Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 21 February 23 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Dodson[edit]

David M. Dodson (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)

Politician who hasn't been elected to a notable office yet and his business career is not notable. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 23:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:18, 23 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) 00:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article reads too much like a puff piece, not a balanced, unbiased article.TH1980 (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable individual, not enough showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Marquardtika (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being as yet unelected candidates in future elections — if you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to pass WP:NPOL. But this shows no evidence of preexisting notability at all: outside of his campaign-related coverage itself, this is referenced entirely to blogs and primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, which are not support for notability at all, and the couple of pieces of campaign-related coverage don't automatically hand him a WP:GNG pass, because every candidate in any election could always show some of that. We are not a free publicity venue for aspiring officeholders to post their campaign brochures — if he wins the election in November, then obviously he'll clear NPOL as an actual elected officeholder, and the article can then be recreated as his basis for notability will have changed. But no, nothing here qualifies him to have an article just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- He doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN nor is his business career notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NPOL L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had no idea who he is, but happened across an article about his candidacy in the Jackson Hole, WY, daily a few days ago and searched to see if Wikipedia had an article about him. He's not a politician but he's running for office. He takes the time to teach courses during the spring and fall semester at what is arguably (not my opinion, but that of prestigious rating organizations) the best school of business in the U.S., though he certainly doesn't need the money. He's done extremely well in business since earning an MBA at Stanford, and used that success to co-found and direct a non-profit that reaches 25 million undernourished people throughout the Third World and which has high ratings from organizations that evaluate the footprint and corporate accountability of non-profits. He's started up and been the CEO of many firms. I only checked one, at random from the article's list, but it was extremely successful and acquired by AutoZone twenty years ago after it had grown to 112 stores. He would have been 36 at the time. He had a major part in developing grain processing equipment that enables underdeveloped countries to raise nutrition standards with local facilities. I got a very strong impression that up to the present, he may have tried to avoid the limelight. He's certainly not Forbes 400 material, but I expect he's worth eight to nine figures. I find myself impressed by him. He's what is probably a moderate Republican running against an establishment incumbent, as an Independent, in the most Republican state in the U.S. I don't think Wikipedia should host junk articles, but I've run across copious amounts of those that aren't worth the electrons that support them, like ones I stumbled across featuring, i.e., voice actors whose careers consisted entirely of parts in a couple of anime shorts that probably disappeared before they aired three times. So, my perspective is, "Where's the harm in keeping it?" I don't think we should be, in November, like an astonished Butch Cassidy asking the Sundance Kid, "Who are these guys??? Activist (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of that has anything whatsoever to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Politicians get articles on here by holding office, not by just running for it — and otherwise they need to have already qualified for an article for some other reason independently of having been a candidate per se. But none of what you pointed out constitutes grounds for a Wikipedia article at all. We don't keep poorly sourced articles about people just to highlight how "remarkable" somebody thinks their record of accomplishment must be — reliable sourcing has to tell us that their record of accomplishment satisfies a Wikipedia inclusion criterion, but nothing here does. Bearcat (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. To me it seems like @Activist:'s premise is based off of a hypothetical that he is elected in November and then we won't have an article for him since it would have been deleted assuming the AFD goes through. But in truth the subject doesn't fit the criteria for the article UNLESS he is elected in the first place. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 01:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I disagree. His combined substantial accomplishments in global business and philanthropy merit an article, and his teaching at Stanford GSB adds to that, entirely exclusive of his small chance of success in current electoral politics. Activist (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Activist: I don't think he meets WP:ACADEMIC simply by being a lecturer. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 13:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And where's the reliable sourcing (which means media coverage about it, not primary source verification in self-published content produced by the organizations he was involved with) to demonstrate that any of that prior work satisfies a Wikipedia notability criterion? Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing here to substantiate him as a notable politician as per WP:POLITICIAN... hasn't even been elected. Otherwise, nothing else of note here, not an academic either. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:20, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rusf10 (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles H. Boud[edit]

Charles H. Boud (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. Only source is freeholder meeting minutes (primary source, without even a date) and the Manual of the Legislature of New Jersey, 1884 (which I'm guessing is just a directory). Rusf10 (talk) 23:56, 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. Noting also the concerns about copyright violation. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lois A. Cuccinello[edit]

Lois A. Cuccinello (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 level politician. Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. Article doesn't contain sourcing but actually appears to be a copy and paste job from here [1]. Not that it really matters because the subject is not notable anyway. Rusf10 (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article contains blatant plagiarism from the source cited by Rusf10. TH1980 (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hyperlocal New Jersey politician not otherwise independently notable. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. County freeholder is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass for every person who ever held the role, but this article cites no evidence of reliable source coverage about her for the purposes of NPOL #2, and is in large part an outright WP:COPYVIO from one of its WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as COPYVIO and NPOL, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, from these references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:21, 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! 07:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Race game (paper and pencil game)[edit]

Race game (paper and pencil 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)

Article fails WP:V, as it's been unreferenced for over 15 years. It reads like it was made up, and I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Tavix (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I remember playing something similar to this but the only source I can find is here, based off of here, or on a forum: [2] I don't want to vote delete, but I know it's only because WP:ILIKEIT. Perhaps an opportunity to merge and improve pencil flick? SportingFlyer (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources cited. Would be a neat article if it was. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - with Racetrack (game) - There is already an article for this, though it is slightly different in that this uses grids - they are a variation on this. I used to play this at school too, like 40 years ago!!! Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not sure how much there is to merge here, but I wouldn't be opposed to preserving the content if it can be sourced. Otherwise, doesn't appear really to be a notable topic. Red Phoenix talk 02:17, 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EBitcoin[edit]

EBitcoin (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. Promotional wording. Few secondary, reliable sources. Most results for it on google are sites like Coinmarketcap, that just show it's current value. Vermont | reply here 23:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: About 2 minutes after I nom'd this, I checked it for a copyvio. Evidently, most of it was copied from this. Vermont | reply here 23:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yet another promotional Bitcoin article. No evidence of any notability but plenty of evidence of promotional editing. Despite all the refs, fails WP:GNG.  Velella  Velella Talk   00:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's legitimately a cryptocurrency. It exists, it has a customer base. But, it is not notable. Vermont | reply here 22:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt, per nom and Hrodvarsson. We should be careful not to legitimise malicious cryptocurrencies - we do not want to become an instrument in someone else's scam. -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me | contribs 21:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not agreed, it's clearly not malicious, this cryptocurrency exists and works since september 2017. You should read references, this currency is legit and this page has to exist. I donated a lot of money to Wikipedia and I feel a bit shocked of that I read here. Please read the references and check the market exchanges to observe that it's not malicious. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRC21 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not being nominated for deletion because it is malicious. I understand that you may feel frustrated that it might be deleted, but please realize that Wikipedia is not a place to have every and any piece of verifiable information. We are an encyclopedia, and EBitcoin simply isn't notable enough to be included on it. Thank you for your donation, but it will not bend guidelines and policies. It's not malicious, but it's not notable. Vermont | reply here 22:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I donated a lot of money to Wikipedia and I feel a bit shocked of that I read here Strike this, please. It makes it sound a little too much like you're trying to bribe us. I know this is frustrating, and that's probably not your intention, but that is how I think people will read it, and... honestly, it makes me a little uncomfortable. -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me | contribs 22:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Thanks for your answer. Yes it is frustrated cause yes I am a wiki helper and yes I spent many times on that wiki page and finally removed most of informations I written. This currency is legit and exists since half a year. Community is important and it's increasing each day. This currency is notable and many publications have been done (this one from a famous crypto influencer : https://www.cryptocriterion.com/ebtc-nakamotos-vision/ ). Please tell me what I have to remove in this wiki page to be published ? Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRC21 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject of the article is not notable, there is nothing you can do to the article to make it notable. Also "cryptocriterion" is not established as a reliable source, and the egregiously promotional tone of the article makes me more convinced this is another scamcoin (100% premine is enough of a tell anyway, to be honest). Also recommending salting in addition to my original delete vote. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG - to many crypto currencies to have them all. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but undecided on salting. JRC21, if this currency were to gain notability, nothing's to say you shouldn't be able to create an article then, but it's WP:TOOSOON if that becomes the case, at the current moment. You could adapt the article into your sandbox and save it for now that way, but I would not recreate the article unless it becomes more notable. Review WP:N for a good understanding of what notability is. Red Phoenix talk 05:24, 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) 00:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julianne Binard[edit]

Julianne Binard (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 actress with virtually no coverage in RS and only minor roles. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:42, 22 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) 00:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No RS Agricola44 (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage anywhere to indicate notability sufficient to pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. She's had some bit parts in various films here and there, but nothing significant. The article claims she will "star" in "Il était une seconde fois", a film being produced by a 1 employee production studio in Paris (see listing). Also be aware; the same article on fr.wikipedia has been creation protected. The same IP that has been repeatedly recreating the article over there has also significantly edited the article here and added a link from fr:Il était une seconde fois to here, since they can't link it locally there due to multiple deletions, creating a sort of a circular "notable because she's notable" loop. Also, the prime creator of the content here has uploaded a copyright violation to Commons several times, and is on a last warning over there for the behavior (see c:User talk:Azidonis). What Commons does isn't relevant to keeping this article, but I raise it because we appear to have one or more people striving very hard to push an article forward about this person, regardless of any policies or guidelines we have on fr.wikipedia, Commons, or here. I'm not suggesting a salting, but rather those who are interested may want to watch this article if it gets deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but... There are probably just fans of her trying to make her known by a largest public via the Internet. Because they are interested in her and whatnot. That is the reason why they’re mostly using IMDb, etc as sources whose informations are probably written by the agency itself; given that they are the only sources we know + her CV via her talent agency. Even though pushing the article about her forward the way they do doesn’t match with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I fully understand, those people are trying to keep and let some traces of capital and basic informations regarding her. One day she’ll definitely be even more famous by getting more and more important roles in the future. We’re waiting. But to conclude; don’t other sites consider Wikipedia as a non-reliable source likewise? We may stay sceptical about that. --

User:Hamelett (talk) 21:51, 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. WP:SNOW SmartSE (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PuppySpot[edit]

PuppySpot (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:NOTADVERT and failure to meet basic requirements of WP:NCORP. Much like other doggy day care articles up for deletion e.g. Halo Dogs‎. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly fulfills "basic" requirements of WP:NCORP. The company has "attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization" per the references provided in the article. Plot Spoiler (talk)
Note I have just blocked Plot Spoiler as an undisclosed paid editor. SmartSE (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 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 redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Thee Mardi Gras[edit]

Live at Thee Mardi Gras (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 appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose in relation. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect, though with the weird spelling there's unlikely to be any harm in having one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:30, 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 redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Real Swedish Live Show[edit]

A Real Swedish Live Show (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 appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose in relation. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. I don't see the need for a redirect, though with the weird spelling there's unlikely to be any harm in having one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:29, 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 redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Thee Pyramid[edit]

Live at Thee Pyramid (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 appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose in relation. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. I don't see the need for a redirect, though with the weird spelling there's unlikely to be any harm in having one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:29, 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 redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Thee Ritz[edit]

Live at Thee Ritz (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 appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose in relation. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:29, 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 redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Berlin Wall[edit]

Live at the Berlin Wall (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 appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose in relation. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:29, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bender (disambiguation)[edit]

Steve Bender (disambiguation) (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:TWODABS. The entrepreneur is the obvious primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: have fixed redirects and hatnotes so that the dab is unnecessary. As the late musician has been a redirect to his band since 2009 I think we can take the businessman as primary topic. PamD 09:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed as above - the muso bio is just a redirect to their band. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:32, 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 redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Heaven[edit]

Live in Heaven (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 appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect, this could well be the name of something else. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:25, 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 redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Glasgow (Psychic TV album)[edit]

Live in Glasgow (Psychic TV album) (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 appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect, though with the disambiguation there's unlikely to be any harm in having one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:24, 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 redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live En Suisse[edit]

Live En Suisse (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 appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect, there could be something else of this name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:24, 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 redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Tokyo (Psychic TV album)[edit]

Live in Tokyo (Psychic TV album) (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 appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom, no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect, though with the disambiguation there's unlikely to be any harm in having one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:24, 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 redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Paris (Psychic TV album)[edit]

Live in Paris (Psychic TV album) (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 appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect, though with the disambiguation there's unlikely to be any harm in having one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:24, 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 redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

N.Y. Scum[edit]

N.Y. Scum (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 appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect, it's possible something else would have this name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:24, 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 redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Atonal Vol. 1[edit]

Berlin Atonal Vol. 1 (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 appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:24, 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 redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Atonal Vol. 2[edit]

Berlin Atonal Vol. 2 (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 appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:24, 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 redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Consider redirecting these yourself before taking them to AfD next time. Uncontested redirects save everyone time. czar 02:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Temple & Atonal[edit]

Temporary Temple & Atonal (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 appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose in relation. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:22, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ghana heads of state by age[edit]

List of Ghana heads of state by age (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 trivially sorted list. No notability in sorting Ghanaian presidents by their ages. Especially useless when considering List of heads of state of Ghana exists. Indy beetle (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 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! 08:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Kirby[edit]

Rick Kirby (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)

Before isn't returning enough to suggest notability and the refs in the article are very weak. The article reads like the bio of a respected but routine sculptor. There is currently an AfD about a piece of his work at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) Szzuk (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I advocate keeping this article with content merged from Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture), the refs are weak, but in my opinion just sufficient to pass notability requirements. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The content you merged back appears to be have had been completely rebutted in the other AfD so is of little value. In the event that article is deleted then those references should be discounted for the purpose of this Afd and this difference used [3]. Please do not leave uncivil comments on my talkpage. Szzuk (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ouch. That was supposed to be a nice quote to go with the one on your userpage ... But really my thoughts revolve around looking at the subject in context with what I must presume is his most notable creation. Ideally this AfD would have followed the other one, but I think it's likely that Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) will be deleted, so we can work from there. While it's true that most the references were rebutted to varying degrees by Editør in the other AfD, it is not clear how they will fare in relation to the creator rather than the sculpture, or exactly what is in Cocke 2009, but it's for others to decide on this, I am not !voteing, just pointing out the merge concept I developed for the other AfD. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is little information about the work or artist on the helmet page itself, a merge there would be better. Szzuk (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This proposal is inspired by Szzuk's vote to delete Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) (see discussion), and seems more like an attempt to prove a point there, than a reflection of a belief that Kirby is not notable. Kirby's sculptures have been unveiled by the Queen, by Princess Margaret, by, Prince Edward, and by Seamus Heaney. More references can be come by if necessary, but I believe the threshold of notability is easily met. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The references are weak, what point am i proving? Szzuk (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about artworks are rarely kept if their creator has no article, as above, ideally this AfD would have followed the other one, but as they are happening concurrently I would urge Usernameunique to find some references for this royal connection. The additional references are probably necessary. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The salient point about notability is whether the references exist, not whether they are all used in the article. Otherwise, to take as example a page that Szzuk created, Alyn Waters would be in serious trouble. Prince of Thieves, here are some royal references: 1, 2, 3, 4. And some more references: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernameunique (talk • contribs) 23:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those. I will point out a few things, first I doubt Alyn Waters would survive AfD undeleted. Second, you can't assume people will know of sources they can't find, not everyone can pierce the ProQuest paywall. As I said before, I think the references are weak but just sufficient to show notability, and I am sticking with that for now. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You added 16 unreliable sources to your new sutton hoo helmet sculpture page. On the 8th of January 2018 you added all but one of the references to this article and they too are unreliable sources. See WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source. Szzuk (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the author of the page is a paid consultancy company - axle arts. The piece is little more than a paid for advert for the exhibition, hardly independent. Szzuk (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is about an exhibition at Bath Contemporary, which is connected to Axle Arts; but where do you get the idea that the author of the article is itself Axle Arts? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Her name isn't on the page you linked me to - but a link to axle arts is. The magazine clearly states they take editorial submissions. Szzuk (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her name is clearly there. (see below). The editorial submissions are clearly marked and this isn't one. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
<span class="cb-hide" itemprop="author" itemscope itemtype="https://schema.org/Person"><meta itemprop="name" content="Jessica Hope"></span><meta itemprop="headline" content="His implacable gaze: Sculptor Rick Kirby at Bath Contemporary">
  • The meta data means she uploaded it to her website, her name isn't on the article and there is no copyright claim. It appears this is the best reference? And it is disputed. Szzuk (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This meta-data is specifically that attached to the author, not the uploader which is separate, and a different person. Copyright is asserted, to the Magazine and MC Publishing Limited (publisher of the magazine), which is consistent with an article written by a inhouse staff member. I am not in the best position to argue the other references, since a substantial number are paywalled and I can't access them. But I am happy to debate the ones I can access. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Szzuk, to be fair, you are the only one who has disputed it, and most of what you have said about it is incorrect. First, you said the author is Axle Arts; this is demonstrably false. Second, you suggested that the article is an editorial submission; this is demonstrably false. Third, you suggested that the author uploaded the article "to her website," which trivializes Bath Magazine (e.g., we wouldn't call nytimes.com "Eric Lichtblau's website"). Also, saying "It appears this is the best reference?" ignores Prince of Thieves's statement that this example is "just picking one source at random". --Usernameunique (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in the article on this diff Table by Prince of Thieves (talk)
No link author RS Indi
1 [4] Gail ? no dubious
2 [5] PMSA yes yes
3 [6] Rick Kirby no no
4 [7] Bath Contemporary no no
5 [8] Axle Arts no no
6 [9] ArtParkS International Ltd dubious yes
7 [10] ipswich star yes yes
8 [11] ? no yes
9 [12] Julia Stubbs no no
10 [13] 404 n/a n/a
11 [14] manchester evening news yes yes
Sources suggested for far in this discussion as of this diff Table by Prince of Thieves (talk)
Id link author Reliable? Independent?
A [15] gazette & herald yes yes
B [16] Jessica Hope yes yes
C [17] Art Contact no no
D [18] marcelle joseph no no
Can't access via Proquest
E, F, G, H, I, J.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince of Thieves (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for taking the time to put that together, Prince of Thieves. I've added two more sources (re: Hands ), and an archived copy of the dead URL. If time permits, I'll add the others you mentioned tonight, including the bibliographic information for the paywalled sources. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added eleven sources to the article. Hopefully this puts notability beyond doubt; between ProQuest and Factiva there are dozens of articles about Kirby's work, not to mention the 356,000 hits that Googling 'Rick Kirby sculpture' reveals. The new sources are:
Wiltshire Gazette & Herald 2002
Hoggard 2002 (in The Independent)
Hope 2017 (Bath Magazine, as discussed)
Lonsdale 2002 (in The Daily Telegraph)
Morton 2005 (in the Sevenoaks Chronicle)
Marcelle Joseph 2012
The Times 2000
Essex Chronicle Series 2005
Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District 2017
The Independent 2002
Public Art Port Marine --Usernameunique (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more than enough references to reliable sources such as Times, Telegraph, Independent also having public works in the Palace of Westminster for a pass of WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST Atlantic306 (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ideally we'd have 2 bios or in depth articles on the subject Rick Kirby, that we don't have. Refs as numbered above 8, 11 and 13 mention the subject but don't represent significant coverage, there are a couple more similar refs that have been placed in the article so the issue of notability is less clear. How many mentions supplant 2 good bios? Szzuk (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • About 3:1, more if the mentions are meagre, but generally sources about an artists work are sufficient. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I won't dispute the approximation, but it is a subjective call. Certainly at the start of this AfD it appeared to be an obvious delete. Szzuk (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be fair it could technically still go either way, since although there are plenty of good sources, none of them are what you define as an in depth neutral biography. But having a number of his works unveiled by royalty (including the current British Queen), and numerous mentions of him and his work in reliable sources, and a number of very public works commissioned by public bodies, is liable to swing it to a keep regardless. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I still think this is a delete, my feeling is that there are lots of sculptors and artists of similar calibre and his work appears WP:Routine. Szzuk (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • heh, to answer that would require me assessing his calibre. But I do know the British Queen has done over 15,000 official engagements, and many of those involve unveiling artwork, she has been doing it full time for decades. But however routine it is, it is still top the top tier of British sculpture. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I almost forgot, WP:Routine only applies to events, not people. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:36, 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJ 3D[edit]

DJ 3D (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)

Reading this article, it seems it is a rather promotion article in tone. #2 and #3 of the 3 sources are dead links and #1 source is a general source with little to no reference (at least easily accessible).

Its perhaps best selling sentence is "Together under the name King of Beats, they released several notable music projects including the record “Burn,” which won the duo a Grammy nomination for Record of the Year in 1992."

and the external links are to his public pages. Artix Kreiger (talk) 22:12, 22 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaguan tea factory[edit]

Xiaguan tea factory (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)

It's possible to verify that the Xiaguan tea factory exists[19][20] but that's about it. This article is based entirely on a livejournal post. No significant, in-depth coverage in independent sources. This could be a really interesting subject but we can't be sure if all the details in this article are even real, or are made up. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough information here to confirm notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No references to say why it's important. What sets it apart from an ordinary tea company that we wouldn't cover? Nothing, therefore it truly is not notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Red Phoenix talk 22:45, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tallia Storm[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tallia Storm (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 significant notability. Has supported other acts and appeared on a couple of shows. The book deal appears to be a ghost writing deal but no evidence that any books are notable. The article reads like a promo piece and has been subject to much copyvio and use of unreliable sources. Still many unreliable sources used . Fails WP:NMUSIC and fails WP:CELEBRITY  Velella  Velella Talk   21:58, 22 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) 00:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has failed to do anything notable since appearing on stage at an EJ concert in scotland a few years ago, resulting in this article and some A&R work by a SPA editor. Fails GNG and the flimsy PR sources currently in the article really dont cut the mustard. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be a fanpage. Agricola44 (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, as per above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:39, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Kramdens[edit]

The Kramdens (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 article, with some advertorialized undertones, about a band with no genuinely strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC as it stands in 2018. While there was once a time when having one independently notable member who qualified for his own WP:BLP was enough to pass #6, that's since been bumped up to two -- and even the one independently notable member gets over on his work as a radio broadcaster, not his work as a musician. Nothing else here really passes any other bulletpoint in NMUSIC, and on a ProQuest search I can't find very strong evidence of a WP:GNG pass -- outside of a bit of purely local coverage in the Guelph-Kitchener-Waterloo triangle itself (but not enough of that to really mount a claim that they would pass NMUSIC #7), all I get otherwise is glancing namechecks of their existence in WP:ROUTINE concert calendars and completely irrelevant accidental text matches in articles about The Honeymooners. A redirect to Craig Norris would also be acceptable, if desired, but nothing here satisfies NMUSIC as it now stands. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 22 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) 00:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am in agreement with the nominator. The band has achieved some local celebrity in their area, but despite a long history I also can find little beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Craig Norris deserves his own article as a radio personality, and his membership in this local band is already mentioned there. They're close to WP:NBAND notability but not quite. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Bearcat, there is not enough to establish notability here and does not pass WP:NMUSIC. And yes, when I saw this I thought it would be an article about the Honeymooners, so anyone who votes keep is going to the moon!--Rusf10 (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above, doesn't seem to come anywhere near to passing WP:NMUSIC or WP:Band Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:41, 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 redirect to Power Pro Kun Pocket. Spartaz Humbug! 08:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Power Pro Kun Pocket 9[edit]

Power Pro Kun Pocket 9 (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)

Contested WP:PROD. No explanation was providing for removing the prod, so I'll just copy-and-paste my original reasoning: Fails to meet WP:NGAMES. No indication of notability, and the only cited source is primary. Martin IIIa (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Power Pro Kun Pocket, which is barely notable on it's own. A full delete if there is nothing of value for this entry against the topic on the series. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Power Pro Kun PocketDeathlibrarian (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Power Pro Kun Pocket - not independently notable. PhilKnight (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - No reason given why this particular title in the series is notable in particular, but certainly its info could be of use to the main series article. It can always be spun out again if more sources that reliably establish its notability independent of the series can be found (it is possible they exist in Japanese, but less possible they will surface on this Wikipedia.) Red Phoenix talk 05:29, 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) 00:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Skinner[edit]

Shane Skinner (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)

Entrepreneur. Does business things, but I don't see in-depth coverage about him specifically that passes WP:GNG. Coverage appears mostly to be about his business, which was found to be non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Record360. Article is also promotional in tone. Sandstein 15:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 15:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 15:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Skinner is the owner of a professional sports team that will be televised nationally. This is notable. ColoradoHunter (talk) 00:36 16 February 2018 (UTC) — ColoradoHunter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment: ColoradoHunter only contributions to Wikipedia are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Record360 and this, likely a clear connection with the subject. If the user wants to argue his main contribution is to do with sports team ownership, the article needs to be reworked as such. Also, Tech.co is not a respected source so the top 10 list they published has no merit. Pilot333 (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're going to comment on me, do so honestly. Don't create a false narrative to support your point. It's shameful to do so and lacks integrity, which should undermine any and all comments and contributions you make. I've made numerous entries and edits. The decision on Record360 is still very fresh and adequate time is needed to adjust the entry. Additionally, Pilot333 has no entries before today and he only comments where the tide of comments has been pretty well established. I have to wonder if he is a shill for a competitor. His comments should be taken with a grain of salt.ColoradoHunter (talk) 04:13 19 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Delete: The above mention of competition and paranoia makes me wonder about a WP:COI between the original creator and the subject. I don't own a competing major league sports team, believe me. Pilot333 (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as mentioned, his company article failed WP:GNG. The rugby league is new so maybe WP:TOOSOON, but if the rugby team ownership is the main remaining source of Mr. Skinner's notability, then standard operating procedure is to just mention him in the team's article, at least until there's more coverage of him personally. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear notable except for his business interests, and notability is not inherited. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as mentioned above, owning a Rugby team is not something that justifies a wikipedia page! He should be mentioned on the team site. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Not a lot of coverage about Skinner's own notability. TimTempleton has it right; if the team gets its own article and that is all that Skinner is notable for, he only needs mention there and not an article himself. Red Phoenix talk 00:27, 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! 08:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Menghai tea factory[edit]

Menghai tea factory (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)

Independent reliable sources are nonexistent. The main source here is a blogspot post by Danny Samarkand. Taetea Group describes their factory on their website, and the Taetea Group seems to exist. It seems to be one of the state-run tea exporters, but how large it is or how significant it is is only a guess. So it looks like a lot of interesting stuff but for all I know it could be a complete hoax or a lot of hearsay. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 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) 21:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Sattar[edit]

Reza Sattar (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 Biography about the Bangladesh-Canadian author does not cite a single reliable source. Anyone can self publish a book on Amazon but does that mean Wikipedia should have articles on everyone who has done so? The article is not neutral, borderline advertising about a subject who does not appear to be notable. I failed to find any sources from a quick google news search. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 20:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 20:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 20:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No WP:RS on page and my searches find nothing. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Toolbar gets hits on a Bangladeshi immigrant shopkeeper in Canada and one in New York with the same name - but nothing matching this bio. Appears to be a pure vanity or PROMO page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People are not automatically entitled to have an article on Wikipedia for promotional reasons just because they exist, but this is not referenced to any reliable source coverage about the subject for the purposes of passing WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete There is no significant independent coverage and nothing to show his book is notable.Sandals1 (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.No RS for this person. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:51, 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. Withdrawn SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of films considered the worst[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of films considered the worst (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)

An indiscriminate hard to define collection of hate against various films. The constant additions and reverts show that this is pretty much all opinion. Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 19:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 19:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not indiscriminate: there are clear guidelines for inclusion - which are, unfortunately, usually ignored. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that 10 editors have now found this page indiscriminate enough to nominate it for deletion is a pretty clear signal that the topic is problematic. If a film is the worst - why is there a long list instead of 1 worst film? Legacypac (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw and let the film buffs play with their collection of opinion. Legacypac (talk) 19:27, 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 redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018. Spartaz Humbug! 08:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Granic Allen[edit]


Tanya Granic Allen (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:NPOL - aspiring politician who has never held public office. Non-political achievements don't meet GNG. Should she win the PC leadership, or a seat, she'd qualify for an article - but just running for leadership (and her other work) doesn't pass the notability test. See WP:Articles for deletion/Rick Peterson (Canadian politician) for a similar situation. Madg2011 (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 19:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 19:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the sheer number of news articles referenced on this individual's page, it seems to be clear that the newsworthiness and notability of this person is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Outback the koala (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are four articles referenced on the page. Two are WP:ROUTINE coverage of her leadership bid, and one is a lifestyle-section interview with her about her family (which has nothing to do with either her politics or activism). Only one of the four could maybe pass the bar as a useful reference. How is that a "sheer number [...] beyond a reasonable doubt"? Madg2011 (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought as a leading figure in Ontario as a pro-life organizer and educational reform activist she would had her own article before the leadership for leader of the official opposition. This I would think puts things over the top in my mind even further. Your point on sources on this page is well taken, I see only four at this time as some were removed; I will do some research and flesh out this article with more sourcing and sourced material, which shouldn't be hard for such a prominent figure in the current political landscape. Long story short, here's a person who meet eligibility via notability. Outback the koala (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every organizer or activist for a political cause doesn't get an automatic notability freebie either. Outside of the leadership campaign itself, I find no evidence of any significant coverage about her that would have gotten her over WP:GNG for her activism — I get a few glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things, but no sources that would have been enough to get her an article for being a pro-life organizer or education reform activist per se. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Becoming a prominent figure in Canadian politics, could end up as premier of Ontario. -- Evans1982 (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:NPOL, and the discussion in the Peterson AfD, unelected politicians have to pass GNG to warrant their own articles. Granic Allen doesn't. Madg2011 (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wikipedia is not about what may happen... it is about what has happened. The mere fact that she could be the next premier (which requires her to win the leadership election and the general election) does not automatically make the leader of a small single-issue activist group notable. RA0808 talkcontribs 17:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If she does end up as leader of the party and/or Premier of Ontario — I strongly doubt that she'll achieve either of those things, but after Trump I've learned to never say never anymore — then she'll obviously get an article when that happens. But we don't keep an article just because of what might happen in the future, we keep or delete it based on what's already true as of today and then permit recreation in the future if and when things change. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Lionel(talk) 10:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. – Lionel(talk) 10:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If she fails in the leadership election, then I will say delete. But for now she is a noteworthy candidate. // sikander { talk } 11:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We do not keep articles just because the subject might accomplish something in the future that they have not already accomplished as of today. If she wasn't already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for other reasons before becoming a candidate, then she does not become notable enough for an article unless and until she wins the leadership. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 18:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect or draftify Once someone is notable they are notable forever; the keep arguments here imply a WP:TOOSOON SportingFlyer (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018. The leadership election is notable, even if the candidates may not be. Also, see WP:CRYSTAL. --Enos733 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being non-winning candidates in political party leadership races — if they didn't already qualify for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before being a leadership candidate, such as actually having held a notable political office already, then they have to win the leadership, not just run for it, to clear the notability bar. The coverage she's received in this context just makes her a WP:BLP1E, not a topic of sustained encyclopedic interest who would pass the ten-year test. If she wins the leadership, then she'll be notable enough for her own article — but merely being a candidate in the leadership race is not in and of itself enough to earn her anything more than having her name present in the article on the race itself. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Agree with above points. No notability established. Alaney2k (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018- Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The coverage of her campaign is rather routine. Also, there is a huge difference between notable now and may become notable. We are only concerned with current notability. If and when she becomes premier of Ontario (I'm not that familiar with Canadian government, is that like a governor or something?) then she may qualify for an article, but certainly not now.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now. WP:Too soon applies here. VivaSlava (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of arguments against are based on her political career. Given the significant coverage (many articles) in mainstream newspapers like the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, etc., I should think GNG is obvious. Agricola44 (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • What significant coverage, though? Aside from the routine coverage of her running for the PC leadership the only other source that is more than a passing mention of her as a spokesperson was the NatPo article that interviewed her about having children in her 20s instead of waiting. RA0808 talkcontribs 18:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are there many articles about her in publications? Yes. Are these publications mainstream? Yes. Is that enough for GNG? Yes. I don't think it's up to you to demean the case with judgments like "routine coverage". She has been noted. A lot. That makes her notable. Not much more to discuss. Agricola44 (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • We don't accept candidates for political office as notable for the fact of being candidates per se. Unless and until she wins the leadership, she has to be shown as having already been notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason outside of the leadership campaign itself — until that can be shown, the campaign coverage itself just makes her a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018 - does not meet WP:POLITICIAN - She is an activist who has never held public office. If she wins the leadership or a seat in the 2018 election, then she can qualify for a page. Until then, she should not have one. RoyalObserver (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She's not notable... yet. She's just a candidate and may not become notable. Getting mentioned in news articles for being a candidate does not confer notability. If she wins, or otherwise becomes notable, the article can be added later. Ira Leviton (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable and not the leader. If she becomes the leader and/or an MPP, then she may be notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepUntil March 8th then decide. She is running for an important political position in a heated race, if she doesn't make the cut at the conclusion of voting on that date then decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:7D20:303:D88D:5515:2002:AC59 (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC) — 2607:FEA8:7D20:303:D88D:5515:2002:AC59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That's not the way it works. We're deciding on notability now, we're not waiting until future notability can be determined.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As already noted several times above, that's not how it works. We do not keep Wikipedia articles pending the possible future achievement of something that would pass a notability criterion — we keep or delete based on what's already true today, and then permit recreation in the future if things change. If she wins the leadership, then she'll qualify to have an article once that happens — but she doesn't get to already have one today just for being a candidate who might win the leadership in the future. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (changed to Merge) There are plenty of reliable secondary sources referencing her. Quick google search returns 15,600 items ranging from CBC, CTV, Global, Star and such -Truther2012 (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can google my name and see news articles highlighting activist/advocacy. It doesn't make me significant enough for a wikipedia page. The fact is, she's an activist who protests/advocates on one issue. Never held significant office, nor really done anything significant until now. RoyalObserver (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We do not keep an article about every single person who can say that some media coverage of them exists — if that were enough in and of itself, we would have to keep an article about every fire and police chief in existence, every smalltown municipal councillor and school board trustee in existence, every high school athlete in existence, every radio personality in existence, my mother's neighbour who got into the papers for finding a pig in her front yard a few years ago, and on and so forth. Coverage has to do more than just reference her — it has to be about her accomplishing something that passes a Wikipedia inclusion standard, and makes her more than just a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most nonsensical argument I have ever read on Wikipedia to date! If I found a pig in my yard, you know the first thing I would do, and you know I would, is rush to make myself a Wikipedia page. And the pig incident would make up the bulk(at least three paragraphs). It's basic logic! I would very much consider that a notable and newsworthy event in my life, including a picture in the Christmas cards. Maybe I'd name him Reg, in honour of the Star Trek character. Outback the koala (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But seriously this is not a fair comparison, she is vying for leader of the official opposition of Canada's largest province, not a high school athlete. Outback the koala (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's inclusion standard for politicians is holding office, not running for it. We don't exempt an aspiring candidate from that standard just because "media coverage exists", because media coverage always exists for all candidates in all political races. But unless they either (a) win, or (b) were already notable enough for an article for other reasons anyway, that coverage just makes them a WP:BLP1E. Which is why the pig lady is not an unfair comparison: the basis for Wikipedia having an article about her would be "but media coverage of her exists", and the reasoning being used to argue that Granic should be exempted from having to pass NPOL by winning the leadership first is "but media coverage of her exists". There are lots of people for whom some kind of media coverage does exist, but a reason why they would qualify to keep an encyclopedia article on the basis of that coverage does not — and being an as yet non-winning candidate for political office, who has no preexisting notability for any other reason, is one of those cases. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin O'Leary ran one time for leadership of the federal Conservative party and like this woman had preexisting notability from before the race. I fail to see the distinction your making because media does not extensively cover a subject that is not notable, at least not normally since they are businesses looking to make money. BPL1E really does not apply to this situation because of preexisting notability; I believe the fact that this woman meets Two guidelines for inclusion, not just one, should be taken into consideration in combination, otherwise we are taking a very flat view of articles throughout the project. Many blp pages are dynamic, as are people irl, we see this often on minor actors and actresses pages during deletion discussions, where a verity of factors come into play, and rightly so in my opinion. There is so much content, it's too much to get through, but what is like to see is more effort to help improve this page, rather than knee jerk reaction to deleting a notable page. It does NOT in any way improve the encyclopedia to delete notable content that simply needs a little more work. It's better to build than destroy. Outback the koala (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin O'Leary was already the subject of substantive and ongoing coverage in his TV career prior to running for the leadership — he does not have an article because he ran for Conservative leader and lost, but rather he already had an article for his TV career before he ever ran for leader of anything. It's not even a question of having to retroactively evaluate whether O'Leary would have qualified for an article before the leadership campaign or not — the article already existed ten years before he ever ran for the leadership of any political party at all. Nobody has been able to show any evidence that this woman was already receiving any substantive coverage for her activism work prior to running for the leadership, however. That's the difference: O'Leary already had preexisting notability for other things before running for the leadership, while Granic Allen has not been properly sourced as being able to claim the same. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with counter arguments presented above. However, after more research I came across WP:POLOUTCOMES, which is fully applicable in this case. I would consider Merge to PC Leadership page to be a more appropriate solution - Truther2012 (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until end of race, and at the least, *redirect to candidate page, somewhat because of WP:POTENTIAL, but also because during the race, all of Ontario and probably thousands of other Canadians and Americans are looking to learn about who is at minimum, 25% likely to be Ontario's (yes, Canada's busiest province) next Premier. Granic Allen meets WP:POLITICIAN requirement number 2 - "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." I'd say she's received significant coverage in only 2 or 3 weeks that she's been running. Ultimately, if her article is going to paint an incorrect picture of who she is, emitting various affiliations and works, such as her work at the UN which is presently unmentioned: *delete; however, if google search stats could talk right now for Ontario politics, Granic Allen needs a page at least until March 10. 4truth4 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)— 4truth4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
My responses:
  • If people want to learn about her, they can Google her or look on other sites. Public interest can be part of a Keep argument, but it doesn't overrule policy.
  • The WP:POLITICIAN clause that you cite requires the subject to be "written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Not the case for Granic Allen.
  • Factual inaccuracy is a reason to improve an article, not to delete it. The discussion here is asking whether she, as a person, passes WP notability standards, not how good the article is.
  • Notability is permanent. "She is notable until March 10" isn't a good argument.
Madg2011 (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4truth4: yet again, "keep for the duration of the race and then delete if she loses" is not a thing Wikipedia does. If a person was not already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before she became a candidate, then she has to win the race, not just run in it, to get an article for being in the race. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS — our role is to keep articles about topics that people will still be looking for ten years from now, not to keep an article about every single person who happens to show up in the current news cycle for a single event, so a person who wasn't already notable enough for an article for some other reason before the leadership race does not become notable enough for an article unless and until she wins it. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They say that a week is a long time in politics. Running for the PC leadership has propelled her into the news and there are sufficient sources for an article. Also, she had lots of news coverage before as spokesperson for Parents As First Educators.[21] Even if she fades back to relative obscurity, people interested in the history of the party will want to know who she was. While I agree that being a candidate is not a guarantee of notability, this contest requires a $100,000 entry fee, which limits the number of entries, and she is participating in the debates and receiving on-going news coverage, unlike for example the 60 minor candidates who ran for mayor of Toronto. TFD (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Current newsiness is not grounds for a Wikipedia article. If a person was not already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then she has to win the race, not just be a candidate in it, to become notable enough. Every candidate in any election could always claim to have received enough coverage to get into Wikipedia because of the candidacy itself, because every candidate always gets at least as much as has been shown here, but if we accepted every candidate as notable just because of the campaign coverage itself, then we're no longer an encyclopedia but a worthless directory of non-neutral campaign brochures. The coverage that a candidate receives for being a candidate itself just makes her a WP:BLP1E, not a person who has permanently passed a Wikipedia notability standard on that basis, and the size of the entry fee that a person paid to enter the race is not a notability criterion either. If she wins the leadership, she'll get an article, but just being a candidate for the leadership does not qualify her for an article in and of itself — if she wouldn't have already qualified for one before she was a candidate, then she has to win the race to become eligible for an article. Bearcat (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out there is a difference between being registered as a candidate and achieving recognition as a candidate. She is involved in the televised debates as one of only four candidates. I take your point that it is her campaign that is notable, not Allen herself, in which case we could rename the article "PC Leadership campaign of Tanya Granic Allen," and then move it back in two weeks when she becomes a candidate for nomination as MPP. The reason for BLP notablity guidelines is that we should not have articles about people for whom insufficient sources are available to write a fair article. That's not the case here. Incidentally, the Sarah Thomson article began the same way.[22] She was a non-notable person who became notable because the media decided to raise her profile. I don't know why they did that, but it is secondary sources that determine notability, not Wikipedia editors.
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Thomson (politician). Same arguments and ended with no consensus. Maybe she's just famous for being famous. Think we should try another AfD?
TFD (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every candidate in a race that has debates at all will, by definition, be included in those debates. It's not proof that she's recognized as "special" — it's automatically part and parcel of being a candidate at all. And no, the candidates don't get "leadership campaign of [Candidate]" articles as spinoffs from the overall article about the leadership race in general, either — and if she doesn't win the leadership, she also doesn't get an article for being a candidate for nomination as an MPP either. If she doesn't win the leadership race, then she goes right back to having to win election as an MPP, not just being a candidate in the provincial election, to clear the inclusion bar.
And no, the reason Sarah Thomson got to keep an article wasn't "campaign coverage" — the argument was that the preexisting coverage of her in the context of being a magazine publisher was enough to deem her notable for that, not that any part of the campaign coverage made her notable because candidate per se. I still didn't agree that there was enough preexisting coverage of her in the Women's Post context, but it was Women's Post that carried the day in her notability debate, not "candidate for mayor". Bearcat (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this discussion be relisted to allow more engagement from editors not directly related to the subject. Outback the koala (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all candidates are invited to debates, only notable candidates are. During the Toronto mayoral election, there are routinely dozens of candidates who are never invited. You are perhaps confusing this with non-televised all candidates debates for city councillors.
I'm not confusing anything with anything. In a party leadership race, all of the candidates are invited to participate in the debates. Bearcat (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson's notability as an editor was on a par with Granic Allen's notability as president of Parents As First Educators. Incidentally, are you saying that Sarah Thomson is more notable as a publisher than as a former candidate for mayor? And if Allen isn't notable, why are the media covering her? TFD (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson had media coverage in her role with the Women's Post. Granic did not have media coverage in any noteworthy context outside of the leadership race itself, or at least none has been shown and I can't find any either. No notability claim that any person can make ever confers an automatic "notable just because she did that" freebie that exempts her from having to show that she was getting enough media coverage to pass GNG for that thing. No evidence has been shown here that her PAFE work would have gotten her an article prior to somebody erroneously thinking that candidates get articles just for being candidates. Bearcat (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A Google News search up to the date the Thomson article was created shows that she had no coverage for her role as editor, only for being a candidate.[23] Which probably explains why there was no article about her before. Notability is not about what we consider to be important, but what reliable sources decide to pay attention to. The existence of this article does not unduly elevate Granic Allen's profile or invade her privacy. TFD (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Google News is not a reliable gauge of how much coverage a person was or wasn't getting eight to ten years ago — it's only solid for locating current coverage, not decade-old coverage. It will still find some decade-old coverage, but it misses a lot more of that than it catches. To definitively determine whether a person was getting enough coverage a decade ago to qualify for an article or not, you need to search archival databases of news coverage, not Google. And at any rate, you can't just keep scouring Wikipedia looking for evidence that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS — first it was Kevin O'Leary, then as soon as I clarified why that comparison doesn't wash it was suddenly Sarah Thomson instead — but the existence of any other article, regardless of how similar it may seem on the surface, does not create exemptions from Wikipedia's inclusion standards for anybody else. If you really think Thomson's not notable for anything but running for mayor and losing, then you're welcome to try nominating her for deletion again on the grounds that the first discussion evaluated her notability incorrectly — but the existence of that article is irrelevant to whether this one can exist or not, because they're not equivalent situations. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Minor figure but meets notability requirements. Nixon Now (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, she does not. A candidate for office who was not already notable enough for an article before becoming a candidate does not clear notability standards on the candidacy coverage itself, because the campaign coverage itself just makes her a wP:BLP1E. Such a candidate has to win the job she's campaigning for before she "meets notability requirements". Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 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. (non-admin closure) KagunduTalk To Me 06:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of automobiles considered the worst[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of automobiles considered the worst (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 coatrack collection of hate against various cars. All of this repeats opinion - which is what sells papers that include car reviews. Darn near any car has had some negative press. It is an indiscriminate collection of quotes with no objective criteria for inclusion. Legacypac (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 19:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 19:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per established principal. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but the comparable List of films considered the worst has been previously nominated, discussed, and kept nine times, which pretty comprehensively establishes this as an encyclopedic topic. As for the nomination rationale, I see no hate in the article (sometimes just the opposite, e.g. "the Trabant was regarded with derisive affection"), and as an oft-published subject in respectable news and broadcasting media there are plenty of reliable refs to support content. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I note the nominator also moved List of music considered the worst to List of music considered notable for negative reception with the rationale "Much more accurate". I agree entirely with that and suggest that if this article is kept, a similar move is made. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I believe it already was. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk
  • Keep as per established principal (as per above) and there is a precedent with the worst films page. There are lots of interest in the worst cars... there are a number of books published on the topic, which would point to its notability, including "World's Worst Cars" "Automotive Atrocities! The Cars We Love to Hate" Eric Peters, "Lemons: The World's Worst Cars: Timothy Jacobs", "The Worst Cars Ever Sold", by Giles Chapman, not to mention countless articles web pages on the topic, and lists of worst cars including Time Magazine's "50 Worst Cars of All Time". Articles is well referenced, with lots of RS.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable subject that has been covered extensively in the media throughout the years. I believe it is of enough interest to belong in an encyclopedia. In fact, I think this subject has received more mainstream media coverage than some of the other "worst ever" articles covered here such as video games and music,. The article does need work, I have been trying to work on it and improve it when I have time, but I think the basics of it are good. The selection of cars is good, each one is backed up with multiple sources, doesn't contain original research and is generally following the criteria or listing cars that were so bad they brought consequence to the manufacturer and became famous specifically for their defects, and each entry does a good job explaining it. It doesn't have entries such as listing the NS Chrysler minivans just because they have lots of problems with transmission failure and the strut towers rusting out. Needs help but is worthy of being here. Reattacollector (talk) 03:46, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Diana[edit]

Spice Diana (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? PabloMartinez (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 18:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 18:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a google search brings up a number of news articles; not sure how to apply the artist criteria here since she's primarily local to Uganda, but there are many news stories about her in local Ugandan press, including articles about her graduation party. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: certainly seems sufficiently notable in Uganda.--Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haifa (musician)[edit]

Haifa (musician) (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? PabloMartinez (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being in Eurovision would give a presumption of notability, but finishing last in the UK selection show does not (and neither do the other reality TV appearances). No references in the article, and I see no evidence of any songs that charted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One ref in the article pointing at discogs. Google returns social media accounts and similar. Szzuk (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:11, 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. The consensus is that the article meets notability guidelines, albeit requires cleanup. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 09:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Abubakar Sani Bello[edit]

Abubakar Sani Bello (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)

Promotional page with questionable notability PabloMartinez (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep being governor of Niger State clearly meets WP:NPOL. Significant cleanup is needed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some cleanup and referencing improvement is definitely needed here, but the topic verifiably holds a political role that constitutes a must-keep under WP:NPOL. By comparison, the only way a state governor in the United States, a state or provincial premier in Canada or Australia, a state Ministerpräsident in Germany, etc., would ever be deleted is if they were actually an unverifiable hoax. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD is not for cleanup, and Bello is way, way past any notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes WP:POLOUTCOMES as chief executive of a Nigerian state, however, as others have noted Keep does not preclude clean-up of this article. Chetsford (talk) 18:48, 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. Noting also the concerns over copyright violation. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Imonikhe Afen Jnr[edit]

Joseph Imonikhe Afen Jnr (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)

Promotional Page PabloMartinez (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article is very promotional. Being the CEO of a non-notable company isn't a claim of notability, and the article is largely a copyvio of [24]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Delete. Has a couple articles on some reputable platforms, but still not enough, it's just WP:TOOSOON. And it is promotional lest i forget. Zazzysa (talk) 23:03, 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! 08:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DC Design[edit]

AfDs for this article:
DC Design (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)

Outdated website, no proof of lasting notability that I can find. PabloMartinez (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 18:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 18:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 18:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OOps --HagennosTalk 06:17, 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! 08:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue Task Force[edit]

Rescue Task Force (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 reference - to its own blog. Very doubtful notability Rathfelder (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks proper sourcing and has too promotional a tone to its writing.TH1980 (talk) 01:12, 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) 21:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Almeida[edit]

Robin Almeida (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)

Did not find anything significant thru Google Search, Newspapers, etc. Seems to have been created by a User later confirmed sockpuppet. PabloMartinez (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sock play. Szzuk (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. There is no significant coverage. At one point I did trim this article back by removing the spam, puffery and copyvio image but it fails GNG, and is seemingly mainly sporadically edited by SPAs attempting to gradually shoehorn the spam/puffery back in. -- Begoon 01:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- Sounds to me like a NN one-man-band ministry. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 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. WP:SNOW. The subject meets WP:NTRACK#2 having finished top 8 in competitions at the Commonwealth Games, and thus is presumed notable. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Yates (athlete)[edit]

Richard Yates (athlete) (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)http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/commonwealth_games/delhi_2010/9085861.stm

Notability? PabloMartinez (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a genuine page. I am aware of this athlete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.39.74.9 (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC) On notability, he won a medal at the Commonwealth Games 2010, that is quite notable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.39.74.9 (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:NATH#2 - finishing 5th in a multi-heat event at the Commonwealth Games. Concerns about promotionalism regarding his legal career can be addressed through editing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NTRACK, bronze medal in Commonwealth games. Ajf773 (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. Bronze medal in 4x400m relay. Szzuk (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep No rationale has been provided by the nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep No policy based argument for deletion advanced by nom. Subject unambiguously passes WP:NTRACK criteria. Chetsford (talk) 18:49, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert David Steele[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Robert David Steele (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:BLPFRINGE article that relies on a lot of questionable sourcing. Note that in order to have an article about a person, the sources in question should attest to the notability of the person rather than just quote them as a WP:SENSATION. I argue that the sources that we include that treat this fellow seriously are so outside the reliability matrix as to be problematic in terms of verifiability (appearing on Alex Jones's show is not something that Wikipedia considers enough to make you notable).

The previous AfD was closed as keep because his advocacy for open source intelligence was an accepted argument for his notability. However, I find that the sources which attest to this are very poor. One is a blog hosted by Wired and the other is a blog hosted by the Guardian by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed which, as far as I can tell, was inspired by Ahmed's fascination with Steele's Amazon book reviews(?!). This does not strike me as a decent foundation for claiming any sort of notability.

In short, I think that this falls just below the WP:BLP threshold when taking into consideration how out-on-a-limb Steele's ideas are and how paltry the sourcing is for considering his notability as a person. jps (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors appeared not to like the article for the fairly extreme views/claims made by Steele. In remaining neutral, I tried to keep the article as it was (only removing unsourced items). Then I did a more thorough search and there appears to be very little reliable information about him. I did a fairly involved search on Google and posted what little there was in the talk page. Nothing out there confirms his military or intelligence background, and the most reputable/large sources seem to take his word for it. I believe it was NASA's response to him that elevated his presence, and may have actually given him a degree of notability. So I'm not sure how that would affect whether there should be an article or not.MartinezMD (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have certainly done us the service of highlighting the marginality of the subject. It is somewhat surprising that the articles was listed as a keep previously, but that was a different time for Wikipedia. Trying to come up with a reliable biography at this point strikes me as a task that is very difficult. The response that NASA gave might be relevant to a page on the conspiracy theory itself (if that were to become notable, for example), but as it is, I argue that the biography is not something that Wikipedia should be hosting. jps (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per jps's comments in the nomination and just above. If his conspiracy theory attained greater notoriety, then (per WP:FRINGE) we could potentially have an article on that, but I don't see the case for it now. And in the near-absence of reliable biographical information, deletion is the way to go. XOR'easter (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless more reliable information vetting his background turns up. As it currently stands it looks like a lot of smoke and mirrors to me. MartinezMD (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Teased together from insubstantial and often unreliable sources. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irakli Gogia[edit]

Irakli Gogia (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)

Nothing found on the subject that would meet any of Wikipedia's notability criteria. London Hall (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 15:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 15:51, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goof (Thomas & Friends)[edit]

Goof (Thomas & Friends) (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)

As much as I liked Thomas and Friends when I was a kid, goofs/outtakes are probably best suited for Wikia or IMDb as opposed to Wikipedia. This is just way too fancrufty to be encyclopedic. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed. London Hall (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... whereas a goof on another show is completely different. I don't think so: delete. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:FANCRUFT. Not encyclopedia whatsoever. Ajf773 (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Ajf773. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable and fancrufty. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fancruft. Szzuk (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-encyclopediac WP:FAN. Loopy30 (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This has no notability and half looks like it may be trying to promote someone's Youtube videos. Dunarc (talk) 23:59, 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! 08:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tueetor[edit]

Tueetor (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. Refs are two very clear churnalism refs, an interview, a speaker bio, a listcle, and a couple of OK refs. One is already dead. This is a typical page created by a fan or conflicted editor about a new company, looking to use WP to give the company more visibility. Companies at this stage are generally WP:TOOSOON Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 15:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 15:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 15:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Hello! Thank you for your reply. I would like to add a bit of background. From what I can see you don't live in the region this page primarily targets. Tueetor has a large footprint in Asia and has over 100,000 active users (according to its website at least), which should help it achieve some level of notability that does rival a lot of startups that I found on Wikipedia while researching the page. I understand that sourcing is lacking and it helps to prove my claim of notability, however, I did try to include multiple sources from high level news websites from where the company is most prominent such as the e27 articles, Vulture Media, and other sources. It should also be noted that my DealStreetAsia source should be taken seriously. From what I see, the articles on all three of the sources I primarily used were not from press releases, but from editorials composed by writers working for the media source. While one of the sources, admittedly, arouses my suspicions as being a press release, all others are from notable news sources that are popular in the region this company represents. I would like to note that Wikipedia editors living in a different region than what this page primarily serves to help inform or the subject of the article primarily targets would consider CNN or NBC as sources being of higher prevalence than DealStreetAsia, for example, when the sources listed are perfectly sufficient for the region it represents.

However, I am a new editor here on Wikipedia and want to improve in every way. For clarification, I did not write this page as a "fan" or a POI, I live all the way on the other side of the world in North Carolina, USA and wrote this article as the result of scouring the web for notable companies or topics that Wikipedia would benefit from having a page about and deciding to write my article about it. Once again, thank you ahead of time for helping out, and I hope we can work together to be constructive about this and we can build up sourcing and fix some issues rather than simply delete an article. Also, if there are any Wikipedia editors native to Japan, Singapore, or Vietnam, I welcome any input from you!

Thanks for your help! WikiSniki (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Nothing you wrote changes my evaluation of this page in light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Vituzzu: - Elaborate further. Hounding me from the Italian Wikipedia and leaving a "fail WP:GNG" notice in less than 5 minutes after you left a note on my talk page about an unrelated issue is both suspicious and subjective. WikiSniki (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A run-of-the-mill online business with no indications of notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion not a web directory or yellow pages. The provided references fail the criteria for establishing notability for organizations/companies. References rely extensively on interviews/quotations from related sources with no original and intellectually independent opinion/analysis and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:12, 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! 08:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hamdi Badr Eddin[edit]

Hamdi Badr Eddin (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)

Virtually no sources for this. I can't figure out how this article made it to Wikipedia. London Hall (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete it's possible there are Arabic references (likely off-line, given the timeframe), but the existing refs aren't enough, there's nothing in English online, and no clear way that any WP:SNG is met (news anchors generally don't have a presumption of notability). The Arabic article is slightly better but doesn't have any other refs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:42, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Acebulf (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Otho Travers[edit]

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

His only claim to notability is that he was friends with a famous person. Yes that person he was friends with and served with is definitely notable, but Travers is just a soldier that happened to be mentioned in memoirs etc. Not independently notable. Canterbury Tail talk 13:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The question here in my mind is whether Travers qualifies under WP:AUTHOR or WP:SOLDIER(8), or alternatively if this should be renamed to cover the book. He is covered a bit, e.g. [25], however his main claim for fame is authoring the "The Journal of Thomas Otho Travers (1813-1820)" which is an important source for covering Stamford Raffles (including the founding of Singapore) and is widely quoted with some coverage of Travers resulting from the quotation.Icewhiz (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hmmm, interesting, hadn't considered it from that perspective. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the topic but you may be onto something. The article would need completely reworked and I contend that as it stands it's not notable based on it's claims to notability. Anyone able to do work? Canterbury Tail talk 15:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm undecided on standalone notability here myself. In some cases such works can confer notability. In this case it doesn't appear to me as clear cut (either way, though WP:NOTPAPER), but I'm not a subject area expert - this is what I saw in my BEFORE. In terms of work - re-purposing this to focus on the journal (either named for the journal, or for Travers) is fairly easy.Icewhiz (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to The Journal of Thomas Otho Travers (1813-1820), a notable book. I ran a couple of searches and didn't find much on the man (he seems to have been a successful East India Company career soldier, successful enough, that is, to retire to a nice house in Ireland.) He had notable ancestor and a daughter, so he is listed in genealogies. His book is notable. Here's a book review: [26] E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will need some work but yes I think this may be the better course of action here. Canterbury Tail talk 18:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • After doing a little more searching, without the middle name, and and as "Captain Travers" more 19th century sources turn up. I am no longer certain that Travers should be redirected to his book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was also a major later. He is in some 30-40 books (with and without middle name, various filters to account it him). Often, however, as brief mentions in regards to some thing or another Raffles told him to do, or mentioning the journal. I did find one title (though I am not sure of publisher quality and it is recent) where he appears in 49 different pages.
  • Keep. Undecided on rename to book. But the journal should be clearly mentioned in the article if not.19:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've expanded the article based on his extensive coverage in a biography of Raffles: Wurtzburg, Charles Edward. Raffles of the eastern isles. Hodder and Stoughton, 1954. Travers's role in the East India Company as well as in Raffles life in England is discussed in-depth in that book. In 1820, travers was appointed Resident and Commandant at Singapore, to replace Robert Townsend Farquhar, although Farquhar did not relinquish the position and Travers let it go. This position would, I think, have given Travers a pretty good clain to NPOL, but even without it there is plenty of material in reliable sources to write an article that passes V, NPOV, NOR, etc. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good work on the expansion. There is enough now to merit keeping. Edwardx (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw - Excellent work everyone, the article is so much better now and more clearly notable, I withdraw the nomination. Canterbury Tail talk 12:45, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator; the nominated page is now a DAB page. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Eglinton[edit]

*Withdraw - editor has just created HMS Eglinton (1916), for such I will withdraw the nomination. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Eglinton (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 HMS Eglinton (1916) page in Wikipedia. No need to have a disam page for HMS Eglinton. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment and Withdraw- @The Mighty Glen:. Greetings. I have not seen anywhere in wikipedia pointed to that, do share if I miss it. However, user:Lyndaship has just created HMS Eglinton (1916), for such I will withdraw the nomination. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relatively inexperienced so please forgive and correct me if I am doing anything wrong. I'm a bit surprised that you have marked the page I have just created for HMS Eglinton for deletion. There are hundreds of similar pages on wikipedia when the same name has been used for more than one ship. It's a pretty essential tool for the user who is searching for a ship name to see that it could be one of two or more ships. Currently yes only one of the ships has a wikipedia entry but the other meets the notability criteria and will be created in time making the page I created essentialLyndaship (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please add the Ships category to relevant categories. A warship is nothing to do with Transportation Lyndaship (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Yet another ship index page in which it is irrelevant if the other articles have been written yet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment and Withdraw- @Sturmvogel 66:. Greetings. I have not seen anywhere in wikipedia pointed to that, do share if I miss it. However, user:Lyndaship has just created HMS Eglinton (1916), for such I will withdraw the nomination. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's really just a matter of thinking things through. Ship names are often reused, so we like to preemptively build ship index pages that cover all the ships with that name, even before the articles are written.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sturmvogel 66:, I understand your thinking, but if this is use in the same way as other subjects that would be thousands of such disam pages are created, for the core of pages in Wikipedia based on nobility has lost it merit and lost its place just as now thousand of pages created and immediately redirected to a related/common pages in Wikipedia where none of them meeting GNG and WP:RS based on premptive and or "if" and "when" or "hope" when one day they become notable. That makes Wikipedia like a directory or depository which what Wikipedia is not. Anyway, I am happy Lydaship has created the page and all is good now. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:41, 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! 08:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion theory[edit]

Assertion theory (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)

Personal essay, original research, primary sourced promotion. Page has two parts. First is as originaly started [27]. Simple dicdef of what appears to be a summary of a paper coining the concept. This part has no independent coverage. Second part developed later is a persal essay exploring assertion. This essay is not about the claimed theory, just assertion itself. The sources used other than that first paper do not discuss "Assertion theory". duffbeerforme (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails, oh, pick any acronym — WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a hosting provider for psychobabble, and throwing in unrelated citations to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy does not actually help. XOR'easter (talk) 21:21, 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! 08:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ScoobyNero[edit]

ScoobyNero (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 went through ALL the results from a Google search, and this is the only information substantial about his career. The content of the article does not demonstrate a major player in the music industry. Not close to meeting GNG or NMUSIC. HandsomeBoy (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WOW he's a star.... Kidding.... Delete Per norminator. Article fails WP:NMUSIC. Articles found are just download links to songs and no significant achievement. Zazzysa (talk) 14:33, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution 618[edit]

Revolution 618 (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 show. Lacks coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not finding any significant reliable independent coverage. The wiki article was written by the show's creator. So this is clearly a COI promotional article for a non-notable show. Softlavender (talk) 01:08, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tomi Owó[edit]

Tomi Owó (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)

An upcoming singer lacking in significant sources in multiple reliable source, a Google source yielded only notices for her new songs. The only item I found covering her career was this Pulse interview, and it is not sufficient to warrant passing NMUSIC or GNG. When it comes to Nigerian musicians and actors that started their career in the 2010s, we should follow exactly the same standard as being used in developed world because internet penetration is extremely high today, else every Z-class singer/actor will have a Wiki article. HandsomeBoy (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:10, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Declan Kunkel[edit]

Declan Kunkel (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 individual. Promotional spam bombarded with dud sources that do not verify claims made. Kunkel lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inadequate sources to support notability.104.163.148.25 (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be self-promotional based on the username of the article's creator/primary editor(s), and an attempt to assert notability by association. The sources are passing mentions and/or completely irrelevant, and do not establish notability. --Kinu t/c 22:40, 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! 08:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle Candela[edit]

Freestyle Candela (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)

Leif Totusek was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leif Totusek), so cannot see how an album by him can be notable. Edwardx (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 12:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed. London Hall (talk) 15:33, 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! 08:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baqtile[edit]

Baqtile (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 took far too much work, and I still, after looking at several maps and the aerials, have trouble verifying this. There's yet another UN map, which shows a town SSW of Doolow; I also found a US military map in a cache at U Texas. And for the latter, I can find the physical features, and they are more or less where that map says, and the dot from geonames is close by, but, you guessed it, there's no sign of any structures that I can see, only a large empty apparently corralled off area some distance to the east. What do you say about this? I don't have a reference to say that the place is no longer there, but I don't want to say that it is there. And it's obvious that nobody looked at anything, but just took a geonames dump and stubbed an article from it. Mangoe (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 12:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 12:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stubs from geonames being an ongoing issue. I can't be certain if this exists or not really. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment also known as "Bakhtiley". I don't see any structures at its location on the satellite image. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we get these in Draft too. Unable to verify existence of the place. Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 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. (non-admin closure) KagunduTalk To Me 06:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Australian cricket team in 2016–17[edit]

Australian cricket team in 2016–17 (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:INDISCRIMINATE, a lot of tables without context, it can all be found verbatim in the articles linked to making it redundant and it appears to have been copy-pasted from the linked articles without even being formatted correctly. TripleRoryFan (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 11:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 11:44, 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! 08:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anushka Sen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Anushka Sen (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)

It would appear that this article about a living person fails the WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR policy and guideline tests for inclusion as a Wikipedia article.

I have just declined a speedy deletion of this article. I think this may have been an error of judgement on my part. The AfD nomination will include the relevant links that may well prove that to be the case.
. The sole reference from a reliable source included in this article is from the TOI in 2013. It merely verifies that Ms Sen joined the cast of Baal Veer. It contains no mention of her participation - as I would argue is implicitly and incorrectly inferred in this article - in its 111 episodes.

Looking at the Wikipedia articles in the order that they are currently linked in this article:

And so on.

Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 11:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 11:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I also could not find much on this subject. London Hall (talk) 15:35, 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! 08:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Wonders of India[edit]

Seven Wonders of India (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 article masquerades a single newspaper survey/article as a definitive and comprehensive list of India's 'Seven Wonders'. Norcaes (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of reasons why I think the article needs to be deleted. First, the citation for the Times of India (TOI) list, which constitutes the entire article, is the only citation on the page and fails WP:N's requirement that the subject of the article (TOI's list) receive coverage from a source other than its own website.

The basis of the article seems to rest on the notion that there are only two authoritative sources for India's 'Seven Wonders', which is untrue, and the article implies so by claiming that 'the most popular ones were those conducted by...' without giving a shred of evidence for the claim. There's also some evidence of bias here, with two articles mentioned as the 'most popular' sources and only one being covered in the article.

In sum, an article that claims to cover something as significant as India's wonders cannot be limited to a single newspaper piece. In the absence of other lists or nominations, the article needs to be deleted to avoid misrepresentation or at the very least be renamed to something like 'TOI List of India's Seven Wonders'. Whether that warrants its own Wikipedia page is another matter entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norcaes (talk • contribs) 11:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 11:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've seen this article linked a few times and each time I've looked at it I've been concerned. In addition to the very good points made by the nominator it's worth noting that these "7 wonders" were decided by a 10 day SMS poll, and the 7 "winners" were picked from a pre-selected (pre-selected how? we don't know, because we are not told) field of a mere 20 options. To portray this as some kind of definitive "7 wonders" of India seems like a huge, unsupported stretch to me. -- Begoon 09:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, my opinion is delete, since the current article is very misleading and I don't see sufficient notability to support a move to "Times of India poll of India's Seven Wonders" or similar. -- Begoon 12:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - as per nominators comment and Beegoon's points.--Nizil (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. PhilKnight (talk) 02:37, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yazidis in Afrin[edit]

Yazidis in Afrin (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 "Yazidis in Afrin region" was deleted after this AfD. The creator of the article, Gani zanyar, was notified, but did not take part in the discussion. Three days after the deletion of the article, it was recreated by the same editor with the current, slightly different, name. Since the AfD had been closed with Delete, I tagged the article for speedy deletion by criteria WP:G4. The article creator removed the tag, was reverted and warned, but removed it again without edit summary or other explanation. In the meantime AlexRover had contested the deletion "because it is an important topic which has every place in an encyclopedia". Instead of reinserting the illegally removed tag, I have decided to start this new AfD, since the first AfC was rather poorly attended.

The lede of the article is a verbatim copy from Yazidis in Syria. As far as I remember, the first now deleted version was slightly adjusted to speak at least partly specifically about the Yazidis in the Afrin region. This time the word Afrin is not even mentioned in the lede. The second part of the article, the section "Turkish military operation in Afrin", consisted originally of two more paragraphs. Those were a verbatim quotation from a news report, so I removed them as blatant WP:COPYVIO. The remaining sentence is a mention of air strikes against a number of villages. Only one of the villages mentioned seems to have a Wiki article, since "Qatme" probably is Qatma, and that article does not mention Yazidis. (It is, however, contained in the category Category:Yazidi.)

Anyways, this article does not, IMHO, have a place in Wikipedia. T*U (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an unnecessary content fork. --T*U (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 10:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 10:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete & salt per G5 as this is a repeated creation (variation) of a long time blocked user. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. SportingFlyer (talk) 20:45, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Industries[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hussain Industries (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)

nn company with no notability, claims to be notable due to being listed. No in-depth coverage, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. WP is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep re-nomination by the same user is WP:IDL. 82.21.31.183 (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 60 days. Störm (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, we went through this process back in August 2017 and I added 7 references back then from different sources including Financial Times (UK newspaper), the company is listed on Pakistan Stock Exchange, Trade Development Authority of Pakistan and Pakistan Business Journal magazine. This company has participated at Frankfurt Textile Fair as an exhibitor. I feel it has enough coverage. This is a Stub article, anyone of us can further expand it. Is Deletion the only option? Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a run-of-the-mill company with zero indications of notability. I have no idea why this company is deemed notable - certainly, participating in the Frankfurt trade show isn't it. The references are run-of-the-mill business directory listings and normal financial reporting, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Is it normal or odd that this reference appears to indicate that the company doesn't have their own domain name? Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be wonderful if we have one or two comments from users who were not involved in previous AfD. Seems like same users are participating here. Störm (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does not make sense to me when someone comments about a fairly well-known company that participates at Frankfurt Textile Fair as an exhibitor, ...that it's a "company with zero notability". Going out to an international Trade Show as a company is counted as a negative or a positive? Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Participating in a trade show is not one of the criteria for notability. There were probably hundreds if not thousands of participants. HighKing++ 12:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing notable about this company. We cannot list every company out there. Nor is there any notable product or event associated with this company. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There has been some self-promotion across internet, still not enough for passing general notability. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:50, 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. czar 02:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seahorse villa[edit]

Seahorse villa (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 topic. The term "seahorse villa" refers not to a general type of dwelling, but rather to the name given to a single development of what are little more than fancy houseboats in Dubai. While the development has received some local press coverage (what large housing development hasn't?), it really doesn't rise to the level of encyclopedic notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:25, 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 13:14, 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 09:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using your logic, then, an apartment is a glorified hut, and the Eiffel is just a giant toothpick. Please do not use Wikipedia to air your personal grievances. Also, this project and its architectural innovations have been getting attention from the international press (unlike most other large housing projects in Dubai). Anyone with even a modicum of real estate knowledge would know about the seahorse villas, so I believe the topic is notable, and shouldn't be considered "not-notable" just because you yourself lack that knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delorean212 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's not notable on its own as a house type as it appears only in one development, in Dubai, and all sources reference the development as such. If it gets built in other places it may become notable. SportingFlyer (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely do not delete. Notability does not depend on how common a house type is, but how innovative it is. How many Eiffel towers or Burj Khalifas are there around the world? That's a poor excuse to delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delorean212 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can't find a single mention of this actually being a general term rather than a specific housing development project, so the article as it currently stands would have to be rewritten to reflect that. Since the housing project is not notable (notability in Wikipedia has a specific meaning that has nothing to do with being innovative) the article should instead be deleted. Once the term (or the project) does become notable, someone who is not involved with it will probably create an article about it. --bonadea contributions talk 12:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also want to note this AfD page has been blanked and the AfD post removed on the article several times now. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:03, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Kimball's Milk Street[edit]

Christopher Kimball's Milk Street (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)

To me it appears as if the whole article is sourced to mentions of a single lawsuit in various papers. I think that this single event was not notable enough to warrant an entire article on the subject. However I am using AFd instead of PROD so that experienced editors can give thier input on the issue. Elektricity (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 09:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 09:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 09:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if one lawsuit was the cause of all the media coverage, the stuff that establishes notability is significant media coverage. There is certainly significant coverage. Binksternet (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet can you look at the article in your free time? I think the coverage is not that extensive to be honest. Elektricity (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I already looked at it before I gave my opinion here. Extensive coverage. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of sources that discuss the subject in detail. Easily passes WP:ORGDEPTH. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Suitable RS to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, however, a Keep decision does not preclude clean-up. The article could use some tidying and improvement. Chetsford (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the references are promotional and rely extensively on interviews with Kimball with no original or intellectually independent content/option/analysis and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. While Kimball appears notable, notability is not inherited. There is also confusion over the name of the organization - it appears to be "CPK Media" and it is not clear that the organization named in this topic and "CPK Media" (the company being sued) are the same thing. Also, illegal conduct is excluded for the purposes of establishing notability as per WP:ILLCON. So we're left with a bunch of PR releases and interviews with Kimball - which also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. There's a difference between sources that can be used to establish notability and the lower standard of sources that can be used as citations to support facts within an article, and not one of the sources here meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing++ 13:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You say "...Most of the references...", yet many are simply reporting facts about the organization, facts which were not derived from an interview with Kimball.
You say "...So we're left with a bunch of PR releases and interviews with Kimball........sources that can be used to establish notability and the lower standard of sources that can be used as citations to support facts within an article...", yet the references that report basic facts about the subject include houstonchronicle.com, washingtonpost.com, boston.com, bostonglobe.com, denverpost.com, and bostonmagazine.com, which are not PR releases and interviews with Kimball.
You say "...illegal conduct is excluded for the purposes of establishing notability...", yet that is not the basis of the notability. Notability is established without that, and with that, the subject is even more notable.
You say "...Topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG...", yet it clearly passes WP:NCORP per "... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources..." because houstonchronicle, washingtonpost, boston, bostonglobe, denverpost, and bostonmagazine are excellent secondary sources that are reliable, and independent of the subject. In fact, the subject passes many, many of WP:NCORP's "...considered notable if..." where it only needs one. And as for passing GNG, well the subject obviously does that, and easily. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:39, 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) 11:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The New Riverside Cafe[edit]

The New Riverside Cafe (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:NORG No evidence of any national or regional coverage or any particular historic event that occurred at Café. Rogermx (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 15:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 15:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 15:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Minnesota Historical Society found a reason to keep its papers, so I think that gives a weak reason to keep this article. I added a few links to coverage in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune from the time. I think it's only locally notable, though, and certainly not on the level of First Avenue (nightclub). (Also, I fixed your link to WP:NORG.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:32, 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 09:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:13, 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) 11:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PPSSPP[edit]

PPSSPP (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)

While a great emulator, it has gotten hardly any published coverage to speak of, which can be reflected in the total dearth of reliable sources. It fails WP:GNG under Wikipedia guidelines. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 17:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has received independent media coverage regarding its 50 million download milestone, its implementation of the Vulcan graphics API, and its implementation of VR support (ditto). Also seems to have received some coverage regarding its 1.0 mobile release. I haven't performed a very thorough search, but I'm reasonably sure that I could find more beyond this. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced those sources are significant enough for it to pass GNG. They range from a sentence to a paragraph and generally fall under WP:PROMO without any actual independent examination of the subject beyond "hey, this thing exists and has released".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources listed above are a sentence in length, either as a whole or regarding their mentions of PPSSPP.
RE: "[These sources] generally fall under WP:PROMO": None of the above sources serve as propaganda or advocacy pieces, they aren't opinion pieces, they don't perpetuate hearsay or rumor-mongering, the publishers have no affiliation with PPSSP and function independently, and, as a result of said independence and the lack of any blatant bias on the part of the authors, these sources do not function as advertising vehicles for PPSSPP. It's of my opinion that they pass WP:PROMO, as well as WP:GNG. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources don't fall under WP:PROMO as they list/compare other similar tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceInnovader (talk • contribs) 16:27, 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. Wot BabbaQ said. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gurpreet Kaur Sapra[edit]

Gurpreet Kaur Sapra (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 person notable only as a district commissioner in a city of 160K. This is not a role that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because she exists, but the article is not sourced well enough to pass the "who have received significant press coverage" condition for local political figures -- the only source is a mere blurb announcing her appointment as deputy district commissioner (thus not even verifying that she's actually held the office claimed by our article) and "director of grievances and pensions". Political figures at the local level need to be significantly better sourced than this, not just to be single-sourced as existing, to qualify for Wikipedia articles. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 17:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 17:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep - I am the person who prodded this. This is poorly referenced and imaginary topic I thought. But It has been deprodded by someone. So, now I think it is very important topic whether I care or not. I think such great article shouldn't be deleted. Keep and Improve this, I think it may grow to a great article in future. And, remember that if an article is deprodded after proposed deletion, it is hard to delete this later. Makhamakhi (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it really isn't difficult to delete an article after it's been deprodded — because anybody can remove a prod template at any time, and doesn't necessarily have to actually explain their action at all, deprodding only precludes reprodding and does not preclude deletion at a full AFD discussion if there are still problems. And no, the depth and breadth of sourcing shown here is not enough to demonstrate that she's a special notability case over and above most other members of what's ordinarily a non-notable class of topic. Every person in local politics could always be sourced to a couple of pieces of local coverage — to make somebody notable on this basis, it would take evidence that she was receiving more coverage than most other district commissioners in most other districts could also show. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see —
  • Deep, Jagdeep Singh (January 5, 2018). "Subordinates misleading me, have issued stern warning: Mohali DC Gurpreet Kaur Sapra". The Indian Express. Mohali. OCLC 70274541. Retrieved January 20, 2018.
  • "Mohali DC takes salute". The Tribune. TNS. January 28, 2018. Retrieved February 20, 2018.
  • "No illegal mining in Mohali: DC". The Times of India. Mohali. TNN. February 20, 2018. OCLC 23379369. Retrieved February 20, 2018.
  • "Mohali DC takes stock of situation". The Tribune. Chandigarh. August 27, 2017. Retrieved February 20, 2018.
On somewhat related note, I am thinking of starting a RfC for seperate notability guidelines for Indian politicians and civil servants.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 22:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC); edited 14:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per sshibumxzs rationales above. And WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – All I see here are a few good-faith WP:ILIKEIT/WP:PERX Keep !votes. They neither provided any policy-based arguments nor any in-depth & independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Hopefully, this Afd will get relisted again so that the subject's notability can be established. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I see good Keep rationales, and only one drive-by !vote without any policy based rationale. Relisting again would be inappropriate.BabbaQ (talk) 09:05, 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. with no barrier to creating a well-sourced page on this subject. SpinningSpark 18:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Military spacecraft in fiction[edit]

Military spacecraft in 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)

Not really sure what this article is trying to get across - it seems to be a person's WP:OR observations on how fictional space combat works. No clear rhyme or reason to it, and it is unencyclopedic. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 00:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 00:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable as there are entire books about fictional spacecraft, including military ones. The topic just needs work per our editing policy and this is done by ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per WP:TNT. The topic of fictional military spacecraft may or may not be notable- that remains to be seen. But even assuming, arguendo that it is a notable topic, it's also clear that none of this content will ever be part of an actual encyclopedia article on the topic. It is almost completely unsourced, and written as an essay-ish summary of one editor's opinions on the topic. Retaining this would be hindrance, rather than an aid, to future editors writing an actual encyclopedia article on this topic. Reyk YO! 13:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. I agree that the topic is highly likely notable, but also that the content is unsourced and fails WP:NOT. The closest articles are Space warfare in fiction and List of fictional spacecraft, which are much better quality, but I don't think a merge and/or redirect to either would be completely appropriate. So, I don't really have a recommendation here. Stubify? Dunno. ansh666 03:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A steaming pile of OR. Space warfare in fiction already exists; anything worthwhile (and sourced) could go in the Technology section there. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- OR; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. There are only three sources and they don't appear to be about the topic as such, rather examples of military spaceships. Tacyarg (talk) 17:07, 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 no consensus. Looks like discussion has ground to a halt. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kuldeep Pai[edit]

Kuldeep Pai (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 musical composer. The hopelessly pretentious talk page cuts no ice with me. Is he actually notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve - the referenced profiles from The Hindu seem to be significant enough coverage in a national newspaper to pass WP:MUSICBIO. But yes, it needs a trowel taken to it to remove the unsourced promo. The promotional fluff posted to the talk page, which I've just redacted, was mostly a paste from his website. Now, where did I put that trowel. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
wow     such fluff    very copyvio    many canvass    :-) The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to mention that Kuldeep Pai is a very popular musician in India and is well-known for his contributions in Hinduism and Spirituality through music.
I have cited references that are available as external links in the main article that are readily available on the internet. However, just so you know, there are media coverages and articles about him covered in various other newspapers and magazines. The printed version of newspapers bearing his articles and awards have been scanned and uploaded in his website under the 'Press' section - http://kuldeepmpai.com/press/ (Infact, the article 'Kuldeeply Passionate' mentions about Kuldeep's gold medal in Indian Music from Madras University which required the citation in the main article). I am aware that the references from his own resource are deemed invalid and hence was unable to add these as the citation in the main article. Iam trying my earnest to make this an active page in the wiki.
Kindly consider the page to be restored and make it an active wiki page.
Sharan (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
1.Regarding awards titles and other recognition: The awards bestowed on him is true and there has been media coverage about the same as well(Yuvakala bharathi in Mylapore times). But iam unable to pull up any links from the internet. Is there an alternative to upload physical media coverage?
2.Also just curious to know, the awards in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjay_Subrahmanyan have been published when there are only 2 citations of the 40 awards mentioned? Why were they not deleted? There is only a warning message but the content has not been removed. Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahathi consists of list of awards with very less citations. So why were Kuldeep's details removed?
3.It's interesting to note that Carnatic music vocalist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Jayashri was conferred "Yuvakala Bharati" by Bharat Kalachar, Chennai, 1992, which is mentioned on the page without any citation. Kuldeep Pai too bagged the same award but the details were removed from the page. So how did the former go through?
4.The awards and titles won by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Sowmya too are mere mentions without any references. So why were these not deleted? Infact, D.K. Pattammal Award won by this singer was also bestowed on Kuldeep Pai. So why was this deleted from this page alone but allowed the other one? (I infact had mentioned http://www.kutcheribuzz.com/news/general/824-artistes-must-be-treated-better, http://www.indian-heritage.org/musicseason/awardsp.htm His name has been mentioned against the awards. )
5.Also regarding the TOURING info provided in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Sowmya- the details have been published with a warning note that it resembles a resume. So why were Kuldeep's touring details bearing similar info not published with a note? Why were the details not deleted in the former's page? Sharan (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sharan, what other articles have doesn't matter--if you want to compare, compare to a GA or an FA, not to any old random article. S._Sowmya is a terrible article and tagged as such, and I'm about to start pruning it. The article as I and others found it was promotional in tone, poorly written, and lacking reliable sources that verified the text. For instance, this, that whole "deep inclination" etc. wasn't verified in the sources; it's what a PR agent would write. This is a violation of our policy on external links, and it's typically one of the mistakes made when a promotional article is written. I have no opinion on the subject's notability, but comments like "So how did the former go through?" completely miss the point when we have millions of articles, many of which sub-standard. That it "went through" in that article doesn't mean we're going to let it through in articles that are actually looked at by Wikipedia editors with knowledge of the guidelines. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sharan (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies, thank you so much for your reply. Apologies for comparing, but new writers like me tend to read few successful articles in Wikipedia about people from similar genres before initating a new article. Since the above mentioned Carnatic music personalities are well-reputed, it was quite natural to visit their pages to get an overall view before submitting an article...Whether the article was old or new one, didn't matter to me that time.
However, after conversing with great admins like yourself, i do understand the responsibilities and the actual process that goes behind every article. And apologies if my words sounded promotional. I ensure that iam diligent with my phrases from my next article. This is my first article here in Wiki and I hope it gets a green signal very soon.
Sharan (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sharan, look at Wikipedia:Good articles/Music, for instance LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987). I'm not saying "you should write it like that" but it should give you a good idea of what the standards are. After all, in our personal lives as well as in our writing, we should look to the good examples, not the bad ones. As for the article, I think it should stand (I say keep) since your subject seems to meet our notability guidelines. And you can help--not by writing him up nicely, but by adding references to reliable, secondary sources: newspapers, magazines, journals, and books. Look especially for articles that discuss him and his career, not just reviews of a show or an album. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sharan (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies,thank you for your prompt response, references and direction to enhance the article. As per my earlier observation, at this stage I am unable to pull out any links from the internet for secondary references. As an alternate, am I allowed to submit scanned copies of the physical print media coverages that Kuldeep Pai has received? How do I substantiate for those resources which are available in print media form and not as an internet link page?
Henceforth, I will make sure that citations and references are adequately addressed for all future awards that Kuldeep Pai receives.
Sharan (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no "submission"--but resources do not have to be online; this is not a requirement. See WP:CITE and WP:RS for what is acceptable and how to cite it. If you cite it properly, editors will be able to verify the accuracy of the citation, and as long as we can't read it we will assume you're not lying. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sharan (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies, Thank you for your message. I have now mentioned citation in the article for his gold medal as per the format( as there was no online resource to substantiate the same). :Kindly check if its appropriate.
I have gathered few citations online regarding his other awards. Can i edit and provide citations directly to the article? Kindly advise.
Sharan (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sharan (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies, have added 2 awards and their citations now. For your perusal please...
Sharan (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SHARANYABHARATHWAJ:, there's no need to put your username at the beginning of every post. Just sign it with four tildes (~~~~) at the end, thanks. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Will adhere. Thank you for the tipThe Mighty Glen
Sharan (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have added 2 more citations from The Hindu under Early life and Education. Tks.
Sharan (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Kindly let me know how else i can contribute to make this page active. I had added a couple of citations last week from The Hindu and inserted to the main article to prove his notability. I would be glad to see this article getting Live. Kindly let me know your thought pls.
Sharan (talk) 22:19, 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 redirect to Half-Life (series). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures of Half-Life[edit]

Creatures of Half-Life (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 took a hard look at the article, and essentially, everything other than what already has their own articles (like Vortigaunts, etc.) is just non-notable or primary sourced. Nothing has changed since my last nomination nearly a decade ago in terms of adding sources. No secondary sources for these creatures - it just refers to the game's strategy guides, which is fine for a fan wiki but not Wikipedia. Doesn't live up to current Wikipedia standards. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a huge number, admittedly; still, perhaps more mentions can be found with more digging. Centibyte(talk) 23:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only problem is that pretty much all of those articles are about the game's design, rather than the enemy's design or its background. The author doesn't say, for example, that the Tentacle is a cool looking and memorable enemy, just that the level is cool for featuring the Tentacle in that way. Those kind of tangential mentions don't indicate an article-worthy degree of notability, in my opinion.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Totally on the fence, sorry. This list seems like it borders on WP:FANCRUFT. However, there are articles that would be considered subsections of this one such as Vortigaunt which are considered WP:GA. Information on creatures in this series clearly exists due to the fact there are whole articles dedicated to certain parts that have become standalone.
I will also argue that the WP:ITEXISTS argument should be completely ignored. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to game or franchise article with a talk-page nudge for interested editors to shift over any meaningful, cited commentary on e.g. the creatures' creation, development, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Half-Life series. Large sections of the article remain unsourced, and there is not enough secondary sourcing out there to salvage it. The creatures notable enough for their own articles have them, and that is sufficient here. If it turns out to be the case for other creatures, then their articles can be made, but this article specifically tip-toes just a little too much into WP:FANCRUFT. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. What few elements of Half-Life either have their own article or are covered in Characters of Half-Life (which has sourcing issues but pretty sure that can be improved). Monsters in a video game edges on game guide material. --Masem (t) 14:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:GAMECRUFT. Also, hard disagree on the notion of there being a precedent for having poorly sourced lists. That's not true. They may exist, but they shouldn't. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Perhaps I should go with the flow and vote "redirect", but I simply can't imagine "Creatures of Half-Life" being used as a search term for anyone who isn't looking for the specific content that this article covers, nor do I think there is any chance that this subject could ever be used as the basis for a viable article. List of fictional elements articles should be reserved for those very few franchises where such minutia is genuinely of interest to the general public, rather than just the hardcore fan base.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Transwiki to a relevant Wikia - I actually share a lot of agreement with Martin IIIa's delete vote above, and I can't imagine it being a search term, either. However, while I highly doubt it, some day this might shape out to be more notable if more Half-Life titles are ever released, or it may prove important to a Wikia about the game series. Doing a redirect would preserve that page history for the public should one decide to use or build on the extensive past work here. There would be much more work needed to make it work here, notability notwithstanding, but it couldn't hurt to at least save the past revisions. Red Phoenix talk 00:20, 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 Draftify. ​Moved to User:SportingFlyer/Kyle Duncan (soccer) to keep a watch eye ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Duncan (soccer)[edit]

Kyle Duncan (soccer) (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)

An IP contested PROD. But I have a question: Is having a contract regarded as an appearance? So this article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Pinging PROD nominator: ArsenalFan700 Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nope, it doesn't mean he had an appearence. Officially he has never played in a match featuring two fully professional teams. Reserve matches do not count as fully-pro. He also fails WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait a moment, Soccerway shows that Kyle Duncan played in a USL game in 2014. USL is listed on WP:FPL, so Duncan might pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Jack N. Stock (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Jacknstock: That was New York Red Bulls Reserves which was one of many invitational MLS teams in USL that season. None of the players were on a contract or deal of any kind unless they had an MLS contract. In comparison, New York Red Bulls II is an actual USL team that is the reserve side for the Red Bulls but actually has players contracted to just Red Bulls II. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Jacknstock: But MLS reserve team league is not listed in WP:FPL. And this player played in this league. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're correct. A year later, it would have been USL. He's now training with Red Bulls again to try to make the USL team. At the moment, this is a delete and someone can ask an admin to undelete if he makes the team for a 2018 USL game. Jack N. Stock (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After looking into it, it appears to have been a legitimate USL Pro match, where some MLS reserve sides competed for some reason (as RB did five times according to this article. Probably done to round out the schedule). USL Pro was renamed United Soccer League in 2015 so it is the same league. But since the appearance was for a non-fully professional side per User:ArsenalFan700 and the player notability guidelines the article should be deleted. Jay eyem (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify as it's borderline to qualifying for WP:NFOOTBALL even though it doesn't yet. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I was thinking of that as an alternative, too. He might qualify in a month. I'd be OK with looking after it unless you want to. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as he hasn't played in a FPL. Draftify if you want, in case he does make an appearance soon. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drafity - Hasn't passed FOOTY yet, but he turned down a contract to play with the Red Bulls II in the USL in order to go play in Europe. He made first team in Ligue 2 but didn't have any appearances, and now will there is a chance to seem with the Bulls II in USL this upcoming season. We can't know if he will play or not, but the article is in good shape with sourcing to maintain as a draft. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:41, 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) 11:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Themes 2[edit]

Themes 2 (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 appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reviews from Allmusic and Option online. Will have further coverage in print sources. --Michig (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:31, 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. But also move, most likely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Ann Weatherwax[edit]

Jill Ann Weatherwax (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)

Tagged as possibly not notable since 2011. Seems BLP1E, definitely NOTMEMORIAL John from Idegon (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - but refocus the article and expand it significantly. The sources found by Icewhiz above would surely help. Her murder received news coverage and was the subject of the E! True Hollywood episode [37]. According to WP:CRIME this may be enough for an article if focused on the crime itself as a "well-documented historical event." However I also encourage consideration of WP:BLP1E as the news coverage was largely routine with little discussion of the murder's place in history. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Move to Murder of... As per WP:SIGCOV (widely covered back in the day and since; inspired TV show episode.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her murder was notable because of her age, being a beauty queen, and the fact it was unsolved. It was notable enough to be turned into an episode on a major television show. Her murder is still being discussed over 15 years later[1][2] in English and in other languages.[3] Lonehexagon (talk) 22:44, 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 Tank (American singer). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Savage (Tank album)[edit]

Savage (Tank album) (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)

Questionable notability per WP:NALBUM; additionally: "notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography." Enwebb (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. It's a valid search term; redirect until notability can be established. No point to deletion. Ss112 04:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the discography article. If ever more can be said about the album in itself, the article can always be recreated. As it stands there's not much worth saving at the moment. Red Phoenix talk 22:52, 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. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 16:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uljhan[edit]

Uljhan (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:NFILM tagged for sources since 2012 nothing added except for IMDB. Nothing of note found in a WP:BEFORE search Dom from Paris (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-A film featuring quite-well-known actors and having songs sung and directed by maestros ought to have got sufficient coverage (reviews etc.) in local sources.And, sources/reviews about Indian film(s) from 1970s (a time from when most newspaper archives aren't online) shall-not be expected to be online/easily available.And surely, this ain't a hoax.Don't cite AADD in response to my argument(s).Sort of IAR:)~ Winged BladesGodric 06:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I won't cite that!! But there is nothing written in the article that suggests that this film was a hit at the time and would have got significant coverage. As it says it was the main actor's first film so he wouldn't have been well-known at the time so not sure that there would have been much coverage. There are no box office figures nothing to back up the claims that the music was popular there are no sources from recent times that suggests that the film is viewed as a classic and worthy of being in an encyclopedia today. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm..A film can be notable irrespective of whether it is a hit.Music-sales-figures are pretty impossible to source and that's not a good piece of evidence of popularity in Bollywood-music-industry which works so differently from Hollywood.And, don't get fooled by the crappy looks of Kalyanji–Anandji, one of the most-notable music-directors in Bollywood.You can try randomly pinging any Indian pedian in good standing (Spaceman Spiff and Shyamal, two long term sysops are ones who come to mind) and they can provide some additional insights.But, you are obviously free to have a different opinion....~ Winged BladesGodric 10:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 05:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Winged Blades' assessment. London Hall (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:NEXIST which covers any source issues. Clearly notable and Winged Blade is correct.BabbaQ (talk) 01:14, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grange West[edit]

Grange West (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)

Nothing to indicate that meets WP:NGEO (as a "populated place without legal recognition that meets GNG"). A quick search returns just this article, trivial mentions (like property listings), and an entry in the townlands.ie database (along with the other 61,000 townlands in the country). At best a merge/redirect to Fermoy would seem appropriate. But, given that there is no content to merge, that would result in a pointless easter egg. (FYI - This article was originally apparently intended as poor attempt at humour. But speedy-declined. Seemingly because the wrong speedy tag was used.) Personally I don't see what value this article does (or could) have to the project. Guliolopez (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Townlands do, in fact, pass WP:NGEO as evidenced by the existence of numerous other articles on other townlands. It's the smallest geographical division, but it's a geographical place nonetheless. Clearly notable. Smartyllama (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hiya. Perhaps I have misread it, but can you help me understand (other than with reference to WP:OSE) how each of Ireland's 61,000 townlands automatically meet NGEO? (Townlands are not legally recognized places, except in their use as census tracts - which NGEO specifically notes are not automatically notable.) If other townland articles exist, then I would imagine it is on the basis of GNG or some other similar notability guideline. In the case of this square kilometer tract, the available sources only confirm its existence - and not its notability. Guliolopez (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 05:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it doesn't pass WP:GNG. Articles on other townlands don't show notability for this one. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it can exist only for the purpose of taking a census and also have no legal recognition, but if either of these is true, the townland article needs correcting. If they there is not enough verifiable information for an article about Grange West, merge to the relevant parish or to a list. Peter James (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These townlands have existed since before the Norman period, well before censuses were even first used in Ireland. (I would say before they were invented, but I understand the Romans may have had made a census.) These areas, (all 60,000) have got legal recognition, generally dating back several hundred years. It is true that they are used as census areas now, but that is not why they were created, nor what they are, so I do think they pass WP:NGEO. Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not find this meets the intent of "legal recognition." Being in a govt database does not imply legal recognition. As the WP:NGEO says, "census tracts are usually not considered notable" and that seems to be what these ranges are most analogous. MB 15:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MB: I was being literal, they are defined by and used in British statute law, notably in this and later for example here where the scope of legislation uses them. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:52, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia A. Berglund[edit]

Patricia A. Berglund (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 notability as an academic/researcher. She's a research associate that has been named as a coauthor on some research articles, but there are few secondary sources on google. Natureium (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is a Senior Research Associate at the University of Michigan. Yes, many of the papers have large numbers of authors, but they also have very large numbers of citations. She is second author on "Lifetime Prevalence and Age-of-Onset Distributions of DSM-IV Disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication" with 13,248 citations. Her papers and book with only a few authors also have large numbers of citations. She is coauthor of Applied Survey Data Analysis (575 citations), the field in which she has made an impact. Confusingly on Google Scholar one needs to search for Patricia Berglund without the 'A' to see all this. Unfortunately the first paragraph of the article is a close paraphrase/copy of http://si.isr.umich.edu/faculty. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I cut out the text that looked to be copied. XOR'easter (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A research associate is usually a low-level job in academia. Even a "senior research associate". I'm not saying it's not a respectable career, but it's not something that would make someone notable. They would work under a professor and often under others such as staff scientists. I can't even find a profile for her on the university website. Natureium (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'll try to have a closer look at this one. In the meantime, it would be important to note that, if she is a flavor of "research associate", then she is not a PI, independent researcher, prof, or any such. This is a staff rather than faculty position at research universities, meaning her name on papers would typically be a matter of course rather than because of fundamental intellectual contribution. OTOH, if she has authored separate, highly-cited books on her own, that would be a very important consideration for satisfying PROF via impact on a clearly-defined intellectual contribution. Agricola44 (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know enough about the field to contribute more, but a first-author pub in JAMA seems to indicate she is at least sometimes doing to work associated with a PI or faculty member rather than merely as a matter of course. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have a first-author paper in Science, but I'm definitely not notable. Natureium (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not seeing the case for notability here, wikipedia is not linked in.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 14:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My sense is there's not much coverage of her or her work in news reports. I'm not qualified to judge her as an academic so I'll leave that determination to others here who know about such. But I used to work in market research, and the U. Michigan survey research center is highly regarded and I have no doubt that she's a top notch researcher with heavy duty expertise in survey research (given her books in Amazon). Unfortunately, I don't think she meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Changing to Keep per Lonehexagon (see below) and the 26,000+ citations.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:02, 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) 08:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:NEXIST given the number of published works in peer-reviewed academic journals which have received a total of 26,246 citations.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonehexagon (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ https://www.tctimes.com/news/beauty-queen-s-brutal-murder-still-unsolved-years-later/article_690dc53e-93b8-11e2-abfd-0019bb2963f4.html
  2. ^ https://arynews.tv/en/beauty-queens/
  3. ^ https://www.aftonbladet.se/nojesbladet/klick/article22368456.ab/promo
  4. ^ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Patricia_Berglund
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:59, 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 delete. czar 02:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prasant Palakkappilly[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Prasant Palakkappilly (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 am making a procedural nomination on behalf of AyaanLamar, who attempted to nominate the article for deletion, but did not follow the correct procedure, so that it was not transcluded. I am expressing no opinion on whether the article should be deleted or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The Article does not clearly meet the criteria for being a PUBLIC FIGURE . This man is not in fact popular in his own state let alone the country . AyaanLamar (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC) —SOCKSTRIKE. MT TrainDiscuss 19:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and also most of the sources are WP:BLPSELFPUB AyaanLamar (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources are WP:BLPSELFPUB. Most of them are neutral articles published in reputed newspapers. Apart from being head of several reputed institutions, he is also a popular environmentalist. You may also search in google with the spellings "Prasant Palakkappillil" and Prasant "Palackappillil" to see more results. This page was nominated for deletion on 24 May 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. He is NOTABLE. Achayan (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an unremarkable person WP:A7 and i have googled the name and little to no articles or results are there AyaanLamar (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC) SOCKSTRIKE --HagennosTalk 14:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable subject, fails WP:GNG. Sources are self published. Excelse (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I can see nothing in this article to make the subject out as notable. I am not sure if he is a headmaster or head of a college, but he clearly does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, the relevant criterion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I see passing mentions, but not the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG. I also don't see evidence that he meets the notability standards for academics.Sandals1 (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing here establishes notability apart from primary sources --HagennosTalk 14:14, 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 keep. SpinningSpark 19:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Amatya[edit]

Milan Amatya (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 reliable sources . No one of the references link are related to this page expect ref no. 4 and i think we need more reliable sources. SeytX (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:42, 27 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) 00:39, 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) 00:39, 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) 00:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real RS. Seems to be another fanpage from this editor. Agricola44 (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nom is a sock. Stronger consensus required
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick Google search shows she's an extremely popular singer and performer in Nepal. I added several citations to her article. She has been covered regularly in the media for almost a decade, easily passing WP:GNG. Additionally, she passes WP:MUSIC (via sections 1, 4, 9, 10, 11, and 12). Lonehexagon (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree with above. Tacyarg (talk) 17:26, 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) 14:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Baker (set decorator)[edit]

Alice Baker (set decorator) (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)

My PROD rationale was: comprehensively fails WP:GNG. An Oscar nom for a minor category is not enough to automatically clear notability by any stretch. No non-trivial sources located on Google (books, news) or Highbeam.

Was de-PROD'ed with the rationale that she "still meets WP:ANYBIO", which is patently not true - ANYBIO requires either one win, or multiple nominations. A search through the Oscars database here shows that Baker only has a single nomination, so she fails ANYBIO in any case. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Along with the Oscar nom, she has also had nom from the Art Directors Guild and a BAFTA nom in the same field. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with only one source even close to being indepdent and reliable, clearly fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:ANYBIO. Oscar nom. Does not fail WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • GNG requires the existence of multiple in-depth sources on the subject - were you able to find any for Baker? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oscar and Bafta nominations pass WP:ANYBIO and presume offline sources if not online Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think it's a mistake to claim that nominations at multiple award ceremonies for the same role is enough to pass WP:ANYBIO, especially when there's no information apart from those nominations. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a BLP surely there must be some sources out there?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was able to add some reasonably good detail from several different reliable secondary sources reporting on the nature of her and her production design collaborator's contributions to the film--ETA: as well as her work on another notable film--so I tend to think in aggregate it passes muster. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lugnuts's good point that the set decorator has received multiple nominations, when one looks beyond the Oscars. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Personally, I do generally try to avoid starting articles about behind-the-scenes film industry craftspeople (designers, cinematographers, etc.), because even if they do technically have Oscar or BAFTA or Canadian Screen Award nominations they very often (although admittedly not always) lack the kind of reliable source coverage about them that we normally require to support a Wikipedia article, and very often end up as permanent stubs that never say or source anything more than "subject is a person who got an Oscar nomination, the end". But while I'll admit that this was absolutely a pointless boilerplate "subject is a person who got an Oscar nomination, the end" at the time of the initial nomination, some effort has now been undertaken to make it better. So there's no longer any reason to delete it — as long as the article can actually be sourced to more than just the person's nominal inclusion in a list, a top-level film award nomination is enough for an ANYBIO pass. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After the improvements that have been made, the article appears to pass WP:GNG. Lonehexagon (talk) 22:51, 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. Sandstein 22:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saroj Maharjan[edit]

Saroj Maharjan (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)

Needed more citation and the ref link is dead. SeytX (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has not competed at the highest level. Does not meet WP:MANOTE.PRehse (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:33, 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) 00:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage fails to meet WP:GNG. His sole appearances at the Asian Games and World Championships both resulted in first round losses to competitors who lost their next fight. It could be argued that competing at a world championship meets WP:NSPORT, but in the past it's been determined that some success (such as at least making the quarter-finals) is required (at least in martial arts). I don't believe that it's reasonable to claim that all 871 competitors at the 2011 World Judo Championships (an annual event) are automatically notable. Papaursa (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator has been blocked as a sock. A stronger consensus is therefore required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Agree with Papaursa's analysis.Sandals1 (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've indef blocked Sandals1 as an obvious sock. Brand new users don't immediately dive into AfD unless they're socks. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and I can't find any coverage of him on Google, so fails WP;GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:53, 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) 01:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PaperPk.com[edit]

PaperPk.com (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. Saqib (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:43, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kaczmarski[edit]

Kevin Kaczmarski (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 minor league player. Contested WP:PROD. Wizardman 03:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete clearly non-notable baseball player, never played in the major leagues, no sources. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Contested prod is misleading. The prod was the one for blp articles that don’t have sources. I found a source and according to what it said in the prod as I understand it, the prod could be removed since there was a source. That said, I agree with the others that this is a non notable player.MensanDeltiologist (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Not notable as a baseball player and fails the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 17:23, 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. Not seeing a successful argument against BLP1E J04n(talk page) 16:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Lieu[edit]

Maggie Lieu (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 WP:PROF. The possible notability by the GNG seems to be only 1EVENT base on not being selected for the Mars trip. The policy is NOT NEWS, and NOT TABLOID DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete off to a good (recent) start but not yet enough citations in a very highly cited field to pass WP:Prof#C1: WP:Too soon. Only other possibility is a WP:BLP1E for failing to be selected for the Mars trip. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I didn't realise that the Dutch are planning to get to Mars before Elon Musk. Anyway, this person got lots of coverage over time for her involvement and so passes WP:BASIC. Andrew D. (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Wholly inappropriate article, largely a collection of trivia based on a tortuous analysis of primary sources. At this point in time, the subject is far from notable as a scientist. If she is notable for her involvement in the Mars One affair, then the lead should go like "Maggie Lieu was a finalist in the Mars One competition ...", which would be unencyclopedic (WP:1EVENT, WP:NOTNEWS) and a disservice to the subject. Rentier (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all, I have tried to improve but understand and agree with your points. What do you mean by "a disservice to the subject"? Jesswade88 (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many people take a pretty dim view of the Mars One project and being pidgeonholed as a "former Mars One contestant" might not be a good thing. Rentier (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an orphan with admittedly a fair few references, but I'm only seeing one event, being a failure, and then a CV of someone who works in a high tech industry. Perhaps I should get someone to create an article about me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is TRM appearing at the O2 like the subject? Does TRM appear in numerous books like the subject? Didn't think so. But hi-tech and Mars colonisation aren't that important anyway, are they? What really matters is that you can kick a ball like Luke Woolfenden (age 19) and Tristan Nydam (age 18), right? The systemic bias on display here is blatant. Andrew D. (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. WP:Other stuff. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete I can understand the sentiment, but it is not there. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--per Rentier and DGG.~ Winged BladesGodric 07:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is significant coverage of her over time as per Andrew Davidson. Passes GNG. Plus, she wasn't a failure, she chose to pull out. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with BLP1E nature, but also not notable as a scientist (a few low double-digit citation papers in a high citation field). Agricola44 (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article clearly explains she's not notable and references this accurately. Szzuk (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The WP:BLP1E discussion so far has convinced me with nothing else being notable in terms of GNG. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:TOOSOON. She may develop adequate significant notability at some point in her career, but not going to Mars does not constitute encyclopedic notability. Softlavender (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG, significant source coverage (although whoever cited the Daily Mail - please do not do that again) from a news search. If you want to start a family on Mars, and you can, well it's a free universe. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:34, 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. J04n(talk page) 16:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Writers Association of Korea[edit]

Writers Association of Korea (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'm not sure this meets notability criterion. Nerd1a4i (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - The sources are understandably mostly in Korean, but that should not detract it from that the fact that it is notable with wide coverage, but I'll give just a few sources here [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. There are in fact also many sources in English - e.g. [43], [44], [45]. It has been described as the largest or one of the two largest writers associations in Korea - [46], [47], therefore I don't see how it is not notable. The article needs rewriting, but that is a separate issue. Hzh (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hzh. Timmyshin (talk) 20:09, 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. J04n(talk page) 16:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tato Gabus Mendes[edit]

Tato Gabus Mendes (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 sure this meets notability standards for actors. Nerd1a4i (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It needs improvement, as both this and PT versions suffer from lack of interest in adding cites. But there's tons of pop culture coverage of him in Portuguese, just search his name and any of his appearances. [48] [49][50][51][52] etc etc.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:Notability. RedUser (talk) 11:22, 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. J04n(talk page) 16:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rolligon[edit]

Rolligon (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 sure this meets notability guidelines. Nerd1a4i (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I do see a reasonable number of references and some considerable interest at the time they came out, but the article is inaccurate: the rolligon is the whole vehicle, not just the tires. Mangoe (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The references presently included are certainly on the weak side but I've found this which makes the notability look OK to me. There also look to be references in several books but I can only see snippets so couldn't be sure how detailed they are. Thincat (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten I have a WP:Wikipedia Library subscription to newspapers.com that just started today. There are oodles of articles extending over many years. Here is just a start.[53][54][55][56][57][58] Thincat (talk) 22:50, 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 redirect to Halfway to Heaven (album). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Them Boys[edit]

Them Boys (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'm not sure the sources here are sufficient to show notability. Nerd1a4i (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this could be a case of speedy deletion, as the IP Special:Contributions/2600:8805:2402:F400:5114:D44D:711C:ECBE is most likely User:Jack Gaines evading his block. Other IPs from the same area have been blocked for the same reason, for instance Special:Contributions/2600:8805:2401:f300:dcfc:fcf9:dc3e:7102, Special:Contributions/98.183.200.145 and the range Special:Contributions/98.183.192.0/20. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 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. Nominator stated they would withdraw nomination RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happens Like That[edit]

Happens Like That (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'm not sure this meets notability criteria for songs. Nerd1a4i (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ammarpad: It definitely does look a lot better; I'd be willing to retract the nomination as it appears I was wasting reviewers' time here. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 13:05, 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) 14:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on RUC Birches barracks[edit]

Attack on RUC Birches barracks (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'm not sure the sources are sufficient to show notability here. Nerd1a4i (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see multiple book references for this event. It could possibly be merged if there is an appropriate target, but it definitely passes WP:GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable and well sourced to third party sources. Additional comment, you keep nominating articles with "not sure if notable". If you're not sure then don't nominate. You should only nominate when you're sure, based on policies, that it's not notable. Canterbury Tail talk 14:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade. There were hundreds of similar attacks on RUC and British Army bases during the Troubles, many of which caused multiple deaths and injuries. This one caused no deaths and few injuries. The only thing different about it is that it involved a digger, a tactic which was repeated in the Loughgall ambush. Indeed, this attack is often only mentioned in relation to the Loughgall ambush. Most of what's in the "Attack" section is already noted on the Tyrone Brigade article, and the quote in the "Aftermath" section can be moved there too as it's about the Tyrone Brigade in general rather than this attack. ~Asarlaí 15:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade did not use this tactic in "hundreds of similar attacks" they used this tactic a grand total of two times, the successful Attack on RUC Birches barracks on 11 August 1986 and the unsuccessful attack at Loughgall. This was one of the IRA's most significant attacks of the period and most significant of 1986. Although nobody was killed at the Birches, it was an operation which demonstrated a tactical approach still more sophisticated than at Ballygawley and was a defining moment in the IRA's campaign & The Troubles in general. Tdv123 08:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 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 Gigabyte Technology. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aorus[edit]

Aorus (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; the given sources either are not reliable or do not cover the company in appreciable detail (if it is a company at all; one source says it's merely a brand of Gigabyte). Prod removed by Zxcvbnm who said they'd add sources to the talk page but (so far) didn't do so. Huon (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the sources in the message box at the top of the talk page, but maintain that they do not suffice to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. They do clarify, however, that Aorus is not a company at all, meaning that the very first sentence of our article, and likely much of the rest too, is wrong. Huon (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Comment I am neutral on this, but I think it could use more of a discussion. Most sources talk about some individual peripheral that was branded Aorus, but those articles gave me reason to think Aorus brand is notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:02, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darrel J. Gardner[edit]

Darrel J. Gardner (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)

Lots of sources; none of them useful for showing notability. Almost all are primary, those that aren't aren't reliable. In short, there is nothing here that shows this person is anything but a successful lawyer, and that isn't a reason to have an article on Wikipedia. Fails ANYBIO, and no SNG applies. John from Idegon (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Not a low-profile individual. Noteworthy accomplishments.Alaska Law 08:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: AlaskaLaw (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
AlaskaLaw Do you represent a lawfirm or other organization? 331dot (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
{u|331dot}} I do not. Regarding notability, similar to becoming a judge, the subject has attained a pinnacle of achievement in the Alaska legal community as president of the Bar Association. This is reliably verified through secondary sources. [1] .Alaska Law 12:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please offer those sources, which cannot be press releases or basic announcements. While undoubtedly important to the Alaska legal community, is President of the bar a high profile position among the general public? I live in Maine and I couldn't tell you who the President of the bar is. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the media chooses to shove the office of the president down our throats at every possible opportunity, to the exclusion of who knows how many other topics, because their audiences are dumbed-down enough to accept that as valid. It's unfortunate how far the quality of the encyclopedia has declined because the community, in its never-ending quest for low-hanging fruit, has chosen to mindlessly parrot such a stance. Judging from the article creator's contributions, it's safe to call them an SPA and their contributions COI spam, because those contributions make it appear as though they're representative of the topic of law in Alaska when they aren't. However, I don't see how this differs from any other editor who skews the encyclopedia in the wrong direction by only writing about what they feel like, regardless of how unrepresentative that work is, because we lack the sort of community necessary to identify and rectify POV such as that. Since we're on the topic of law in Alaska, a rather pertinent case in point: Karen L. Loeffler and Bryan Schroder are complete and total nobodies when compared with at least a half dozen of their predecessors. From what I've seen, the only coverage Schroder has received has been in the form of press releases related to his appointment as U.S. Attorney. Please explain why it appears that one set of standards applies to Schroder while another is being applied to Gardner. Please do so in a manner which doesn't boil down to one holding a particular title and the other holding another title. To echo what's been pointed out, both would be considered statewide leadership positions within this community. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented on the article in front of me and nothing else, and am "parroting" nothing but my own opinion on this nomination. You are of course free to disagree on the merits of this nomination. Thank you for your views. 331dot (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
{u|331dot}} According to Wikipedia, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia) to be notable, a Wikipedia topic must be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." I am not a frequent editor, and this page has been up for more than three years. This process of proposed deletion is new to me, very interesting, and generated research on my part. I have contributed several biographies of living persons in an attempt to broaden Wikipedia's coverage of notable Alaskan attorneys. The Alaskan attorneys listed on Wikipedia include similar citations to sources to the subject topic. For example, the citations to support the independent topic Rich Curtner reflect no more secondary sources than the references to the subject lawyer. I also do not know the president of the Maine Bar Association. However, the subject attorney appears notable, particularly with respect to Alaskan lawyers. He is the only lawyer to have been elected president of three different bar associations - the Alaska Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, the Alaska Bar Association, and the Alaska Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. He is the first Alaska Bar president to have been born and raised in Anchorage [2]. He is the first Alaskan Lawyer to have been elected to national office in the Federal Bar Association, as Vice President of the Ninth Circuit. He is the first Alaskan lawyer to be elected chair of the Lawyer Representatives Coordinating Committee for the Ninth Circuit. He a published author in The Federal Lawyer Magazine and the Alaska Dispatch News. He has been quoted in Forbes and has other media appearances. I cite the following additional sources to support notability of this Alaskan lawyer: https://www.ktoo.org/2017/08/31/alaska-bar-programs-provide-legal-help-low-income-residents/

https://www.kcaw.org/2017/08/30/lawyers-online-bar-assn-develop-app-low-income-alaskans/ https://www.adn.com/author/darrel-j-gardner/ http://www.americanbarfoundation.org/news/813 http://www.fedbar.org/PDFs/Current-Judicial-Profiles/profile-holland17.aspx https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianahembree/2017/03/29/text-while-driving-pay-10000-why-draconian-punishments-dont-work/#5a4ba11565ee https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/crime-courts/2016/11/19/how-can-investigators-trace-bullets-to-a-particular-gun/ http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2011/05_06/2011_05_10_Boots_SexOffender.htm https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/article/bill-would-speed-criminal-trial-process-victims-behalf/2012/02/13/ https://www.juridipedia.com/XX/Unknown/1688230211428733/Alaska-Association-of-Criminal-Defense-Lawyers http://www.fedbar.org/Resources_1/Federal-Lawyer-Magazine/2015/March/Departments/Chapter-Exchange.aspx?FT=.pdf http://www.fedbar.org/Resources_1/Federal-Lawyer-Magazine/2013/May/Departments/Chapter-Exchange.aspx?FT=.pdf https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1934954450081564&id=100007010826103 https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1668142240096121&id=100007010826103 https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1819364191640591&id=100007010826103 https://www.facebook.com/FederalBar/posts/1503668579664511 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaska Law (talk • contribs) 01:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the sources are primary sources and only cite specific information, they do not indicate how the subject is notable as Wikipedia defines it. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non--notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 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 redirect to Yichang East railway station. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huayan railway station[edit]

Huayan railway station (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)

Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shuanghe railway station, mass-created by blocked User:Tratra22395768. It's an unsourced stub and likely hoax, not mentioned in China Railway's list of Yichang-Wanzhou railway stations here. I prodded it twice but User:Kvng insisted on depodding it and bringing it to AfD. Zanhe (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article can only be WP:PRODded once. WP:PROD should not be used for suspected WP:HOAXes. ~Kvng (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 05:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per above. This should be withdrawn, speedily closed, and just redirected given the circumstances. Consensus at AfD is not required to redirect in this case. Smartyllama (talk) 14:40, 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.
  1. ^ https://alaskabar.org/for-lawyers/board-of-governors/listing-board-members-officers/
  2. ^ https://issuu.com/alaskabarrag/docs/july_sept_2017_bar_rag
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_February_22&oldid=1145686484"