per day, but there were 4000+ in one day, presumably in search of David Hogg the activist. But I am fine with the DAB as it is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not so sure about some of the other articles on other survivors but this one is most definitely notable, with the subject being extensively covered in reliable sources [4]. As far as the nom's claim that "systemic bias" applies because we don't have articles on mass murders at schools in Asia and Africa (maybe because they don't happen like they do in US), it's not. Iit's actually a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument which invalidates the rationale put forth by the nom (and frankly, it's a silly argument).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.Keep As with Emma Gonzalez, sources given in the article clearly indicate significant coverage and WP:NTEMP applies. On the other hand, any claims of lasting notability are speculative and WP:CRYSTAL equally applies. At this point in time, however, all we can say is that there is no notability independent of the Stoneman shooting, and the content should be merged there. Since I wrote that, further coverage means that this person has entered the national political debate and independent notability is now established. While some reactions from right-wing politicians indicate a desire to wish these students into the cornfield, we follow the sources and there is clearly significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E where the subject is notable only because of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. His role in the shooting does not appear to be substantial, and it is also too early to tell if the coverage is extensive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, his role in the shooting is irrelevant. The subject does not meet each (in other words all) of the criteria required for WP:BLP1E to apply.- MrX 🖋 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with numerous reliable independent references which discuss him in-depth such as here and here and here and here and here. WP:BLP1E does not apply here because there are several angles here: (1) surviving the shooting (2) becoming a gun-control advocate (3) helping to form the group Never Again MSD (4) going to Tallahassee to advocate for gun control to state legislators. The BLP1E says If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event but the school shooting is over -- now Hogg has become a student leader of an activism campaign -- clearly a second event. Hogg is getting consistent national and international attention and easily meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – let's examine what is being put on the shelf here. Mainly, WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. If we take a look at WP:GNG, it states that a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when certain conditions apply. This condition includes the following: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content – based on the sources that Tomsulcer provide, the sources in the article and outside sources, there are several articles that discuss this subject in depth. He does meet this criteria for a stand alone article. All sources that are discussing him and his work in depth are reliable. The second thing we must examine is WP:BLP1E. His notability initially came from his status as a survivor of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, but now includes his work for gun control advocacy after the shooting took place. Now we beg the question, is the shooting and its aftermath a different event from the coverage and discussion regarding 2018 gun control advocacy – though these events are related, are they considered two different events? Well, let's look at BLP1E. It states Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met – the first condition is If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. Does David Hogg, in which articles discuss him, only feature him on the context of a single event? It seems, based on several factors, that the 2018 gun control advocacy and the shooting at MSD are separate events. Reliable sources discuss his role in both of these events, focusing on the latter and his involvement in gun control advocacy. The second criteria is If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Based on reliable sources, it is unlikely that David Hogg will become a low-profile individual based on his work in the 2018 gun advocacy movement following the MSDHS shooting. Based on factoring of these criteria, I support a weak keep. We can always examine notability at a later time. Wikipedia is not in a rush to delete, create or re-create articles if needed. CookieMonster755✉ 17:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll repeat what I said on the AfD for Gonzalez--"Really a poster child for BLP1E, were it not for her continued involvement in the protests that followed the event. 'Keep, certainly for now, and if this is to be merged the content should not be deleted. BTW, Never Again MSD might be a better target for a merge, unless Mr. Icewhiz wants to nominate that also for deletion." Drmies (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never Again passed an AfD and would be a good merge/redirect target for all these BLP1E student speakers who are not notable for anything besides speaking as part of the organization.Icewhiz (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:SIGCOV. WP:BLP1E is not applicable. If the content were to be merged anywhere, I agree with Drmies that Never Again MSD would be the appropriate target.- MrX 🖋 18:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Never Again MSD - There's nothing particularly notable about David in particular that warrants him having a separate article from the group as a whole. No other mass shooting has spawned so many spinoff articles for individual people connected to it. WP:SIGCOV certainly seems applicable, but Never Again MSD already exists and can serve as a place to consolidate this article, the one about Emma Gonzalez, etc.- PrimaPrime (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is decided to merge this article, it certainly should be merged with Never Again MSD and not at the shooting page. CookieMonster755✉ 19:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the notability of the subject isn't just to do "activism" (sic). It's also due to the fact that he's been subject of conspiracy theories.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - That's how I found who he is and what happened quickly and concisely. This is a historic event and he is going to become a historic figure so why delete it if you'd have to restore it later anyway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.173.131.50 (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Never Again MSD. He isn't notable as a person, only for his involvement in this organization. Natureium (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, he's also notable for being a subject of conspiracy theories, including those "liked" by Donald Trump Jr.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Given the meteoric climb of this person from unknown to famous, and the fact that MSD students occupy the front pages of every major news outlet in the world... let's wait a bit and see. Also, in terms of the nominator's claim about "mass fatality events" and Wikipedia:Systemic bias, it is important to note that mass shooting in schools occur consistently and repeatedly only in the USA. Africa and Asia do not have a fifty year history of students being regularly shot in school, so Wikipedia:Systemic bias does not apply. The List of school shootings in the United States is a testament to this unique problem. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC) 104.163.148.25 (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge - This individual hasn't done anything besides start conspiracy theories and push the agenda of the alt-left. He isn't a politician, he is just simply someone riding off this publicity. If he continues to do more in the upcoming years as an actual politician, then sure, give him an article. As of right now it isn't needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.161.132.251 (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC) — 107.161.132.251 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - this is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E. The aftermath of the shooting is the same event as the shooting. If he still plays a significant role in an important gun-control group in a year's time, he will likely be notable then, but that's WP:CRYSTAL. "Being a subject of conspiracy theories" is an atrocious reason to suggest this person is a public figure or notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Power~enwiki, you regularly make claims like the one you made above - "textbook example of BLP1E". These comments always leave me shaking my head, and wondering what you think BLP1E says. If Hogg's article is a "textbook example" of BLP1E, it should be trivial for you to explain how it is a "textbook example". It should be trivial for you to include quotes from BLP1E that show it is a "textbook example". Geo Swan (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a moot point here, as this is obviously going to be kept. single event - as I say above, the aftermath is a single event. a low-profile individual - considering the person is a minor who was (arguably) forced at gunpoint into the public eye less than two weeks ago, I feel obliged to assume they will remain a low-profile individual. individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented - I refuse to believe that personal attacks by the like of Alex Jones can make his role substantial. I note that the continuing coverage makes a keep more reasonable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or Merge I prefer a merge. There's a lot of content, just not enough to make it's own article. Yes, this is BLP1E, but this is Wikipedia. I think WP:IAR applies here. Vermont | reply here 23:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BLP1E only applies if all three criteria are met, including whether "that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". Hogg is currently the subject of a cover article in the NYTimes examining the Youtube conspiracy about him. Google News, when searched with the terms ("david hogg" and Stoneman) returns 63,000 results. These are the hallmarks of a high profile individual. BLP1E is clearly NOT met. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hogg is widely covered in relation to the shooting and students speaking up after the shooting. There is nothing to indicate that these students won't fade back to obscurity once this is out of the newscycle. Having doubts expressed on whether you are a real person is if at all a WP:V issue (though it seems these are widely dismissed as a conspiracy theory) - not a sign of WP:N (if at all a contrary sign).Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but what crystal ball are you using to be so sure that "There is nothing to indicate that these students won't fade back to obscurity"?104.163.148.25 (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The specific policy on bios - WP:ONEEVENT. There is no reason to discuss this individual not in the scope of Stoneman Douglas High School shooting or Never Again MSD.Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The intense media coverage about the subject and other MSD students is not solely about the shooting anymore- it is about gun control in the USA, government inaction and the influence of the NRA. Hogg, like the other students speaking out, has a message which deals with three things: 1. our friends were shot, and we want it not to happen again, 2. gun laws in the USA need to change, and 3. these students, including Hogg, will take an active part in changing the gun laws. That is not a single event or item of interest-- it is multiple items. Witness the large CNN town hall special last night devoted to gun control issues. it was not a memorial to the shooting, it was a discussion of gun control. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BLP1E do not apply. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The situation as it is happening is making him significant. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply if the person is unlikely to return to a low profile, and the presence of conspiracy theories surrounding him makes it likely he is going to continue to be in the spotlight. Either way, there is significant coverage of him outside of surviving a school shooting. Acebulf (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BLP1E does not apply. Is likely to remain in the spotlight for a long time, and Impact is clear. Plenty of good relaible sources as well.BabbaQ (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:CRYSTALBALL does not allow us to speculate whether someone is "likely to remain in the spotlight for a long time." Right now, we have to decide based on the subject's current level of notability. In a years' time, if David and Emma have established themselves as reasonably well-known activists who are independently-notable from the existing group (Never Again MSD), then the articles can be written then. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a news source. Just because someone has a lot of coverage now in primary sources, it doesn't mean they'll have staying power worthy of an encyclopedia, which relies a lot on secondary sources. PrimaPrime (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable individual. If the individual still is involved significantly on a national scale in a year with gun control, certainly we should reconsider. WP:CrystalBall prohibits us from looking into the future to determine future notability. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that WP:BLP1E does not apply in this case as in so many cases before. WP:CrystalBall arguments also don't because the notable events and reliable source coverage have already happened.--I am One of Many (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's obvious that the articles about David Hogg, Emma Gonzalez, and Never Again MSD are trying to leverage Wikipedia's high visibility to promote them rather than including whatever information about them in the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting article their actual notability, such as it is, would justify, and perhaps creating pages with those names to redirect to the main shooting article. I'm frankly disgusted by this. Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. – Athaenara ✉ 18:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF?- MrX 🖋 18:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Established editors are editing these pages - not some SPA. Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, or merge to Never Again MSD. After following the news and then reading the article, it seems conclusive to me that this doesn't constitute a BLP1E. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While not an official reason for keeping or deleting, this article is getting 6000 pageviews in one day, that is, deleting it would be depriving these readers of information they're seeking.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have a fundamental choice to make here. We delete this article and let Everipedia take the lead, and be what Wikipedia used to be at the peak of its success. Or we keep this article and let this article grow (by following our quality standards when it goes to referencing and writing, obviously). --Deansfa (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember a debate around an Infowars reporter recently (was it Owen Shroyer?) who has a substantial page on Everipedia but was AfD'd here. Don't think this is a valid reason to keep. Wikizenx (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't really understand why so many people want these articles deleted. These students, Hogg in particular, have gained so much notoriety with their activism, they are bound to be remembered. The aftermath, as in the reaction, from this shooting isn't like most mass shootings that have taken place. It's ignited a movement that doesn't seem to be slowing down anytime soon. CloudKade11 (talk) 09:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it was clearly a big waste of time to nominate this so early. The appropriate time to look at it would have been in a month or two, or six. As it stands the AfD is no concensus, so why doesn't someone close this as such? 104.163.148.25 (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Not the time to close as no consensus. The discussion isn't over yet. Vermont | reply here 11:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. With 16 keep !votes it is not going to be deleted. Whether it is closed as keep or no concensus if of little concern. the fact it is a clear keep (but might not be in a few months, which would be the appropriate time to AFD) makes this discussion a waste of time.104.163.148.25 (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP, AND DON'T MOVE. He is notable, not for going to that high school, but for founding a long-needed anti schooting group. Several newspapers have articles specifically about him and how he's being harassed by right-wing goons--one is in today's Washington Post. His pic is in TWO separate articles today. Verdana♥Bold 11:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdana Bold (talk • contribs)

Why did sine bot say I didn't sign this? I used 4 tildies like this: Verdana♥Bold 11:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Verdana Bold: can we please refrain from unrelated political judgements (right-wing goons, long-needed anti schooting group)? Our job here is to decide if he is notable enough for an article. Thanks. —cnzx (talk • contribs) 05:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - With the sourcing available, and things like full page stories specifically dedicated to the subject continuing to pop up in places like WaPo, it's pretty hard to argue that there isn't enough available to write a neutral and well sourced article, which is the central question behind the spirit of notability. Also... for whatever it's worth, SYSTEMICBIAS is not a rationale for deleting coverage of Western topics; it's a rationale for increasing coverage of non-Western ones. Using it in this way is a little bit like saying we should combat housing discrimination in the US by foreclosing on as many middle class white families as possible, which obviously misses the point of why housing discrimination is a problem to begin with. GMGtalk 12:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:SIGCOV per WP:HEY. Hogg's actions in the last week and the resulting publicity and reporting support, in my opinion, that this is not WP:BLP1E. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject is involved in enough controversies and incidents to render him cross-referentially notable.Williamsdoritios (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a matter of historical importance (see: the number of companies that have stopped supporting the NRA due to his, and the other activists', efforts). I would say he is relevant enough. (LahmacunKebab (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - WP:BLP1E. Many other survivors of school shootings who have had substantial coverage at the time do not have their own pages. Bias towards one view, not notable in his own right. 62.31.81.43 (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC) — 62.31.81.43 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • This user's only edit is this discussion. Acebulf (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, new static IP address. 62.31.81.43 (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what your previous IP address was? It would certainly alleviate any SPA impropriety claims that could be brought forth. Acebulf (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He must mean dynamic IP, as static IPs don't change (often).104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was on the 85.211.* subnet - last one I can see is 85.211.232.136. In retrospect, would be good to merge to a page for all survivors, then should he become notable for any other reason in the future, maybe look at an individual article. 62.31.81.43 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.81.43 (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Excellent points made by others in favor of keeping. The points convincingly counter the arguments made by those in favor of deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronpoley (talk • contribs) 06:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep vastly more notable than the many pages on pageant winners. The subject continues to get media attention as part of the gun control debate. His organization has 134,000 facebook followers in a week and these students are not going to drop off the radar any time soon. Legacypac (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The wealth of detail within the media coverage, exemplified by [as of this writing] 33 appended inline cites, makes subject notable by definition. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- at this point, the subject meets WP:ENT of sorts: 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. He is also the subject of significant conspiracy theories, a role in Never Again MSD, etc. Sufficient for a "keep" at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very relevant article on a student who started an anti-gun-deaths organization and is being covered by many news media. Deleting the article doesn't help potential readers very much. WP:BLP1E would not apply here because he is likely to have continued notability as the leader of a high visibility organization. epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tons of media coverage. Isseubnida (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The individual should be mentioned in the article about the event. He is a classic example of someone that becomes short-term famous for one event. We don't know if anyone will know who is he one year from now, much less then years from now. He doesn't meet any of the requirements to have a Wikipedia article written about him. The article should be merged.--2601:2C6:C000:312:550B:89BF:71C2:4A73 (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Nom is the only one canvassing here by slapping an AfD tag on a high traffic article. That is sure to attract new editors to the discussion and I welcome them. Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete: given the recency of the attack, WP:BLP1E, and our standing policy on WP:Recentism, I'd be in favor of merging all the articles regarding this subject (including Never Again MSD, Emma Gonzalez, Cameron Kasky, et al.) with reactions to the Stoneman Douglas shooting, until and unless the activism shown by these young individuals is sustained; a deletion would also be acceptable, so long as the information here would be noted in some form on the main article. Javert2113 (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meteoric media rise. 290k twitter followers, interviewed with Anderson Cooper. Called out politicians demanding action in a live stream during the shooting. If this isn't notable, or a first, I don't know what is. javi (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As he is a founding member of an organisation, it makes him a notable enough figure to have an article. Also as per above arguments. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He is notable as a co-founder of a national movement and as a gun control advocate. He has gotten widespread coverage in major publications in the United States and United Kingdom. He has been interviewed by major news networks. The movement he co-founded is planning a national march that has been funded by major public figures. JJMM (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable and likely to be increasingly so. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is employing WP:CRYSTAL we don't know if he's likely to be notable in the future or not 13:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I said he is already notable. His likely future additional notability is just a perk. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Notability already on the decline, less press coverage of the tragedy now and other things entering the news cycle. Think this one is WP:BLP1E and WP:Recentism Wikizenx (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BLP1E applies here and his "notability" is already waning. In the end, if you subtract anything stemming from the fact that he happened to be present at the shooting, you are left with absolutely nothing. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? All this news coverage is only one event? Not.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes seriously. I was quite clear: "if you subtract anything stemming from the fact that he happened to be present at the shooting, you are left with absolutely nothing.". Everything stems from one event. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think the important thing is there's nothing that makes him stand out in any way individually from the others also involved in the movement. Wikizenx (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Survived shooting. Spoke up. Conspiracy theory about him being a crises actor, some more interviews. So you saw him all week in the media - and there is no particular reason why would continue to be featured.Icewhiz (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. He's (1) a survivor (2) a leader/organizer of Never Again MSD (3) accused of being a "crisis actor" (4) numerous appearances on TV with Anderson Cooper etc (5) calling for a boycott of NRA-associated firms (which appears to be working) (6) calling for a boycott of spring break Florida tourism. All this is BLP1E? Hogwash.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's only been 12 days since the shooting. Everything that he's done so far has been related to the one event / cause which is adequately covered in the Wiki page that is dedicated to that cause. [redacted] Wikizenx (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great -- [redacted] --Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP1E does not apply, because criteria 2 and 3 are not met. In addition, the subject is not a LOWPROFILE person. Even yesterday, he appeared in an interview with Jake Tapper, chatting with Dan Rather. He is already notable. If news coverage declines, he will still be notable as explained in WP:NOTTEMPORARY. By the way, his notability is not about his role in the shooting; it's about his role as a co-leader of a nationwide movement that has garnered international attention, and the vile attacks by the far-right, including conspiracy theories and death threats. - MrX 🖋 17:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the unusually extensive media coverage of him as an individual were not prima facie evidence of notability, the conspiracy theorists' coverage and responses to that would have put him over the top. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Emma González's page was removed from AfD / Merge discussion and I think that David Hogg's page should be treated equitably. While Emma is probably more of the visual poster child for this student movement, Hogg and others are just as notable as leaders and organizers. So I say keep. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has grown to be notable in his own right.216.15.17.192 (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— 216.15.17.192 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely one of the more well known of the survivors of the shooting. He is notable beyond the shooting since he has had conspiracy theories levied against him, and he is a leader of the #NeverAgain movement. He and Emma Gonzalez are definitely some of the more notable names and I believe they deserve to have their own pages. Cssiitcic (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with others Hogg does have more notability than his compatriots with the exception of Emma Gonzalez, but are we really to believe that they will all be notable beyond this news cycle? Simply guessing at this time is pointless. We don't know where they will be 3 months from now, with all of them heading off to college soon its likely we won't hear from them again. Most of the information in their biographies pertains to the event and the shooting details/aftermath. Merging would be the best way to preserve this information in case they branch off in the future and regain more notoriety outside of victim status and media appearances. If we don't apply the same standards to all the victims who spoke out then we will be left with repetitive biographies shaped by a singular event.100.33.114.169 (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At this point, I think most of the arguments that are going to be made have been made and that it is evident that the article will be kept. As such, I would humbly suggest the possibility of WP:SNOWBALLING the discussion. As I have made my opinions clear earlier, I will not be the one doing so, however, and given the nature of the debate, I don't think non-admine closure would be wise. Acebulf (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment here is an article on Hogg that really points to how he has become a spokeperson in his own right. Parkland’s David Hogg Just Devastated The NRA With One Stunning Blow. And here is an article talking about how he is receiving death threats. Go into Google news and you will get pages of results, two weeks after the shooting. Why are we still discussing if he merits a page? The kid is internationally famous a hundred times over. Even if he disappears tomorrow, he will forever be mentioned in the context of school shootings and gun activism in the USA. Once notable, always notable. I assume good faith of the editors above, but I am starting to wonder if the reaction to second amendment issues is what is keeping this discussion going. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Without the notability of all of the articles and media attention, I would certainly argue this would be part of WP:BLP1E, but due to the media attention and vast number of references, I think the article is sufficiently notable. --HunterM267 ❯ talk 18:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- massive coverage. The young man not only has come forward as a notable spokesman, but he was been targeted by a hate campaign, for doing so. Geo Swan (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Single event, not news, soapboxing. What's to like? Anmccaff (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He should promote himself on his own webpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:586:4201:37DD:A448:6326:C00A:6F5C (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— 2601:586:4201:37DD:A448:6326:C00A:6F5C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.163.148.25 (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable in his own right by now. If Zoe Quinn is notable, so is David. --Volvlogia (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classic case of Fake news. Jamalcrao (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)— Jamalcrao (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • @Jamalcrao: What do you mean by fake news? Acebulf (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jamalcrao: Given the sources and attributions for this article, it is not fake news. This is an objectively false and incorrect reason to argue for deletion. Cssiitcic (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)15:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • User has been banned for sockpuppetry. Acebulf (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He's been in the news for a mere two weeks -- and on top of that, only for reacting to the shooting. That is maybe sufficient justification for a blurb somewhere, but is not one for a standalone article. However, the ongoing reaction to the shooting (debate, possible new laws/restrictions/regulations) is admittedly one of the more distinctive parts of this incident, and Hogg plays a significant role within that aspect. Over the next couple weeks, it's possible that his notability could move beyond WP:1E, by becoming a sustained activist over a period of time (principally unconnected from the incident at Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS). In order to balance the potential that he'll just be washed out in the next news cycle against that of premature deletion, I think that the article should stand as-is for several weeks. I propose to close this AfD "without prejudice" so it can be reopened in several weeks. If nothing's really changed by then, I would merge this article, and those of Cameron Kasky and Emma González, into Never Again MSD. —cnzx (talk • contribs) 05:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think there is a "without prejudice" rationale for closing an AfD. See WP:CLOSEAFD. Relevant ones seem to be no consensus, keep, delete, merge, draftify, speedy delete etc. Away, "without prejudice" is pretty much the same as no consensus.104.163.148.25 (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His name has been circulating the news, even in the Netherlands. I needed background information on him and was able to find everything I was looking for on this page. Isn't this the sole purpose of wikipedia? 🖋 16:43, 28 February 2018 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.207.217.20 (talk) — 84.207.217.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep Persistent coverage that is unlikely to end soon, passes gng. There's precedent with Emma González being kept. GuzzyG (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He has persistent coverage, plus he will be debating Alex Jones soon which will only increase his profile.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hogg has backed out of this debate. 62.31.81.43 (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There's a degree of WP:CRYSTAL in arguing that coverage will go on into the future but I'm more inclined to believe that it well continue based on the CNN interview he did with Dan Rather. We can always revisit if that doesn't happen.LM2000 (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara L. Wegener[edit]

Barbara L. Wegener (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real evidence of notability, has published a single novel as far as I can find. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:AUTHOR. I can't find any signficant coverage in third party sources, and she has only published one novel. Cait.123 (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing against retired teachers — but the publisher of Cara's Forgiveness turns out to be WestBow Press, a self-publishing service. One self-published book is not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR, and no other evidence of notability is available. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I'm a self-published author from Florida like Wegener but I have 23 books for sale at Amazon. Three of which got to #1 best seller status in a book subcategory. That said, I'm not a notable author and neither is Wegener. She's an author but there is no proof of her being notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article is completely unsourced and it would be difficult to source it. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My searches failed to find anything on author or her first novel. Fails WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article lacks any sources, which is a clear violation of policy in the case of a biography of a living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 17:52, 23 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GuHu Media[edit]

GuHu Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References consist of self-published or dead links. Quick online search found nothing else to verify notability. London Hall (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As always, every organization is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists — to earn one, it has to be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage, in sources independent of itself, to clear WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. But that's not what the sources here are showing — with the exception of one published journal article, it's referenced entirely to its own self-published content about itself, and even the journal article was written by two professors at the same university, so even its authors can't credibly claim to be fully independent of this program either. This is not how you source something like this as notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 26 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maamaankam (2018 film)[edit]

Maamaankam (2018 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crystalballing Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Project confirmed by reliable sources and principal photography started, thus will pass WP:NFF

shoot?]

First schedule of Maamaankam (2018 film) beginned at mangalapuram as can be referenced here , here and here . Yourmistake (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected formatting errors introduced by Yourmistake --HagennosTalk 16:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A film which has not yet been released. The only claim of notability is the injury sustained by an actor of the film, but notability is not inherited. Also can be deleted under WP:G11 --HagennosTalk 16:41, 26 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irmgard Kärner[edit]

Irmgard Kärner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established, existing sources do not satisfy WP:GNG requirement for significant coverage. It's mostly tables from competition results. The two news-looking articles recently added only mention Irmgard Karner once each; that's not enough to build a verifiable article on. -- intgr [talk] 13:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irmgard Karner was German women's chess champion (source: http://www.teleschach.de/damen/bremen1964.htm) and played in three chess Olympiads for West Germany (source: http://www.olimpbase.org/playersw/ms884ywg.html). This level chess player has responded for English Wikipedia notability requirements.--Uldis s (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The article passes notability guidelines for a chess player. Despite not being a chess grandmaster, she belongs to ancient era in the 19th century so the biography is worth notable in this case. Abishe (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contrary to what the nominator says, winning a national championship and appearing in three Olympiads does establish notability for a chess player.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pawnkingthree and Abishe: These are not actually addressing the nomination at all, nor are you citing any policy/guideline to support your claim. Deletion discussions should consist of policy-based arguments (WP:CLOSEAFD); simply asserting that the subject is notable does not make it so. WP:GNG, the main notability guideline, requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, so that a verifiable article can be written. As stated in the nomination, such sources haven't been demonstrated, thus the article is unverifiable and not demonstrated to be notable. -- intgr [talk] 14:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm addressing the nomination. It is likely that a chess player who has won a national championship and appeared in international competition has generated coverage to satisfy GNG. The problem is that for a West German player active in the 1960s they may be offline, and may not be in the English language. Currently unverified does not mean unverifiable.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no idea what the chess notability guidelines are, but applying athlete notability guidelines it appears she would pass if the Chess Olympiad were a top-level international competition. We do presume notability for athletes in top-level competition. I'm not sure about chess notability guidelines, so I won't vote, but if there are guidelines which exist saying international competitors are presumed notable, I'd vote keep. There are also several mentions of her games in books and other secondary sources. I agree with the nominator there's not a lot of sources there, though. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deleting the article would turn blue links to red in German Chess Championship, 3rd Women's Chess Olympiad and 4th Women's Chess Olympiad. This would not help to build the web nor would it improve the encyclopedia. Quale (talk) 23:54, 23 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) 21:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kushal nahata[edit]

Kushal nahata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article-on-self created by professed non-neutral editor. No real proof of notability except an article, in which the author talks about third-party companies Travelbird (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 12:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 12:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The creator have themself inserted a notability tag in the draft version of the article. MT TrainDiscuss 13:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable BLP. FITINDIA 13:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sufficiently notable. Travelbird (talk) 13:02, 26 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 per WP:A7. Article about a real person, containing no indication of importance. Euryalus (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Ho[edit]

Bradley Ho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

18 year old student with Youtube-channel whose claim to fame is that he was voted "most likely to succeed online" in school yearbook. Travelbird (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 12:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 12:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete all links are to Reddit.--Theredproject (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all sources are from Reddit, which is definitely not the most reliable of sources. Based on the fact that the channel also only has 61 subscribers, I would not consider that "famous" as the Reddit threads state. I also went through all 5 pages of Google results for "TheOmegaLeaf" and "Bradley Ho" (had more than 5 pages, none appeared to be RS & related), only to discover no reliable sources. Additionally (in the case of the former), Google's news tab does not return anything. While I would certainly not rule out the fact that he could become famous tomorrow (anyone could, just odds are against it) - and if that was the case and tonnes of reliable sources suddenly pop up that weren't there when I did the search, I would happily change my !vote - I do not think that there is enough notability to warrant an article at this time and if it were sent through AfC and I reviewed it, it would most definitely have been declined. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Theredproject and TheSandDoctor. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:59, 22 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nordica destinations[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nordica destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is was supported by only a single primary WP:SELFSOURCE. A third-party was removed. According to WP:PSTS, "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability." The text could be merged into the main article. This standalone article fails WP:OR. I am sympathetic to the idea that the subject's website is likely to be accurate, but this article fails. A WP:BEFORE search for secondary sources turns up nothing useful.The article is now referenced Rhadow (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: @Rhadow: You need to fix the AfD template above. Anyway, originally this table was part of the Nordica, but it was split by user KAL Crew. -- intgr [talk] 14:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how I broke it. My first attempt only made it worse. Sorry. Rhadow (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhadow: Fixed it. You were missing a ] at [[WP:BEFORE]. -- intgr [talk] 20:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I have added 13 secondary sources and hope to finish referencing the remaining destinations soon, making this AfD moot. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished referencing all but one destination. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Plenty of secondary sources have been added. Please stop with these nominations. The issue has been resolved. These articles are notable. If this abuse continues, we may have to escalate to WP:ANI. Smartyllama (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I agree that this article is now sufficiently referenced. I stand by my assertion that unreferenced articles are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This discussion has led to the examination of other weak articles such as Flybe franchise and codeshare destinations, Holidays Czech Airlines destinations, and Skyservice destinations. I am not sure that continuing this discussion at ANI will add much to the debate. You are free to take it there, though. Rhadow (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now referenced and Nordica is an airline with regular services, so this article is well under the scope of airline destination lists. According to a recent DRV discussin there are no reasons for not to have these articles.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:35, 23 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) 21:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faire Leather Co.[edit]

Faire Leather Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Newly founded company with minimal claims of fame for having the most funded Kickstarter project in their country. Some sources such as [5] and [6] exist but even they are of questionable reliability. In the end, I decided to take it here instead of speedy deleting it per the "err on the side of caution" rule that is the basis for WP:CSD. But with no other sources to be found, the company fails both the guideline for the notability of companies as well as the general notability guideline. Regards SoWhy 11:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 11:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 11:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG. Authored by COI editor obviously to use Wikipedia to promote the company. Jbh Talk 02:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is not a well-known brand in Singapore. Articles I've found came from August Man, The Peak and Vulcanpost, which all seemed to part of a marketing push from the company with the focus of the articles mainly on its successful Kickstarter project. Not notable enough to warrant an individual page for now. NoCringe (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails criteria for notability, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing++ 18:16, 28 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) SamHolt6 (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Veerey Ki Wedding[edit]

Veerey Ki Wedding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or move to draft. Upcoming film fails WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFILM, as no significant coverage about the film's assumed effect on cinema has been established. Also fails WP:NFF, as a good-faith search turns up nothing significant or in-depth about the production of the film. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm seeing loads of coverage on Google News. I'm not sure what the issue is. Supposed to be released in a few weeks. Perhaps we cam reconsider then but deletion now seems strange. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:06, 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yūta Mochizuki[edit]

Yūta Mochizuki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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 is no better sourcing wise. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:02, 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 redirect to Contemporary Christian music. Most of the bold !votes were for delete and redirect, but I don't see any policy-based reason to delete the preexisting page history. – Joe (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian girl group[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Christian girl group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally nominated by Slatersteven but was nominated by reopening an old AfD. Explanation and timestamp on old afd: No sources, so may well be users own opinion and musical classification. Slatersteven (talk) 8:51 am, 21 Feb 18. I am neutral on subject Nightfury 09:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 10:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The intent is to merge two smaller girl group articles (Aurora and Whisper Loud, and possibly V*Enna) into this larger article. These individual articles may not be notable on their own, but as part of a larger main article about Christian girl groups in general, notability could be established more easily. BarlowGirl and ZOEgirl have each sold over 1 million albums, while Point of Grace sold over 8 million, so there is certainly a case for notability. --LABcrabs (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)][reply]
As long as this is a recognized genre of music (by RS) yes, but not as a made up classification.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The only references show that three bands exist, not that they are "girl groups", and not a single reference supporting the concept. At worst, any referenced content related to the subject could be merged into either Girl group#1990–present: Dance pop girl group era or Contemporary Christian music#Style and artists, and the list is unnecessary. The Aurora article should be deleted, not redirected to the article. Whisper Loud has a few refs for their one album, but could be deleted as well, while V*Enna is well referenced and doesn't need to be merged anywhere. BarlowGirl was an all-female rock band, not a girl group (reminds me of an anon who categorized all-male bands—such as the Beattles and U2—as boy bands) and similarly Point of Grace was a female vocal group, not a girl group either (if they're a girl group so is Sierra (group)). The only bona fide girl group in the second half of LABcrabs' list is ZOEgirl, and their chart performance and references ensure it will stay. But that there wereChristian girl groups is no reason to have an article dedicated to the subject if reliable sources independent of them cannot be found to support the topic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another reference has been added to support the claim that the most prominent entries in the article (Point of Grace and BarlowGirl) are not considered girl groups. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that it's a reliable source. I'm simply stating that if the author of that piece was trying to promote the category he would likely select the most prominent examples, and at the time of writing, PoG and BarlowGirl were much larger acts than the ones listed. I'm also thinking that if there were an article on Christian Bubblegum pop bands existed, this could be merged there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that, but I would have said it to anyone else who did try and use it. So in the interests of fairness thought I should inform you too (and also there is part of me that wants anyone reading this to not get the idea anyone here thinks these might be RS).Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Contemporary Christian music. 1st nomination consensus in December 2007 was to merge and redirect. The article has attempted to be restored and very little has changed from the last previous version before redirection. Ajf773 (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the topic of Christian girl groups is notable, but if we get too strict on what counts and what doesn't, then yes, the list will be narrowed down to just a few groups like ZOEgirl. Point of Grace and Sierra might feature older women, but they are still female vocal groups, and thus count for this article's sake. BarlowGirl wasn't signed to Fervent when the 2001 article was written, and it is both a girl group (Christmas) and a girl band. Both the Aurora and Whisper Loud articles note the scandal with Ja'Marc Davis, and while this could be relegated to the Raze article, it is still worth noting that the scandal had a significant impact on the future of Christian girl groups. I believe the article on Christian girl groups should only be deleted if it fails to see progress in the time after it is restored. --LABcrabs (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The working definition is "All-female bands, in which members also play instruments, are usually considered a separate phenomenon", which is from girl group. So PoG and Sierra would qualify, but BarlowGirl would not. If we use the stricter definition of "female pop music singing groups", then Point of Grace and Sierra would not qualify. That was the one I was working from. In either case, RSes discussing the topic would determine whether the subject is notable or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except when they are not (unless they are) The BarlowGirl case being a care to point they are not one one unless they are (quite literally read the article), this article is all very OR and synthy.Slatersteven (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Contemporary Christian music. Does not pass WP:N. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think the redirect is necessary, but I'm not opposed to it. Sources for the most part aren't reliable here, including a LinkedIn profile. Nothing really establishes this as a genre of music or that this is a list considered discriminate enough to warrant inclusion as it is. Red Phoenix talk 05:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Cartu[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Josh Cartu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:GNG. Passing mentions and unreliable sources make this worthy of deletion. Not to point any fingers but three recently made accounts seem to have taken a keen interest in this guy all of a sudden, adding puff and promo. Elektricity (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 10:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 10:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable as a sportsperson. Not sure if his other work makes him notable. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It appears he's wealthy and spends a lot of time with other wealthy people, but don't know if that is enough to show notability. There's probably a story there, but this article doesn't give any indication of any real accomplishments except having money. He might well meet the GNG which means he's another person who's "famous for being famous".Sandals1 (talk) 16:03, 26 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) 21:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ke Apon Ke Por (TV series)[edit]

Ke Apon Ke Por (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see any independent coverage of the serial. ~ Winged BladesGodric 09:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 10:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 10:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW, most of its references are from seemingly unreliable sources and the TOI one has just passing mentions of the show. No prejudice towards recreation of the article with reliable, secondary sources, though.
    Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 20:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just an unrelated passing mention in the only RS, Times of India. Fails WP:TVSHOW. MT TrainDiscuss 12:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is created by banned user, you can comment to the other user, MT Train. So admins will delete it. --Cyrus noto3at bulaga (Talk to me) 00:57, 27 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. Nominated by a sock puppet of a banned user with no other significant arguments for deletion, and the item in question appears to be notable. If an admin believes this should go forward, feel free to reopen it. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 16:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Gilmore[edit]

Marcus Gilmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This biography of a living person does not include any references or sources and WP:GNG AyaanLamar (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 10:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 10:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree the article is poorly sourced, but the subject has received coverage in New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/arts/music/12drummers.html), Downbeat, Drum! Magazine (http://drummagazine.com/groove-analysis-marcus-gilmore/), and other reliable sources to have it pass GNG. It's true the coverage is a mixed bag of name checks vs. something a bit more substantive (the referenced NPR source is confusing: although labeled a blog, it is in fact a blog under the editorial auspices of NPR), so call it a weak keep if you want, but I think the solution is to improve the article to rather give it the axe. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per ShelbyMarion the article is poorly sourced but after a brief search enough other sources exist to get this past WP:GNG (even removing the fact he's got famous lineage.) While promotional, Zildjian even have him as famous drummers who use their equipment: [7] SportingFlyer (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep nominated by a sock. SportingFlyer talk 09:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Registration Acts (comics)[edit]

Registration Acts (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per discussion on the RM a month ago, this page needs to be reviewed for potential deletion. ONR (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The concept is vague and the specific examples can be clearly summarized in any article that needs to refer to them. Most of the sources are primary, and the few references from comic news sites are about in-universe material, not real-world context. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Superhuman registration acts as a thematic element used for socio-political commentary in the medium is a pretty well-documented academic topic and would meet WP:GNG. [8][9][10][11][12][13]---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are all great sources about Civil War, and I think they'd be excellent sources for that article. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • While it's understandable that Marvel's Civil War arc would be at the centre of discussion, a couple of the above sources discuss the universe of Watchmen, The Incredibles, and TDKR [14] and the mutant registration acts and a 1980s FF run. [15] Searching for other similar registration acts like the Sokovia Accords, [16][17] the Mutant Registration Acts, [18][19][20][21][22] or the Keene Act, [23][24][25][26] also leads to a wealth of academic treatment, which sometimes extend for pages. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Patar knight has demonstrated that there are reliable sources about this topic, and that there is notability. Dimadick (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a common-enough theme in superhero comics, and sufficient sourcing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unpopularity[edit]

Unpopularity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This might be too bold, but I do not see what purpose this article serves. It is written like a sociology essay, and does not provide encyclopedic content. It is excessively long, and essentially imparts only a dictionary definition. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Condense to what is non-essayish and merge and redirect to popularity. The effects of the absence of something are still a reflection on the nature of that thing. bd2412 T 21:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redirect or delete (for the reasons noted already). -- Taku (talk) 23:13, 5 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 04:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination is certainly bold as it's the first time I've seen the complaint that "It is excessively long, and essentially imparts only a dictionary definition", which seems to be self-contradictory. The complaint that it's "like a sociology essay" seems rather different and is bizarre too, because that's the type of content we'd expect for this topic. Finally the claim that it "does not provide encyclopedic content" is empty per WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. So, there doesn't seem to be a case to answer here. My impression is the nominator is expecting something else or something more but they don't say what that is and they don't seem to have made any effort to improve the article themself.
Merger might be feasible but we're here to decide on the question of deletion and AFD is not cleanup. The proposed target of Popularity is over 30K and so it's reasonable to split the topic per WP:SIZE. Unpopularity is certainly a thing in its own right, rather than simply an absence or negation, because it has clear and distinct effects such as social rejection and bullying. I was looking at some talks by Jordan Peterson recently because he's in the news. In one, he made the point that the most important thing for parents to do is to socialise their infants by the age of four because otherwise they will be rejected by other children and this will then ruin their life. The page in question currently seems to focus on adolescents rather than infants so this indicates that's there's good scope for expansion.
Andrew D. (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge to popularity. It also makes no sense why an article about a broad topic focuses on such a specific area of the topic (ie. popularity among adolescents). Maybe some of the content would be better suited for an article such as Interpersonal relationship.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this next example is a terrible and ancient AfD discussion, but popularity was once nominated for deletion and was kept: [27] I'm not sure how unpopularity is any different. Yes, WP:NOTINHERITED and all that, but it's been the subject of academic research in a very similar way to its sister article. I'd keep and rework. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above. Massive academical sources coverage.--cyclopiaspeak! 14:36, 22 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slipstream (science fiction)[edit]

Slipstream (science fiction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially a less common term for Hyperspace (science fiction) but drawn out to a fancrufty extreme. Two pages for the same general concept aren't necessary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There is a sub-genre of SF called slipstream which is definitely notable (whole chapter in The Oxford Handbook of Science Fiction) but this article is not about that. I don't agree that the term is synonymous with hyperspace as claimed in the nom. It seems more akin to wormhole to me so a redirect there would be inappropriate. SpinningSpark 16:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This book has some discussion of the idea, but the topic of the book is not science fiction so not a particularly strong source. SpinningSpark 16:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The book calls slipstream a "subspace tunnel", which is the same thing as hyperspace (science fiction). It still proves my point that there is no need for 2 articles on the same topic.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are not the same thing. Hyperspace is usually depicted as a separate dimensional space to normal space (try reading the article) although as it is entirely fictional SF authors are free to describe it however they want. The very real science concept of a wormhole, on the other hand, is much like a tunnel. However, slipstream should not be synonymised with wormhole either because a fictional phenomenon should not be conflated with a scientifically supported phenomenon. SpinningSpark 11:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • A separate dimensional space and a tunnel through a separate dimensional space. One is logically a subcategory of the other, not a completely different thing. Either way, their usage varies so widely that the only way to nail down what they are is to lump them under "Hyperspace", different ways of using other dimensions to travel faster than light. A single book mention is not enough to prove the term passes WP:GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm seeing a lot of comparisons being done between slipstream and hyperspace on SF fandom forums [28][29][30][31][32]. None of that is usable RS in article of course, but it does show that that there is a distinction being drawn by the community. On the other hand no reliable sources have been presented indicating that they should be treated as synonyms. There is therefore no justification in sources for Wikipedia to so treat them. I wouldn't be averse to slipstream and hyperspace and others being pulled together into Faster-than-light travel (science fiction) or some such title. But treating slipstream as a hyponym of hyperspace, no. SpinningSpark 21:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • The problem is that in its current state, the article makes no indication of what "Slipstream" actually is, beyond examples that vary widely. If that can be nailed down by reliable sources, then I would not be averse to a Faster-than-light travel in fiction article that contains both in their own sections.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Definition by example is a recognised methodology. As an entirely fictional phenomenon, this term is pretty muck defined by the works in which it has appeared. SpinningSpark 14:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & redirect to Hyperspace_(science_fiction)#Other_forms where the subject is already discussed. The present article is unsourced original research, without possibility of improvement. It's possible that the target section should be prune as well, but that's a separate matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Spinningspark. The two terms are distinct, but both the terms should ideally be covered in the context of a single page on FLT in science fiction. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:12, 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fit Club[edit]

Fit Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:36, 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Mehta[edit]

Prashant Mehta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be only notable by association. Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it is notable and should not delete the article as the said person Prashant Mehata is the Managing Director and who start the company Rajesh Exports which is ranked 295th on the Fortune Global 500.
Nikhilarora0903 (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Nikhilarora0903 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, but should have been in the article. So we also have the fact this is in essence whitewashing puffery as well.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 22 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Bin Mujeeb[edit]

Saad Bin Mujeeb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:NDIRECTOR. Störm (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:30, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bach flower remedies[edit]

List of Bach flower remedies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. A single publication is all that is quoted and the plants listed have no references to support their inclusion other than this article . Very recursive to the point of part of ones anatomy being subsumed into an orifice. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   08:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list is of links to articles relating to ingredients that are contained in some of these individual mixtures. There is a single article covering the mixtures- Bach flower remedies. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom/Drchriswilliams. If there were references it might be suitable for the main BFR article, but there's not much here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If necessary, a list can be added to the main article. Natureium (talk) 15:44, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Miller (ice hockey, born 1971)[edit]

Colin Miller (ice hockey, born 1971) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP: NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:31, 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homelessness services in Snohomish County[edit]

Homelessness services in Snohomish County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This isn't really an article about what its title describes. There's a lot of content here about homelessness in Washington state in general, rather than being specific to Snohomish County at all, and there's a lot of even more general content about the basic phenomenon of homelessness without even being specific to Washington, such as entire sections which define things like "day shelter" and "drop-in center" and "halfway housing" and "rehab program" and "case manager" as generic, universal WP:DICDEFs of terms. And even the content about services, as expected by the title, is very general content about statewide or nationwide services like the Sally Ann and the United Way and the YWCA, not anything specific to Snohomish. Literally the only thing here that's specifically about Snohomish is a couple of statistics. Basically, this is not an encyclopedia article, but a really bad cross between an essay and a how-to guide. Bearcat (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete appears to be an essay written for a course. The topic itself isn't notable. Contains a number of references, but nothing that would make the article notable on its own. (Though you may want to give the writer a chance to save a copy if it's for coursework purposes) SportingFlyer (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Can you weigh in on whether your position has changed after my revisions? Daask (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)\[reply]
I can't prove it, but it feels like WP:OR or WP:HOWTO to me. I'd stick with delete, but maybe Userify with the creator as it would be perfectly fine information for some other website. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have made substantial changes and believe I have resolved your concerns. Daask (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you've addressed some of the overreach issues — but I'm still not seeing a reason why this needs its own standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Do we need this article? Would Wikipedia be woefully incomplete without this article? Of course not. However, that isn't the standard we use. WP:GNG asks for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and this article has plenty of cited local journalism focused on this topic. The fact that the topic is local rather than larger in scope is insignificant. Daask (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The standard we use also isn't just "local journalism exists on this" — for example, we also have to consider things like whether the topic falls under WP:MILL because more or less the same article could be written about hundreds or thousands of other nearly identical topics in other places. Local journalism also exists on lots of other things that we don't accept as notable, such as every town councillor and school trustee in every town, every fire chief in every town, every police chief in every town, local non-chain restaurants and retail stores, high school athletes who haven't passed WP:NSPORT for anything, unsigned local bands who haven't satisfied WP:NMUSIC, winners of high school poetry contests who haven't passed WP:AUTHOR, and my mother's neighbour who found a pig in her front yard a few years ago. If Snohomish were getting wider attention for doing something unique and innovative about homelessness that was significantly different from the services in place everywhere else, then an article might be warranted — but if all that can really be written is boilerplate content that would be more or less the same for every other county in Washington and/or the entire United States apart from the number of homeless people given in the statistics section, then there's really no point in a dedicated article. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Thanks for drawing my attention to WP:MILL, which I wasn't familiar with. However, I note that it is only an essay, and such an argument could easily be made against articles like Government of North Carolina. I have continued to make changes to address your concerns. Daask (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
State governments aren't MILL. There are only 50 of them nationwide, not thousands upon thousands upon maybe even millions, and there are many distinctive and reliably sourceable things that can be said about each one that make them very different from each other. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Its just not encyclopedic and borderlines on WP:HOWTO. While it certainly is a great thing that there are resources available and would be useful to a homeless person (assuming they could gain internet access somehow), that's just not the purpose of wikipedia. And I really can't see creating an article like this for every county in every state, it just seems trivial.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusf10: I don't see any howto content. This article lists services, and may be excessive in this list. However, it describes things like history and funding of these programs, not how to access their services. Daask (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Where to access services" is pretty darn close to "how to do stuff". But the point is that one could write an article just like this about homelessness services in absolutely every individual county across the entire United States and all of Canada and the United Kingdom and any other country on earth that has counties and homelessness services, and that's just not useful or encyclopedic. There would need to be something unique about homelessness services in Snohomish County, significantly different from homelessness services in King or Walla Walla or or Clallam or Skamania or Okanogan counties or Pima County in Arizona or Erie County in New York, before an article about them was justified and warranted. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and work on it, it is well sourced, if not the best written article that needs a bit of help, not deletion. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bearcat put it very well; there's nothing about this county's homeless services that's different from most other counties in most other states. The causes are similar, the government, religious, and NGO service providers are similar, and so on. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawing to speedy. Reasons explained below. Bearcat (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malena Morgan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Malena Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a porn model and actress, which makes a credible notability claim (Penthouse Pet of the Month) but fails to support it with any evidence of reliable source coverage about her. As always, people do not get an automatic free notability pass just because they have a Twitter account and an IMDb page -- even for a WP:PORNBIO pass, the article still has to be supported by some evidence of reliable source coverage about her in sources other than her own self-published web presence. Bearcat (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Never mind. Didn't notice that this had been discussed at AFD before — and with no sources at all this version is even weaker than the one that wasn't referenced well enough a year and a half ago, so I don't see any real reason not to just withdraw this nomination and throw it straight in the speedy hopper as a recreation of a deleted article. Bearcat (talk) 07:27, 21 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aja (drag queen)[edit]

Aja (drag queen) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a drag entertainer, whose only notability claim at the present time is being an as-yet non-winning contestant on RuPaul's Drag Race. As we've gone through many times before, simply appearing on a reality show is not in and of itself a notability claim -- a person has to win the show to get an article because of the show per se, and if they don't win then they still have to build notability for other things the same way as any person who was never on the show at all. But this isn't showing that: it shows a couple of pieces of the purely WP:ROUTINE coverage that every contestant on RPDR always gets in that context, and then sources her work as a musician entirely to the songs' own iTunes pages (which is not how you reference a person as a notable musician.) All of which means that the sourcing here is just not cutting it yet, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to cut it. Bearcat (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'll let others decide the fate of this article, which I'd prefer to see expanded, but redirecting to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9) would be more appropriate than deleting altogether. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • At this point, I think half of the queens who have been on an episode but don't have articles are redirects to their original season of RPDR, including most of the ones who have been on one of the Allstar seasons. So, I agree with you that if it doesn't survive it should be redirected.Naraht (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since the article has been expanded, and per WP:GNG, my vote is to keep the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've dug up a few sources that mainly focus on Aja's activity outside of Drag Race, though I think reasonable arguments could be made that they still constitute routine coverage. I don't presently have the time to undertake this article's expansion as my own project, but I would be willing to contribute to a group effort if consensus is to expand rather than delete or merge it. A few sources:
    • Coverage of the Haus of Aja, the drag family she leads in Brooklyn: article on Brokelyn.com [33], Grizzly Kiki podcast [34], interview on Hey Kween [35].
    • A couple Billboard articles that mention a post-Drag Race musical collaboration she did with three other Drag Race queens: [36], [37].
    • Comedy Central UK article on a Reddit AMA that Aja did: [38]. Armadillopteryxtalk 18:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Armadillopteryx: Thanks, I've added some of these as supplement inline citations. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doing a Reddit ANA is not a Wikipedia notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's why the link wasn't to reddit but to Comedy Central UK's coverage of the AMA. Clearly CCUK thought Aja was notable enough to write-up the AMA since most AMAs don't get any sort of coverage. Umimmak (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand article, it appears like the start of a good article. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person is relevant enough with all of his media appearances and news. His fanbase alone should make the page be kept. This is just like the Tatianna incident where its deleted because of people saying "I like it" instead of relevance (which is NOT accurate whatsoever, that liking from everyone is exactly what makes it relevant, I will never understand that deleter's logic.) This page should not be deleted. Ratherbe2000 —Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was no "Tatianna incident" — that discussion was handled correctly, because simply being on a reality show is not in and of itself a Wikipediable notability claim. A reality show contestant has to either win the show, or be demonstrable as notable for other reasons besides the show, to be considered notable — show-related coverage itself is not enough to make a reality show contestant notable if they didn't win the show, because every reality show contestant could always provide show-related coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say it was from her being on a reality show? No. Her music career also gives Tatianna notability (Not to mention her social media following is much bigger than some, if not most, of other queens with Wikipedia pages.) Plus all of her webshow appearances and guest spots on media with other queens, etc. She did deserve that page. (and putting on all those italics was frankly hard to take seriously.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratherbe2000 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every queen on any season of RPDR always generates some WP:ROUTINE coverage in that context — it speaks to the overall notability of the show, not the separate notability of each individual queen, because every single person who appears on any reality show at all would always clear GNG if that automatic show-related coverage itself were enough. Our rule for reality shows is that a person is not automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article just for the fact of being on the show in and of itself, not even if they come back for a second kick at the can in an all-stars season — the person who wins a reality show season is the only one who gets to be considered notable because of the show per se, while any other contestant still has to demonstrate preexisting notability, or build post-show notability, in exactly the same way as a person who was never on the show at all. And no, existing as a musician isn't an automatic notability freebie either — for her music to make her notable enough for an article, she would have to be sourceable to media coverage (not just her music's iTunes pages) about her accomplishing something with it that satisfied WP:NMUSIC. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Comment for now. Although I'm inclined to agree with Bearcat that it's too much of a stretch to say she fulfills WP:NMUSIC, she does IMO satisfy criteria 1 and 2 of WP:ENT.
  • Re: Criterion 1: She has had a major role in both a regular season of RPDR and a season of RPDR: All Stars, which, strictly speaking, are two distinct series and are treated as such on Wikipedia. But that may be splitting hairs, so let's consider them a single series for argument's sake. She's also presently on an international solo tour [39], which is not a routine consequence of being on Drag Race and is indeed something many RPDR contestants never go on to do. External press coverage of the tour is slim, but digging through venue-created social media events reveals that at least her first three European shows of 2018 were sold out (seen on the cover photo of the Finnish shows [40] and in the venue's comment on the Norwegian event "AJA eventet er utsolgt!!!" = "The AJA event is sold out" [41]). This segues into criterion 2.
  • Re: Criterion 2: Her sizable social media following (71.2K on Twitter [42], 631K on Instagram [43]) and multiple sold-out international tour dates would seem to make a good case for having "a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following" per WP:ENT.
  • IMO none of the above-mentioned accomplishments is individually enough to establish notability, but I'd say the combination of all of them probably suffices: the non-Drag Race-related coverage (in my earlier comment, including Billboard mentioning one of her songs and some press on her drag house), her small music career outside the show, her ongoing successful international solo drag tour (WP:ENT 1), her large following (WP:ENT 2), and—on top of those things—her RPDR-related coverage in major US and international news outlets.
  • I expect someone to comment on the fact that the only sources I found about her tour are Facebook and Twitter (and merchant websites, which I haven't linked here), so I just want to clarify: I know those things don't constitute coverage and are therefore not in and of themselves sufficient to establish notability, but I believe it is relevant to at least note them as a relevant piece of a bigger picture. They do, at a minimum, provide some evidence of the independent career of someone who initially rose to fame because of RPDR.
  • I also want to comment that I've noticed Another Believer and others are doing a nice job sourcing and expanding the article, and it has already improved a lot since it was nominated for deletion. Armadillopteryxtalk 21:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decided to switch my vote back to a comment for now. Per WP:BASIC sources related to her tour and following can provide content but not count toward establishing notability, meaning proof toward WP:ENT is weak. Will refrain from voting either way for now to see what other sources are added. Armadillopteryxtalk 23:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is good analysis, and I realize we can't crystal ball, but we might also keep in mind that Aja is only going to receive more coverage as the result of RPDR: All Stars. Also, I believe she is recording more music, so there's likely more updating there soon, too. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's also a good point. Further coverage is essentially certain and imminent, though it still remains to be seen whether that coverage will focus much on what she does outside of RPDR. Apparently she's releasing a new single in a week, though [44]. I would say that since there is a high probability that this article's sourcing situation will change in the immediate future, perhaps the most sensible thing to do would also be the easiest and most conservative: wait a few weeks before making a final decision on this AfD, or close this one but open another if sourcing doesn't improve soon. Deleting and almost immediately re-creating the article, which is reasonably likely, seems like it would be a lot more trouble than it's worth. Armadillopteryxtalk 10:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to keep. The article and its sourcing have expanded considerably, now including secondary coverage that is both WP:ROUTINE and non-routine. It's shaping up nicely, and I'd be pleased to see it stay. Armadillopteryxtalk 21:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She passes WP:ENTERTAINER. She is a popular drag queen who does global tours, has a large fan following, and has been a major contestant on Rupaul's Drag Race for two seasons. Lonehexagon (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant coverage, passes WP:ENTERTAINER. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Testar[edit]

Peter Testar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG - he's an Ordinary Bencher who presides over general crime including fraud cases. The cited sources are not about him but he is mentioned because he happened to be the judge in the case, not that he was notable for it. Atsme📞📧 02:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:42, 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 no consensus. Decisions are split between keep, merge (with no definitive target article) and delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annamarie Saarinen[edit]

Annamarie Saarinen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources and in blogs/press releases thus, lacking significant coverage. Meatsgains(talk) 03:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are a number of articles solely written about the subject that appear in notable publications including the New York Times, Pioneer Press, U.S. News & World Report and Minneapolis/Saint Paul Magazine – more than surpassing notability requirements for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dublin2020 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with The Newborn Foundation as the founder is not independently notable; the articles have either passing mentions of her, or they are about her without actually being about her (for instance the NY Times blog discusses her story, but the story doesn't focus on her, which I know sounds a bit contradictory). SportingFlyer (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Dublin2020 rationale which convinces me. I do think the article is in need of an overall shape-up but that can be done with ease once the article is kept, per WP:NEXIST. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you review the sources? There's a question as to whether these articles were written solely about the subject. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per SportingFlyer. The Newborn Foundation and her combined seem to be notable, but not enough for separate articles. Manelolo (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:55, 24 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Alan Yule[edit]

Paul Alan Yule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

autobiographical article created by a user that has been adding WP:REFSPAM all sources are self published or affiliated. Fails WP:NOTPROMO Dom from Paris (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs cleanup and Yule really ought to stop editing it himself (see WP:COI), but I don't think that's sufficient reason for deletion. German archaeology still follows more of a humanities publishing model, so citation metrics aren't that useful, but his work has been widely reviewed [45][46][47][48][49][50], including in prominent journals Antiquity and the American Journal of Archaeology. That amounts to a pass of WP:PROF#C1 and WP:AUTHOR for me. – Joe (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 05:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article needs a lot of work, and there's a definite COI, but it does appear to pass WP:GNG as he does appear to be a prominent archaeologist as per Joe's references. SportingFlyer (talk) 08:31, 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 delete. czar 04:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Game Over (2017 film)[edit]

Game Over (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film. Fails WP:NFILM . A WP:BEFORE could not find any references to the film in question not even if it was released. Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 02:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: cant seem to find the Hindustan Times review and there is a complete lack of coverage before and after the release of the film. FITINDIA 05:38, 25 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. The argument that the available references are insufficient to confer notability was stronger than the keep rationale J04n(talk page) 16:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fanyu Lin[edit]

Fanyu Lin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Weak sources such as press release, blog, exhibition footnote, one-paragraph interview quip from subject. Sources given do not add up to notability per WP:NBIO. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a reliable source that explores her work at the Biennale? Catalogue, review or critical article? All I see is "her work was included in the Venice..." a hundred times over. No significant coverage.104.163.148.25 (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs help but she appears to be a notable person. For example, her work has been discussed in The Chronicle of Higher Education (added citation).[1] Does anyone know how to find her Chinese name so we can search for citations under that name? Lonehexagon (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her Chinese name:
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Timmyshin (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Use-of-a/239854
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Important theoretics on public housing in continuance of the ideas offered by Maciunas.Dissaloutelobster (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Entirely promotional. Much of the article is made up of her own statements about herself. The references support "incorporated in" but not independent creation of anything significant. Her "collaboration" with illustrious architects was when she was a student--presumably, doing student projects for them as instructors. There is no basis in the sources for referring to her work as "important theoretics" or even architectural theory at all. Continuing the work of a major group does not mean she has had a significant role in anything important done by it--the very most it could possibly show is "not yet notable" . Similarly for "her research has been employed in" -- this does not even indicate that it might be significantly employed. Minor participants in notable exhibitions aren ot notable. The references are not satisfactory: the CHE article mentions her as one of an example of a common visa situation and does not discuss her work in the slightest ; the various interviews are not RSs for notability, as she basically says in them whatever she chooses, Huffington Post is not a RS for notability as it lacks editorial control--and even so, she is one of 65 people mentioned in the article. Curating one exhibit is not enough for notability as a curator. And the article was started by a now banned promotional editor, and continued by an i.p., editor whose major contribution is to this article. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - the collaborators were other academics who went onto other things not instructors. Lin has contributed important dialogue to the public housing dilemma17.255.236.1 (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete If she's a notable architect, then why can;t I find any reliable independent sources that say that, either in the article or in a search? The Venice Biennal contribution is irrelevant, as it conflates two things: getting selectedf or the Biennale as an artist or architect, and getting selected for the Biennale as contractor/service provider. Notability is not inherited through your clients.104.163.148.25 (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Ketch[edit]

Megan Ketch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress; TOO SOON. Quis separabit? 19:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)g[reply]
  • Keep has had prominent roles in TV series Blue Bloods, American Gothic, The Good Wife, Jane the Virgin and 4 episodes of Under the Dome. Although she is not in more than 12-13 episodes of these she is prominent in the cast list for the episodes she appears in, passing WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:13, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Garcia (owner)[edit]

Ricardo Garcia (owner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposing for deletion then redirect as he is not independently notable and completely fails all inclusion criteria. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-If he was an NBA owner, he probably would pass GNG, but owner of a team that is not even in a well-known league? The sources seem to be all press releases and blogs.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass WP:GNG per nom & a review of the sources. SportingFlyer (talk) 05:35, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nalina Chitrakar[edit]

Nalina Chitrakar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of references. Not notable artist. SeytX (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable" and "before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question." A quick Google search shows this singer is extremely popular in Nepal and easily passes both WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. I've added some citations to the article. Lonehexagon (talk) 09:30, 28 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 Cornbugs. The other albums by this band have been closed as redirect, so I'm closing this as well despite the re-listing. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cemetery Pinch[edit]

Cemetery Pinch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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) 10:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 11:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:01, 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 delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Myrdhin Reynolds[edit]

John Myrdhin Reynolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:49, 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 delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional black conservatives in the United States[edit]

List of fictional black conservatives in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR based listcruft, fails, WP:LISTN for this is not a category that has been widely covered in third-party sources. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable topic without third-party coverage; lots of non-notable characters, some shows still redlinked, which makes a lot of this border on WP:OR. (And the Boondocks character is originally from the comic strip, not the derivative TV show, and should be linked to the strip.) --Orange Mike | Talk 04:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pretty much WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced and not necessary; this isn't a wiki. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 04:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does this list realize most of these so-called 'conservatives' are blatant satire (or are either just 'what I see' observations or wild guesses because 'paternal figure on sitcom')? Unsourced and for the most part unnotable. Nate • (chatter) 08:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unnecessary and unsourced. As per nominator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as above. Never a good sign when I go to search for sources and all of the first many pages of hits are versions of the Wikipedia article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Totally unsourced, unreferenced, useless, and problematic list. Maybe the list can be replaced by a category, but there is no significant demand for the moment. — 卍・〇・卐 02:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet any Wikipedia standards I'm afraid.TH1980 (talk) 01:15, 23 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. Spartaz Humbug! 14:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grenique[edit]

Grenique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable singer with no hit singles, only one 1999 album that didn't do anything, and appearing on other people's singles does not automatically establish notability. Wikipedia is not a directory for every flash-in-the-pan artist. Has no third-party coverage outside of pre-release PR puff pieces and primary sources, and article was created by block-evading user (Brendar 1214) permanently banned for disruptive editing and sockpuppetry. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 03:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 03:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment However, articles are all from 1999 as the pre-release publicity machine was in full swing. Nothing after that when the album flopped and she quickly disappeared from the spotlight. Didn't even crack the Top 200 and was at the bottom of the barrel (#49 out of 50) on the R&B chart. Not enough in terms of notability. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 00:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 24 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) 22:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Super Bowl jersey colors worn[edit]

List of Super Bowl jersey colors worn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:NOTSTATS. The only significance is that teams in white jerseys have been unusually dominant in recent Super Bowls, but this can easily be mentioned on the main Super Bowl page in a sentence or two (and it already is). Lizard (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 03:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 03:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't need its own article, not to mention the "Losing/Winning Team Home or Away" columns are confusing as hell. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is covered, in excessive detail, in Super Bowl#Home team designation. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per Clarityfiend. We don't need a whole article dedicated to what colours teams wore on a particular game. Just the home/away designation is fine. Ajf773 (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? Delete per Clarityfiend. ansh666 04:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTSTATS doesn't apply (as there is no "excessive listings of unexplained statistics"/"statistics that lack context"), but this list fails WP:TRIVIA ("Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information.") and WP:LISTN (not "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"). Cbl62 (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable trivial list. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cbl62. This is pure WP:LISTCRUFT. – PeeJay 09:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cbl62 and nom. SportingFlyer (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IGNORE -- In case there is a rule of some kind to keep this article, let's just ignore it and delete the article to make Wikipedia better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete much as I sympathize with the editor who spent so much time putting this together, I'm afraid it is too trivial. Lepricavark (talk) 01:04, 26 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 Realtime Associates. (non-admin closure) — MRD2014 Talk 03:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caesars Palace (video game)[edit]

Caesars Palace (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable video game. Originally redirected by Czar (talk · contribs) in 2015, after he searched for reliable sources, it was restored without any improvement, including adding back unreliable sources that Czar had previously removed. I restored the redirect, since it went uncontested for 3 years, but was reverted. Note that there are multiple games with this title or similar over the years. I can find no coverage of this 1992 edition from Virgin Interactive. -- ferret (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Lack of sources present to meet the WP:GNG (neither of the two given are an RS). Honestly can't believe an experienced editor repeatedly undid the redirect (with ludicrous "rvv" edit summary) while keeping it in such shoddy shape. Disappointing. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What about the amount of reviews on mobygames? There are 15 reviews of the game (Which should pass GNG easily) Some of these are very reliable sources, such as the Official Nintendo Magazine, RAZE, and Power Play, plus more. I'm suprised no one used these links to just simply improve the article (There are actual links to what is said, if the article had these references, it would have never been AfD'd. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe we don't typically view official console magazines as going towards GNG, since they are primary for the console maker itself (I.e. not secondary coverage). I'm not familiar with Raze, but the coverage there is very light and basically just states what it is. Many of the others listed are unreliable per WP:VG/S. Player One is vetted and reliable, and closest to an indepth source, but that's one source. Keep in mind, looking for reliable secondary indepth coverage. I didn't see enough to satisfy GNG in my eyes, would have sent to AFD even if some of these were used.-- ferret (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What you're arguing - the potential of sources being out there - could save the article from deletion, but not usually redirect/merge arguments, when there's a plausible redirect target. If all that can be sourced is a basic definition and a release date (and even that's done with non-reliable sources) then it should be redirected until someone can actually access and use said sources to write a proper article. Which is not particularly likely when we're talking about an early 1990s game with all of its sources locked away in print magazines, and wasn't ever particularly popular to begin with. If you look through the page history, you'll see that the article existed for a decade prior to being redirected in 2015, and during that time, never received any proper sourcing or meaningful, encyclopedic improvements. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a redirect discussion. This is a AfD. There a 9 publications on there that have links (and a further 6 that have a summary from print) that could easily be used to create an article. AfD discussions are to prove if an subject is non-notable. See WP:BEFORE Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As I already said, I reviewed these, so WP:BEFORE was done. Almost all of those are unreliable sources.The Video Game Critic, Nerdicus, Questicle, etc. Additionally, the existence of a source doesn't mean it helps establish notability. A source with 2-3 sentences about a game for example doesn't really help. We need some indepth coverage, and of the currently available sources, only one really goes beyond a cursory description. -- ferret (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, I shouldn't have to tell you that REDIRECT is a valid outcome at WP:AFD, especially in cases like this, where the whole dispute is centered around undoing and redoing a redirect of an article. It's literally recommended as something to consider on the edit notice that you (probably didn't) read when you make edits to this very discussion (and every AFD). (It can be viewed here as well if you still don't know what I'm talking about.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Realtime Associates, the developer. No sources cited and if the reviews mentioned in MobyGames were to exist in any depth, we would first cover the game's basics in brief in the parent article (summary style) and split out to a separate article only when appropriate. This is how most of that developer's games should be handled, as most are marketing tie-ins. czar 10:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Czar's suggestion. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - As already noted, the coverage listed on Mobygames is pretty minimal. Sourcing for games this old (1991-92) can be hard to dig up even when the game in question is notable, but in the unlikely event someone later proves willing and able to improve this article to the point where it unambiguously meets notability standards, undoing a redirect takes no effort at all.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:11, 28 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) 22:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Bowl[edit]

Capital Bowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable league and list NZFC(talk) 02:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 02:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 02:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and duplicated on another page, so a merge is improper (other page also appears up for deletion) SportingFlyer (talk) 04:31, 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 delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of stations using the Radio Data System in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:FANCRUFT that is only really interesting for a select audience. Article is mostly similar to that of List of stations using the Radio Data System in New Zealand already deleted at AfD Ajf773 (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only thing this tells us is if a car radio has words on the screen on a certain station in certain cities. It's complete cruft and the layman doesn't usually concern themselves with this outside of 'what's that song' situations (hopefully while stationary). Nate • (chatter) 02:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom; New Zealand article was recently deleted. SportingFlyer (talk) 04:15, 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 delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forter[edit]

Forter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A highly promotional page for an unremarkable fintech startup. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP, or routine company news. Created by Special:Contributions/Karinnika with few other contributions outside this topic. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Sections include: "Unique Programming"; "Significance" (!); "Industry Recognition" and so on. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 02:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 02:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 02:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The entire article is promotional. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion of any sort, article fails WP:SPIP. The only possible grounds for notability lies in the awards won by the company but unfortunately the Stevie Awards (which you "pay" to enter) are not sufficient grounds for establishing since "awards are given in hundreds of categories, and 30-40% of entrants receive an award". Also fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing++ 17:49, 28 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. Fails LISTN. Spartaz Humbug! 14:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of ice hockey clubs playing in the league of another country[edit]

List of ice hockey clubs playing in the league of another country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content fails WP:LISTN for stand-alone lists, and the items have not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. As such, the content is unsourced, and possibly original research. Flibirigit (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Or perhaps merge some of the content into List of ice hockey leagues, which is a more straight forward and understandable page. Definitely no need for both, and there seems to be some real liberties taken to identify the "country" of a league.18abruce (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 02:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 02:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is an interesting one since it was broken out from List of sports clubs playing in the league of another country. I'm sad since WP:ILIKEIT, but the problem is: there's one RSSSF source on that page, which is basically trivia. The obvious option would be a merge, but we'd be merging with a document that is probably also original research apart from maybe the football clubs. I think delete's probably correct but for both articles. SportingFlyer (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SportingFlyer: List of sports clubs playing in the league of another country started out as only about football clubs and the football list was only broken out when this list was also created. The original article seems to have gone on an WP:SYNTH tangent to include all sports despite not having any references talking about National-based leagues for the other sports. The prime example is the NHL itself. I do not think many people or references would consider it a primarily American league, it is a North American league based in both Canada and the United States (with lots of emphasis in Canada including founding) that happens to have most of its teams in one country. It is SYHTH to extrapolate that it is an American league. The same could be said for the many of the leagues in the world in many sports. Yosemiter (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on that, I'd probably recommend a delete of everything that's not a football (soccer) team, then, since those at least have a chance of being notable, and because there's more of a clear distinction in football (for instance, teams in Wales would qualify for the Champions League as an English team despite being from Wales.) SportingFlyer (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this page per LISTN and GNG. Agree with SportingFlyer that List of sports clubs playing in the league of another country should be moved back (or at least have its history merged) to List of association football clubs playing in the league of another country. The entire premise of that page for "playing in another country" is made clear in the lead: Conditions for competing in a "foreign" league, as well as in a continental/confederational competition, are set case-by-case by the international sports federation as well as the respective confederation and national sport associations involved. As far as I am aware, footy is one of the few sports where this is almost always the case as national sporting federations are not involved with all of the other professional sports leagues. Each sport should be on a case-by-case basis, while it might be true for footy and some rugby, it is definitely not true for American football and rarely true in hockey, baseball, and basketball. Yosemiter (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(Note: editor changed to Merge in later comment) The only difference is that it's not football, cannot see how this is any different, with the exception of North American organisations all the rest are all ran by national federations. The only argument here is "I only know football so only football should be included" is a bizarre argument to say the least. If there's flaws in the article shouldn't you strive to improve them? Abcmaxx (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abcmaxx: Actually, it is the opposite, I know hockey quite well and less about football. But I do know that in football, the national-based federations tend to regulate the leagues. This is not the normally case in the upper levels of professional hockey. (The junior ice hockey leagues do tend to be regulate by the regulating federations though.) What we are saying is this is a WP:SYNTHESIS of extrapolation from:

Sanctioned football national leagues -> sanctioned football teams playing in another sanctioned football national league -> foreign football teams playing another nation's league -> foreign teams playing in another nation's league

That is several steps of synthesis without any sources to back it up. See my NHL example earlier. It is neither a Canadian or American league, it is both, and therefore cannot be considered any country's league. Yosemiter (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: Apart from NHL and KHL (which is a glorified Russian league run by Russia) all the others are ran national federations and similar fashion to football. In US/Canada minor leagues are ran by the individual states.Abcmaxx (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except that is not true, none of the Canadian or American professional leagues are involved or directly controlled by their national governing bodies (Hockey Canada and USA Hockey respectively). As for others in Europe, many have some involvement or are affiliated such as the Swedish Hockey League, but some others are not such as Deutsche Eishockey Liga. So the entire argument here is that subject was created from original research with no sources to back up X to Y, hence the AfD. (And I have no idea what you mean by "US/Canada minor leagues are ran by the individual states", the states/provinces/territories of those countries have absolutely no governing bodies for professional hockey. Each league is run by the league itself, although they may be affiliated with one another; CHL covers the OHL/WHL/QMJHL, NHLPA has contracts with the AHL and ECHL.) Yosemiter (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really trying to argue that for example the Canadian Hockey League is not a Canadian organisation? Ikea is not affiliated with the Swedish government but it's still Swedish. Can't see why the only solution is just to delete and not improve WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except your IKEA example reveals the problem very well; are they Swedish or are they Dutch? What makes them either? The list has some good content, but is tied together by assumptions of nationality that many of the organizations do not profess.18abruce (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that the presumption of this article is that the leagues are regulated by national governing bodies (highlighted in my Delete comment), and in fact the Canadian Hockey League is NOT regulated by Hockey Canada, the recognized national governing body for hockey in Canada: Hockey Canada controls a majority of ice hockey in Canada. There are some notable exceptions, such as the Canadian Hockey League and U Sports (formerly known as Canadian Interuniversity Sport) who partner with Hockey Canada, but are not members, as well as any of Canada's professional hockey clubs. Yosemiter (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And keep in mind the dangers of a name meaning more than its name; The New York Americans played in the Canadian division in the NHL. The CHL does not even identify itself as Canadian but as the, "world’s largest development hockey league with 52 Canadian and eight American teams" (from their website). Who's to say what the future is for them?18abruce (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the so-called American Hockey League was created from a merger of the Canadian-American Hockey League and International Hockey League, both using words for multinational organizations. Also the fact that "American" can mean anywhere in the Americas, but is often a name for those from the US. Words are just words, sources are needed to prove national identification, which per these articles' original intent, was the recognized national governing bodies. Yosemiter (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing stopping any of you improving the article. Ikea is 100 per cent Swedish, why would it be Dutch? Nonsensical reasoning Abcmaxx (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Abcmaxx: First, because IKEA's headquartered in Leiden, Netherlands. Second, "improving" the article would be deleting anything unverifiable as a national league, which would be over half the article. At which point we would then need to have the article meet WP:GNG via the standards described in WP:LISTN: a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. Would you care to provide any independent sources for articles discussing hockey teams playing in another nation's national league? Yosemiter (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Abcmaxx: The difficulty with sourcing this list as compared to football: football has multinational organizations which regulate international competitions. It's fairly easy to source a list of teams in football competitions that aren't part of the country the league is in, since each country has a league "assigned" by the governing body for international play, making this an easy determination. Hockey has international competitions in a different way in Europe, but the NHL is a perfect example: is the league Canadian or American? It's both, really. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is completely original research and synthesis. I would also recommend the other sports be removed from the other page and it be moved back to its original name as being a list of football leagues. -DJSasso (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CANTBEBOTHERED to improve article? Abcmaxx (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Abcmaxx, you're missing the point... it fails WP:LISTN for stand-alone lists, in such that the items have not been discussed as a group or set, by independent reliable sources. That means, there are no possible reliable resources that can improve the article, thus it should be deleted! Flibirigit (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Has nothing to do with not being bothered. In order to be a list it has to be notable as a list. Sources have to talk about it the group as a whole. Have you found sources that talk about this subject as a group of teams? I don't see anything and I am sure there are none. -DJSasso (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Much of the article is bogus, as the NHL is not merely a US league regardless of where its offices are located. Other than other explicitly US-Canada cross-border leagues the only sourced information here is the QMJHL, the material of which can go in a QMJHL article, and some teams in former USSR countries competing in Russia league, which hardly seems worthy of a standalone article. Rlendog (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of sports clubs playing in the league of another country. Commentators wanting that article deleted should nominate it, not try and sneak it out in this AFD. OZOO (t) (c) 16:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling back the "sports club" article back to being association football only, when there is already currently a List of association football clubs playing in the league of another country article, would effectively require the deletion of one of the two articles. Suggesting that as a consequence of this discussion, the sports club article would be rolled back, is a discussion of deletion. OZOO (t) (c) 20:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So essentially keep List of association football clubs playing in the league of another country and delete List of sports clubs playing in the league of another country is what you are postulating; why would you revert the article to an already existing article if you're against non-football entries Abcmaxx (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@OZOO and Abcmaxx: List of association football clubs playing in the league of another country was also only recently separated out from List of sports clubs playing in the league of another country last month. The roll back would be to preserve the edit history of the footy page, which goes back over a decade. I believe based on the result of this AfD, Talk:List of sports clubs playing in the league of another country would be where the next conversation would take place, which is also the reason I posted the notification of this AfD there last week. Yosemiter (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can merge page histories but if you're excluding lists of other sports then it should not be called that Abcmaxx (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but at this point I feel this topic of discussion should move to Talk:List of sports clubs playing in the league of another country. (I was just pointing out that from December 2006 to May 2016 all the edit history was solely for football prior to your additions of other sports and then moving the page.) The topic here is whether or not this ice hockey list is original research or actually meets WP:LISTN. Yosemiter (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of ice hockey leagues, it would circumvent definition issues surrounding "another country" as per the objections raised to the article in this form Abcmaxx (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of references and notability of the information in this list means it is not suitable as this list, or even merged into any other list. Original research and synthesis does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia.Flibirigit (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - another distinction between this and the football articles is that FIFA sanctions a "national league" in each of its member states while the IIHF does not. That is, in football we can identify a league for each country and easily list its teams based abroad. In hockey, though, there's no way of determining which country a given league "belongs" to, or if the concept of "national league" even exists with a consistent definition. Madg2011 (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

President Trump's Remarks on Charlottesville[edit]

President Trump's Remarks on Charlottesville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A spin-out article of Unite the Right rally, but this isn't a reasonable encyclopedic topic. This is purely a WP:NOT (largely WP:NOTNEWS) argument; obviously there are enough sources to meet WP:GNG. If Trump sneezes or shakes a hand funny, there will be news coverage; that coverage doesn't make it an encyclopedic topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not everything needs an article. Everything we need to say about Trump's remarks concerning Unite the Right can be kept at that article. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • His statements have been considered one of the most notable events of his Presidency. The article needs a good cut anyway, as it has little focus. MichiganWoodShop (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep- This is not an obscure statement. If this was a weekly item of Trump drama I would agree, but his comments are still being referred by commentators and pundits daily. If you want more proof, just look at Ben Shapiro's criticism of Donald Trump at CPAC today. MichiganWoodShop (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a fork from the original article, so of course it is a copy. If this is kept, the original would be significantly trimmed and moved into this. MichiganWoodShop (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That calls for an attribution, which has not yet been done. MT TrainDiscuss 09:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Mangoe summed it up perfectly. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For common sense alone. Create a Every-Thing-Trump-Has-Said Wiki or something if you are truly incapable of summarizing the man's reaction in the main article itself. Such content forks are lazy and often created to focus on a certain POV.
    • But is it not independently notable on its own? The article is 1/3rd about Trump's reaction, not the rally itself. MichiganWoodShop (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per all above comments. It is certainly possible that future sources may analyse this in more details in which case I am not prejudiced against recreation but I currently don't see evidence for it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you be fine with moving Trump's reaction and the backlash to this page? It seems much more coherent to split the articles, then the status quo. Right no, half of the article is about Trump's reaction. I'd consider it a much needed fork. MichiganWoodShop (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Around half of the Unite the Right rally is about Trump's reactions and the surrounding backlash. For most people, this is one of the most notable and polarizing aspects of his Presidency. Style-wise, the article is already bloated MichiganWoodShop (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC) —Striking duplicate vote. MT TrainDiscuss 09:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - needless fork, should be covered in main article. Neutralitytalk 09:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Trump's response is as notable as the topic itself. MikeAndJuliet (talk) 02:21, 26 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) 22:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Model Railways in Australia[edit]

Model Railways in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Very few edits, little content. Fails WP:N. Vermont | reply here 01:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 03:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 03:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability definitely seems to be an issue. ALH (talk) 09:16, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AnaSpec[edit]

AfDs for this article:
AnaSpec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, largely unreferenced, promotional. A Google News search brought up quite a few hits, but none that seemed to cover the company in appreciable detail. Apparently the page survived a deletion discussion in 2008, but the basic issues have not been addressed; of the given sources, one is a press release, one is written by company staff, The Scientist is a passing mention. So we're left with, at most, one good source (hidden behind a paywall, so I can't see just how good it is); that's not enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Huon (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 03:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 03:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 03:26, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mantra (2016 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mantra (2016 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've removed a cherry-picked gushing review, but it's not clear to me why this film is notable or whether its references are genuine independent third-party sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in all fairness it is just like any other Bollywood release. The article's current state might not reflect that, but it was covered by film critics and Bollywood trade analysts like any other film. I could expand using the reliable sources if you decide to keep it. VedantTalk 14:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DMacks (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMacks (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep has some coverage in reliable sources. Please recheck the Quint review removed as it had criticism as well as praise and shouldn't have been removed as it is a reliable source. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am also not sure why the review was removed. It basically praised the lead actor, but said the script wasn't good enough and "failed him". This in no way qualifies as a gushing review. Multiple opinions would be better yes, but one review is better than none, I don't feel it was cherry picked. I restored the section with a minor copyedit it's 1st sentence. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:59, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Croom (Cyclist)[edit]

John Croom (Cyclist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet criteria of WP:NSPORT and I cannot find significant coverage of this individual in independent reliable sources. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 21:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete No coverage that meets WP:GNG. Finishing 6th in individual pursuit and on a second place team in one event does not make him a national champion or meet the notability requirements for cyclists.Sandals1 (talk) 15:47, 26 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) 00:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AT 2018pw[edit]

AT 2018pw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per WP:NASTRO. A quick WP:BEFORE doesn't pick up anything except mention of it's existence. Vermont | reply here 00:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 03:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: existence isn't sufficient. WP:NASTRO, particularly WP:NASTCRIT, isn't met by this object (yet, who knows one day). There are thousands of supernovae discovered every year and there is nothing exceptional about this one. Lithopsian (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: AT 2018pw is a very good supernova candidate. Awvazquez (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear to meet WP:NASTRO. SportingFlyer (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is probably a bit early for much to have been published on this yet. But it probably will later. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON. Not enough information published to make a meaningful article, at least yet. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:26, 22 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 and redirect to New Edition. Spartaz Humbug! 14:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AllSix Tour[edit]

AllSix Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article doesn't cite any sources and seems to lack notability guidelines. Abishe (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:14, 9 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 04:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:53, 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 14:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

El Sol de los Muertos[edit]

El Sol de los Muertos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks context. Only one source, archived in Spanish. Questionable notability. Author removed PROD tag.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time to discuss the sources and possible merge suggested by Coolabahapple
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge if a suitable topic for a merger can be found: possibly Spanish Mythology? SportingFlyer (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing of substance here. May be worth a mention in another article but I'm not seeing a redirect at this time. Red Phoenix talk 05:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrator model[edit]

Demonstrator model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced since 2009, unreferenced also in the Chinese and Arabic Wikipedia. The Chinese article's deletion was requested in the Chinese Wikipedia, see zh:Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2018/02/20#香港巴士樣辦車, because of unreferenced. — Sanmosa 02:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:55, 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 delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Ziyalan[edit]

Mustafa Ziyalan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is not enough independent and reliable sources about the subject. Recently deleted in Turkish Wikipedia also, because of the same reason. Rapsar (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 17:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 17:57, 23 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_February_21&oldid=1142616580"