Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 February	27 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

José Carlos Moreno[edit]

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

Minor voice actor who fails WP:NACTOR. Not even listed in IMDb. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any mention of this person outside of a few .wikia pages. Fails NACTOR. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:52, 26 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) 00:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom - no substantial RS Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doing a foreign voice over is not enough to keep since many foreign voice actors exist per TV show or movies. It is not even the original voice for the characters in the TV program or movies. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V and WP:NACTOR. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR. No sources. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 20:54, 5 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) 00:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Aminem[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper with no coverage in RS (per WP:BEFORE) and current sources are nothing more than a single website with videos. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete really doesn't seem like much here substantiating him as notable. Seems early career. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a cheesy advertisement of an unknown rapper. Nothing notable here at all. Has he hit any charts? Any hits under his belt? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 19:53, 4 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! 05:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Square of Nine[edit]

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

A not-notable combination of astrology and numerology to predict the stock market. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article as it is on a very similar subject, by the same author, and has similar sources:

Delete. Non-notable promotional trivia. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I used the chart to calculate if the article would be deleted and the result was not favorable. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received notable coverage.80.111.42.187 (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from the looks of the references, seems notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Setting aside the current content of the article (just a bunch of charts and tables), the sources I'm seeing are neither independent nor reliable. I don't see how this meets the general notability guideline, let alone the fringe one (relevant since we're talking about astrology and all). It could be redirected to William Delbert Gann#The Square of Nine and the Hexagon Chart. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the same for the Hexagon Chart. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in plenty of books so I would say it meets WP:NFRINGE. May need to be edited to comply with WP:FRINGE . Derek Andrews (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A link to a google search isn't useful. Just for fun, I looked at the first two results when I do that search (I hope everybody realizes that different people may get different results from the same search). The first was, The Book of Yantras, published by lulu.com. The second was, The Square Spiral: The Mathematics of Markets, published by BookPal. Both lulu and BookPal are vanity presses. The accept anything and print it for a fee. Such a publication is worth zero towards establishing WP:N (or pretty much anything else). I didn't check further down the list, but I expect more of the same. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per WP:TNT and WP:NFRINGE. In the current form, the article promotes the fringe theory in question, and I don't see anyone rewriting this page. If there's a notable topic here somewhere (of which I'm not convinced), then a neutral editor would create a page some time down the road. There's no rush to get to such a state, however. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has poor sources and the topic is not really notable. Any big names using or reporting using this stuff? Also, the fact that windows Excel instructions are in the article, it looks like WP:OR. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as some combination of WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:OR, and WP:FRINGE. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 6 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. Not notable. bd2412 T 02:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faircoin[edit]

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

Not a notable cryptocurrency; article is promotional. There is possibly enough Spanish coverage to meet GNG, but spot-checks suggest it's all coverage in the context of discussing Enric Duran. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm the author of the article (really translated from :es and only covered the template details). As I understand, there are two arguments against my first article, to delete it:

Not notable
Promotional - covers Enric Duran

After give an answer to these points, I would like to state that instead of proposing to deletion, it could be fine, in order to achieve more quality participation, to show me how to make the article better. Now, since I'm newbie and I don't know all the policies, excuse me if I don't cite policies properly, and please show me if I miss something. Also excuse my nonnative english.

Against Not notable argument, Power~enwiki specifies that is only notable because related to Enric Duran, but not as a cryptocurrency. Of course, Enric Duran is an important part of FairCoin and to mention him in that article is a must, but FairCoin doesn't inherite notability by Enric Duran. As seen in the references part of the article, there's a lot of coverage of FairCoin by itself, of reliable and independent sources. If more references are needed to prove this (which will surprise me), just tell me instead of proposing deletion.
Against Promotional, covering Enric Duran, I would say first that if the community thinks this, I would remove the content needed about Enric Duran, instead deleting the entire article. If promotional, as promoting a cryptocurrency, I win nothing if people are interested or not in the topic (evident), so is not selfpromotional. There are also no marketing content, and there's no propaganda and no attempts to convince to another opinion: the article is just useful as it provides information of a particular and notable cryptocurrency.

At last, as counterargument, I will cite the essay of overzealous deletion. The contribution of proposing to delete this article doesn't improve the Wikipedia, because doesn't help new users and doesn't improve the article. Is just a simple effort to say "this is not valid", compared with the effort made to put a good article, and to defend it right now. Also this pratice doesn't assumes good faith. Desatonao (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non delete To support related the "not notable" argument, Faircoin have a growing strong community in 40 countries, who extend its use for the real economy. Take a look here http://api.fairplayground.info/get_localnodes_list.html and is unique and not comparable to other cryptocurrencies because 1. Proof of cooperation algorithm developed by Thomas Konig and 2. fixed price decided By Faircoop assembly, which facilitate the use by people withoutbeing affected by market volatility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:462F:8400:C18:A64E:551B:21FF (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is neither notable nor in any way relevant as an encyclopedic topic. The article is not neutrally written, and brings a great deal of PR material related to Enric Duran to try and support it. I don't put much to Desatonao's comment, it seems to be basically explaining how he does not have a COI, which is fine, but the discussion is not about him, it is about the article. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a growing trend to put all crypto currencies on wikipedia they are not all notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: promotionalism-only page for non-notable cryptocurrency. Sourcins is WP:SPIP / passing mentions. Spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:25, 4 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) 00:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tod Wall[edit]

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

Serving as interim Oklahoma Secretary of State for a ~~week~~ month doesn't meet WP:NPOL. No refs in the article apart from his own LinkedIn profile, and the ones I find (such as [1] verify the week-long interim period but say nothing else. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually a month rather than a week, as the start date is given as February 20 and the end date is given as March 27. But as much as we try to maintain articles about state-level cabinet officeholders, it's still a matter of whether they have reliable source coverage about their work in that role or not. If an article's most informative possible source is the subject's own LinkedIn, because there's no substantive coverage about him to be found, then we can't deem him an automatic keep just because his existence gets glancingly namechecked at the very end of one news article about his predecessor. People are not exempted from having to pass WP:GNG just because they technically held an WP:NPOL-passing position for a couple of weeks — even for an "inherently" notable position, a person still has to be sourceable to some evidence of media coverage about them. The sourceability is what makes the role an "inherently" notable one, and a person still loses the "inherence" of the position's notability if the sourceability isn't actually there. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I misread that; I've fixed the nom statement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, as an interim person, they have not gained the position in the normal sense, so not notable. Certainly not much RS here to substantiate it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable here. It is just a person who got a government job. Has he done anything notable in the public eye or does he have any public coverage by media? Does not look like it. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 20:00, 4 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) 00:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bandera[edit]

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

Found a cover on "Hola" magazine (which I can't tell if it's real or not), and an IMDB profile showing a list of credits (mostly as producer) for relatively unknown films. Haven't been able to find anything else (in English or Spanish) that would remotely meet any of Wikipedia's notability requirements. London Hall (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are accomplishments listed here, but the page is light on for references. He doesn't have his own page on IMDB, it points to the IMDB page for Vaitiare Bandera Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With very little references available and the amount of volume of specific information and details, it looks like either Peter Bandera actually wrote the article himself or a person very close to him. How else would any average wikipedia editor know this much stuff on an individual without independent references? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:52, 5 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) 20:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeviChil[edit]

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

I can barely find any reliable sources discussing this article's subject - I already looked into it back when I worked on the article on the video game series this anime is based on, and could only find blurbs like this and entries in databases - meaning it fails to meet the WP:GNG. Alexandra IDV^talk 20:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user who added the article is also editing a lot of nonsense into other pages. Some of that is on the DeviChil page. For example, there's no known history of that series ever being aired on English television in Canada, the United Kingdom or the United States. Just made up garbage.Damnedfan1234 (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless of who the user who created it is, the anime does exist and it was broadcast nationally in Japan in 2000. There appear to be some mistakes, however, as sources such as this or this say it was broadcast on the CBC/TBS network, not on TV Tokyo. Michitaro (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not meeting WP:GNG and WP:V without prejudice toward recreation if enough reliable sources can be found. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Alexandra IDV^talk 19:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for failing the WP:GNG. If any reliable sources are found, it can always be mentioned at the series article. But we're a long way off from being able to support an independent article on it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, fails WP:GNG. -- ferret (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, as per nom, fails WP:GNG.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and failure of GNG and V. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:18, 5 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) 00:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WizzolX[edit]

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

Notability concerns. No references to reliable independent sources, and none found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Of the sources in the article two are blogs, an not reliable. The third from a web site freshdailyinc.net is now defunct. Based on the provided wayback archive, the site seems to be designed for promotion. From their "about" page, a testimonial stating "FDI covered my Scholarship & Grants Expo '15 and took the event to the next level and it received such great reviews." The only coverage I can find on my own is this [http://fizzymag.com/articles/wizzolx-puffer-jacket small piece on a clothing item from this designer. -- Whpq (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:55, 5 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 but stub and rewrite from scratch.. If maintaining a NPOV article proves impossible than the next discussion will undoubtedly reach a different conclusion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desiré Dubounet[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:FRINGEBLP, and no other claims of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of her before, but after some googling it seems she passes the criteria of "must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Long article on leading Hungarian web portal index.hu (mainly about her movie being crap)
Another article on the same portal (about the same movie, while in production)
Another long article on index.hu, this time about her quackery
Another article on a different portal, again about quackery
Article about her suing national airline for discrimination, on the second most important web portal in Hungary
Detailed biography on nol.hu (Nol was the website of Népszabadság, a well-known left-leaning newspaper allegedly closed down by Fidesz)

Based on these, she is notable (although I'm not going to miss the article if it gets deleted). – Alensha ^talk 17:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable fraudster. Plenty of coverage in English and foreigb media sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of RS there establishing notability as a fraud. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is written as a defence of the subjects work, and clearly fails NPOV guidelines. We lack the level of good coverage needed to create a truly balanced article. When articles get into special pleading, and the subject is a living person, the only option is to delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be true, but that doesn't make the subject any less notable. It should be re-written to follow NPOV, not deleted. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well supported by reliable sources and quite notable. There may be a NPOV problem, but this can be fixed. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just about enough substantive reliable secondary sources - specifically the Seattle Times article (regional press but WP:RS) and the "Science Left Behind" book, published by PublicAffairs, a reputable publisher. The federal court case, though a primary source, is worth noting as well. Fiachra10003 (talk) 23:06, 5 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! 05:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good News Newspapers[edit]

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

Badly sourced article about a term of questionable real-world usage. I can't find any reliably sourced examples of this existing as a term for a class of thing, as this article describes -- all I can find is examples of religious newspapers using "Good News" as their name. And that's largely what the purely primary sources here are showing as well: two of the four are using "Good News" as their name, and the other two are papers which are doing the same sort of thing while using different terms for it other than "good news" per se (such as "positive news"). But newspapers' own mission statements aren't adequate sourcing for an article about the thing those newspapers describe themselves as being -- reliable source coverage would have to analyze this term as a thing, independently of the newspapers calling themselves this, before it would qualify for an article. But that's exactly the sort of coverage I'm not actually finding anywhere. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is obviously a concept, and many of us have probably seen these newspapers, however the references are no good....there's no independant commentary here explaining the concept. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:15, 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. Michig (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trudi Ames[edit]

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

Only very minor roles, not seeing how this can meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Edwardx (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I created the article so I suppose I should chime in. Wikipedia's notability standards say multiple significant roles in notable films. I suppose this largely turns on how you parse and define the words significant and notable. Bye Bye Birdie is certainly notable, I don't think anyone would dispute that. Gidget Goes To Rome is perhaps not notable on it's own, but the Gidget series/franchise is certainly notable and this movie is part of that franchise. As to whether the roles were significant, that is a little more subjective. She was uncredited in that film, but she gave a memorable enough performance to receive a promising newcomer award (there was a source attached to that statement but it has since been deleted, I do not know why. I think most people who have seen the film will remember her role, and in the stage version, it was credited supporting role (see wikipedia's page about the stage version). I cannot claim to have seen Gidget Goes to Rome, but I did see the trailer. It is billed as a friends "beach party" type movie, and she plays one of the main character's two best friends. She is shown in the trailer and her character is reference by name in the trailer. So there you have it, two arguably significant roles in two films whose notability is probably not in question. When I started the article, I took multiple to mean more than one. I took significant to mean memorable, not necessarily a starring or leading role. If people disagree with the notability of the films or the roles, or feel two is not enough, then of course, delete the article. I had hoped when I started the article that others would help it grow, but I must admit, it is still a stub after 7 years and doesn't look a whole lot different than it did a few years ago. Schnapps17 (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability test for an actress hinges less on how you parse the meaning of the word "significant", and more on how you reference the significance of the roles — the test is not the having of roles in and of itself, but the depth of reliable source coverage that can or cannot be shown to get her over WP:GNG for the having of roles. (For instance, a person can get over the bar for a minor supporting role, if it got them an Oscar nomination or made them verifiably and sourceably famous — and a person can be the main star of a film and not get over the bar if the film sucked and nobody went to see it.) But the only references here at all are a glancing namecheck of her existence in an obituary of her father, and her own self-written contributor profiles in the back matter of two books she contributed writing to. Which means none of them support her notability at all, because the one that's independent of her isn't about her and the ones that are about her aren't independent of her, and no role, "significant" or not, is "inherently" notable enough to exempt an actress from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Taking the article creators position that her roles in "Bye Bye Birdie" and "Gidget" were memorable. Two widely seen notable films might do the trick, but it's simply unfortunate for this actress to have worked in an era where movie credits were not very deep (before SAG reached an agreement with MPPA to require onscreen credits for all speaking roles). Were she in films today doing comparable work she would have received screen credit and could pass. But that's not the case and absent significant reliable source recognition, as Bearcat emphasizes, she simply doesn't meet Wikipedia's threshold. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Keep I've found some coverage of her and she also had a role in some TV sitcoms. See the sources in the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per sources added by Megalibrarygirl. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:04, 26 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) 19:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets notability guidelines for an actor. Kudos to Megalibrarygirl for inproving the article. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: These articles on actors from the pre-internet age are sometimes a challenge to get all the info needed, but here, we have a person with multiple roles in significant productions. Bye, Bye Birdie was huge in its time. And indeed, if films then used today's standards, this individual would have had the acknowledgement needed to meet the standards used for 21st-century performers. Montanabw^(talk) 20:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is better now with inclusion of more material. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added two additional sources from newspapers in the 1960s. Based on the current sourcing, the article passes WP:GNG. Lonehexagon (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - quite well referenced, passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:25, 5 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Beta Phi[edit]

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

Article marked as delete from 2014 AfD, recreated by original creator in 2017 but still no indication of notability outside regional/personal sources. Once deadlinks removed, only sources on page are affiliated with the org. Potential for speedy delete under G4 as the page has been deleted twice already, once in 2012 and again in 2014. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 19:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable; only one chapter, and no independent sources. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They did open a second chapter, but what you said still remains true. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 22:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:02, 5 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! 05:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Bands[edit]

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

Non notable university marching band, the article has longstanding issues concerning lack of citations, the promotional nature of the article, and notability Nixon Now (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the band was recently suspended for being offensive to women [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Recently" being 8 years ago. If that's the only notable thing about the band in the past 113 years I don't think a Wikipedia article is justified. Nixon Now (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I am not saying for sure that's only newsworthy thing it ever did, but I can't see anything else other than a few "x played at x, acts included x, x, x etc" type reports, certainly not significant coverage. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:11, 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. Michig (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Leto[edit]

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

Non-notable subject who fails WP:ANYBIO and probably WP:GNG. Subject seems to have had a successful business career (specificly in regards to becoming the CEO of a bank) but these accomplishments in no way establish encyclopedic notability. Also lacking WP:SIGCOV sources, and a good-faith search for some turned up nothing noteworthy. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and WP:BIO - I don't see significant coverage online either, in WP:RS. Most of the article was a straight paste of his Bloomberg résumé, which I've now removed. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I added some sources, meets GNG. That the article contained copyvio is no argument for deletion.192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Granting the assumption that the subject meets GNG, can you make a case for it passing WP:BIO, which an article needs to fulfill? There seems to be no information about the article subject that is notable enough for an encyclopedia. Also, the article was nominated for deletion prior to it being cleared of copyrighted material.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to imply that WP:BIO is more stringent than WP:GNG. Is this what you mean? Because if so, first of all, I don't think it's true. Second, you seem to imply that biographies must meet the criteria in WP:BIO to be kept rather than those in WP:GNG. That I know isn't true. If a subject meets the GNG it should be kept. So to rephrase your argument so that it makes sense, you should say "Granting the assumption that the subject meets GNG, I am withdrawing my nomination."192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may need to take a closer look at my statement. Quoting directly from the text of WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." That presumption is key, as I do not feel the article meets the GNG requirement for in-depth, significant-coverage providing sources. WP:BIO contains a similar caveat, stating "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." So you see, a decision in regards to inclusion is based on an interpretation of not only GNG (which is listed as the first criteria per WP:BASIC) but also any other relevant, additional policies. This is pertinent to this discussion as myself and several other editors have deputed the idea that the article in question passes either GNG or BIO due to a lack of significant sources.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take a closer look at your own statement. You originally claimed that the article needs to satisfy WP:BIO. This is not true. It's sufficient for it to satisfy WP:GNG and it's not necessary for it to satisfy BIO. Now I don't know what you're claiming but clearly the goalposts have been moved. Anyway, the part of BIO that you quote cuts against your argument. All it says is that BIO is not dispositive. It's true that GNG is not dispositive, but meeting it is certainly sufficient for keeping an article, even if it's not necessary. In any case, myself and several editors have disputed the idea that the article in question fails to pass both GNG and BIO. That's why we're having this discussion, obviously.192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I am the creator of this article and I agree it should be deleted.BrandingGuy13 (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citing of other similar articles is not a viable way of establishing notability per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, it's not a policy. It's a little underhanded of you to cite it as if it were dispositive (if you're doing it on purpose). In fact, in deletion discussions noting that a lot of similar articles exist is a perfectly valid way to establish notability. If the type of article weren't notable why haven't all the others been deleted? For instance, shopping malls. These articles are never deleted, and the only argument for that outcome is that we never delete shopping malls, which is logically related to claiming that there are a lot of articles on shopping malls that haven't been deleted.192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Undisclosed conflict of interest edits by User:BrandingGuy13 regarding possible conflict of interest issues for the user BrandingGuy13. That discussion identifies this article as one of the articles that may be related to the possible conflict of interest. Another related article, Bryn Mawr Trust, has been deleted under speedy deletion criterion G11 as unambiguous advertising or promotion. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:GNG - sources don't establish notability. There's not much left once the Bloomberg resume is removed. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ -- There are multiple other resources of content and credibility outside of Bloomberg that can be added including: Yahoo Finance, SNL, and CNN Money.BrandingGuy13 (talk) 9:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Struck second vote by User:BrandingGuy13.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we strike the older !vote and assume the editor changed their mind? —BarrelProof (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely non notable. Fails to assert WP:BIO scope_creep (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see evidence of in-depth coverage of the topic by multiple independent reliable sources. I see only what looks like a press release and a couple of tangential mentions in sources that primarily discuss some other topic. The article also doesn't seem to have much to say about him. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is head of a small, local bank. That is not enough to make someone notable, nor is being on the board of directors or any hospital.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 3 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 and redirect to The Camping Episode. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Campfire Song[edit]

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

Non-notable song from a TV series. The page was deleted via PROD long ago ("nn, Unencylopaedic song from a children's cartoon only sung once through the entire series" nominated by a long-gone editor). It was recently recreated. It was promptly PRODed (" Non-notable song, per WP:GNG. This is fancruft." by User:Animalparty) and endorsed twice ("Also fails WP:NSONG criteria" by User:RA0808 and "A search turned up several lyrics sites and suchlike, but no WP:RS coverage." by User:Narky Blert). This second PROD was rightly declined per process, so here we are at AFD. DMacks (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I named the recent nominators so they would be pinged as being involved in this situation; first article creator is long gone; I alerted the new-version creator to this discussion via that editor's talkpage). DMacks (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per my PROD rationale, quoted by OP. Narky Blert (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to redirect and protect in the light of subsequent arguments. Narky Blert (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Move' to The Camping Episode. I don't know much about SpongeBob, but within the community this song is one of the better known moments. Perhaps the episode deserves its own page? Alexschmidt711 (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Camping Episode. Above, Alexschmidt711 raised a good question about SpongeBob fans. This song has a certain reputation in that fan community as a favorite and it's been a meme topic. So people are likely to search for it in WP. If they do, they can be redirected to the episode instead of seeing a recommendation to create an article. On its own, the song is WP:FANCRUFT all the way. Admins could consider the WP:SALT strategy too, but I do not know how that works in relation to redirects. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protection freezes the contents (or lack thereof) of the article-title. Salting is the special name for doing that when no such article exists, which therefore prevents its creation (including "creation as a redirect"). Alternately, the redirect could be created and then protected, which would prevent it from being converted into an actual article. DMacks (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. My vote will remain "Redirect" and if that turns out to be the ultimate result of this AfD, I would suggest some sort of protection to prevent reversal of the redirect, though I will leave it to you guys to select the best technique. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Camping Episode. As initiator of the original PROD (or second?), I determined it didn't meet WP:GNG. But a redirect is preferable to deletion. I don't think there is anything worth saving in this article: leave that cruft at Encyclopedia SpongeBobia (where I now realize it was copied from). --Animalparty! (talk) 00:11, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red State Update[edit]

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

Deleted in 2007, recreated three months later, tagged for notability for the past year. Fails WP:GNG as a non-notable blog. All sources are of the WP:PRIMARY variety, such as the HuffPo link which is http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/red-state-update/. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't accept this amount of cruft for a SpongeBob episode, and this basically reads as a fan's view of this non-notable whatever it is (since it's had multiple forms in its history). Nate • (chatter) 01:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not even sure how to start going through sources for this article, even though they all appear primary. Also should have been re-deleted a long time ago. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:29, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwini Chandrashekar[edit]

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

Non-notable actress with little to no coverage in rs I can find. The sources included in the article, at best, are passing mentions if they mention her at all or otherwise unreliable and not coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has two leading roles in notable films as confirmed by reliable sources so passes WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC) Also, the editor is appealing his block Atlantic306 (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'll also add to my nom that this was created in violation of our TOU but aside from that, I see no evidence that she was the lead in Prema Pallakki aside from a brief mention in a review and I don't even know that the film is notable as it's sourced to a quick mention and itunes. The other movie, Merlin (2018 film) is another TOU violation by a now indeffed user and appears to be little more than the typical cruft-sourced garbage that usually comes form this sock-ring. There is not a single independent reliable source that covers this person by any name or language that could possibly substantiate an article. Even imdb and generally non-rs is a fail for this one.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is appealing his block so its a bit early to jump in Atlantic306 (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Their appeal doesn't have any bearing on my nomination and I still don't think this person is notable, TOU violations aside. If you believe this person to be notable, please provide the sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I just PRODed Prema Pallakki which is not even close to pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM and the notability of Merlin (2018 film) is also questionable. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As per nominator, non-notable actress. FITINDIA 09:52, 3 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) 00:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Lapidus[edit]

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

Failure of WP:POLITICIAN. Only office he held was councilman. He ran for other offices and lost. Only source is New York Times articles which appears not to be about him, but happens to mention him. Rusf10 (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article with no meaningful claim of notability, with minimal sourcing in the article and little more to be found in the search required by WP:BEFORE. Being a mere councilmember is an insufficient claim of notability, unlike being a mayor or being elected to countywide office. Nor is there a logical merge target that might have been considered as an alternative to deletion. I'm sure that all of these considerations are taken into account in *ALL* articles nominated and that we aren't nominating articles for deletion out of pure spite. But in this case there is rare agreement. If only that might one day be reciprocated. Alansohn (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smalltown municipal councillors are not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL just because they exist, but there's no evidence of enough reliable source coverage to get him over WP:NPOL #2 as being significantly more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iqama (Saudi Arabia)[edit]

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

I can't see why a residence permit is notable enough for an encyclopaedia article, even if it had sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every town, county/state, country has ~~parking~~ permits, there's nothing at all notable enough for this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a parking permit, it's the Saudi Arabian residence permit for foreign citizens. It's basically a Green Card but for Saudi Arabia rather than the USA. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG plus is poorly sourced. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the reasons given above. Also, this article has no references. Vorbee (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral it's possible there are Arabic references with more detail. English refs such as [9] and [10] show existence but nothing significant apart from that. As this appears to be equivalent to a US Green card, I assume it will be a notable topic if refs are found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is an Arabic name in the article, which if googled gives lots of things I can't read. But using google translate reveals various bits of immigration advice. I can't tell. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and V. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:40, 5 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 speedy redirect to Periyathalai. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Periathalai[edit]

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

Its a Duplicate page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periyathalai Perumalism Chat 16:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, so all that's needed is to Redirect to Periyathalai, you didn't need to come here to do that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:49, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. There has not been any discussion here, but the DAB page seems so unnecessary that I am going to IAR to a small extent and delete to save everyone time and trouble. If there's objections, I can refund it, and we can have another AfD. Vanamonde (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity gun (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Falls under WP:TWODABS even though it's arguably not even a case of that, as the entries are not even title matches to the title. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close - AfD is not for draftspace. (And the article gets a speedy delete as hoax.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Allosaurus lapworthi[edit]

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

Hoax Ozarcusmapesae (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But why did you create a hoax article? FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Mohammad Jehangir[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete namechecking in few news stories for being chairman of the Rice Exporters Association of Pakistan.. fails to meet GNG. --Saqib (talk) 16:55, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Jehangir Siddiqui[edit]

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

Another non-notable article. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep while there is no in-depth coverage on the subject but he was appointed as Special Assistant to the Prime Minister of Pakistan in the federal cabinet, with the status of Minister of State. --Saqib (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable at least politically, per Saqib. Mar4d (talk) 12:23, 4 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) 20:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AutoWed[edit]

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

Trivial coverage. Fails WP:N. Störm (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another of the hundreds of ways a vending machine has been modified into. The introduction automatic wedding machine is both confusing and hilarious. MT Train^Talk 16:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable; sources contain passing, trivial coverage. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, just passing mentions in the references, and appears more like a joke than a real article. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:30, 5 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) 00:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sikandar Ali Jogi[edit]

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

Nothing special. Might be related to the creator of article (User:JogiAsad). Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lots of trivial mentions, but no significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:36, 5 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! 05:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of General Caste in Sikhism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't see any source discussing the topic.General caste=Forward castes i.e. castes not eligible for the special-affirmative-action-schemes by Govt. of India. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Right after the last AFD that was closed as no consensus the article was blanked of content with just a no verification comment. I have restored the content that was there at the point of the AFD closure. No comment on the quality of the content. ~ GB fan 16:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan:--Hmm...In absence of any reliable source, there is no prohibition on pruning even to the extent of blanking.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this AFD a few days ago when a comment showed up on a user talk page I was watching. I refrained from commenting because I don't know enough about the topic to say one way or another whether the nominator's rationale is valid (although it seems clear that the same is true for the only "keep" !vote so far, who only !voted based on a keepist principle rather than any specialist understanding that led to the conclusion that the OP has misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented the topic). But I gotta say, User:GB fan, that restoring unsourced content that has been blanked, just because the only complaint was that it was unsourced, is way out of line with Wikipedia policy. When someone blanks unsourced content rather than simply tagging, it is assumed that the blanker has read other sources that appear to contradict the content, or just knows from personal experience that the content is wrong, and both are valid reasons for blanking unsourced content. (Adding unsourced content based on one's personal experience is obviously a violation, but that's not what happened.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:BLANK, blanking the page was disruption. The topic is clearly notable per WP:LISTN and here's a selection of sources from the pervious AfD. There are plenty more out there. Andrew D. (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies
Sikhs in Britain
Routledge Handbook of Religions in Asia

Mr Davidson doesn't appear to have improved his understanding of caste. Which of those sources refer to General Castes? The article is not about OBCs or SCs/STs, which are the other two government classifications, and the government provides no list of castes that it considers to be General/Forward. Since the government provide no such list, we would have to employ deduction and that is original research. - Sitush (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a detail. The sensible way forward is to list all the notable castes within the Sikh community. The ones which get government preferment can be marked and the others are then implicit. Andrew D. (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a detail. Any caste could contain at least one person who is Sikh; government preferment is not a constant across the country (ie: a caste can be preferred in one area, preferred differently in another; and not preferred at all in a third). The rules of preferment change regularly and are themselves ambiguous due to issues of identifying the numerous names used for the same castes and because sometimes the same name is used for very different castes. Andrew, we've been through this time and again across numerous AfDs and you still do not get it. Either please take the trouble to listen and learn or don't bother disrupting with ill-advised thoughts. - Sitush (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In fact, I am going to go further because I think Andrew is becoming a real problem with his contrarian positions in AfDs and RfAs. Despite the gap of umpteen years since the last discussion for this list, it has still not been sourced and least of all by the one person who really insisted that it should remain, ie: Andrew. So how about you put up or shut up on this occasion? The issue of the caste system in Sikhism is already covered at various articles but trying to create a list of General Castes in Sikhism simply is not feasible and he hasn't shown it to be so either at the last AfD or at any time since. We've got to get a grip on such extreme inclusionism achieved through misplaced and/or misguided wikilawyering. - Sitush (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of improving the page this time around. But first we require enforcement of WP:BLANK which states "Repeated, unnecessary page blanking may get a user blocked indefinitely." I'm not volunteering my effort if Sitush is going to engage in blatant disruption and edit warring again. Andrew D. (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So improve it. You have a week and I will only be fixing your mistakes. I will drop you the standard caste sanctions alert in a few hours because your lack of competence in the subject area is well documented. - Sitush (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There hasn't been any repeated unnecessary page blanking, btw. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson:-Please provide diffs of unnecessary page blanking, in light of this policy and edit-warring or retract your accusations.~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sequence of events is

The AfD is closed as "no consensus"
5 mins later, Sitush blanks the page, leaving no content
another editor reverts this blanking as vandalism
Sitush repeats the page blanking
The blanking was reverted again and that's where we are now

Andrew D. (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None seems to be unnecessary, unless you choose to reject this policy.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking the page is disruptive because it doesn't leave any kind of framework for development. Consider the first entry in the list – Arora. This is a blue link and that's usually considered enough for most lists. If further sourcing seems needed then it is better to tag the entry with {{cn}} than to blank it because then readers can see what improvement is wanted. Finding a source in this case seems easy. For example, The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies says "Important Sikh occupational castes are Jat, Saini, Labana, Kamboj, Khatri, Arora,...". So, that source lists several such Sikh castes, and describes them as important. The topic thus passes WP:LISTN and improvement is just a matter of doing the legwork. Blanking is neither necessary nor helpful in this. Andrew D. (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again you show your lack of knowledge. What does being "important" have to do with being General Caste? Answer: nothing. The items have been unsourced for years and the only reason we are in this mess is because of your objections in the last AfD causing a "no consensus" outcome. If anything, you are the one who was disruptive. For what it is worth, despite all my years here, your mention of BLANK above is the first time ever I have seen it, which also suggests that you may be lawyering to an extreme, citing a very obscure guideline. - Sitush (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLANK is commonsense. If you don't see much mention of it, I suppose that's most editors know better than to do something so obviously disruptive and the ones that persist tend not to last long. You will also find similar guidance in our policy WP:PRESERVE which says "Instead of removing content from an article, consider: ..." Andrew D. (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've never seen PRESERVE either but, regardless, the bit of common sense that was needed here was for you to take aboard the comments of people who actually know something about the subject matter rather than fudge a no consensus outcome and then walk away from the mess you created. For what it is worth, I raised the state of this article on WT:INB a few days before it was nominated here. Don't suggest I don't try. - Sitush (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And you've been economical with the truth regarding the diffs provided above, as I noted here. Umpteen regular contributors over a three year period blanked the thing, presumably because of WP:BURDEN/WP:V. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at WT:INB was promising. I've been thinking along similar lines to Cesdeva who suggested broadening the scope by making the topic cover all "Castes in Sikkhism". Note that we have another relevant page which nobody else seems to have noticed: List of Other Backward Classes in Sikhism. These topics should obviously be considered as a set and brought together and doing so by merger would be consistent with WP:PRESERVE which lists such alternatives to deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is because you do not have a clue. There was a (correct) reason given for why it would not work, Cesdeva didn't respond, and in any event it is irrelevant to this AfD. Someone would have to start a new article under a new title. The other article is verifiable (although pointless) but this one is not even verifiable. Stop trying to squirm out of this mess you have created, admit you are wrong and let's move on. - Sitush (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to the most-important issue at hand, how do you equate "Important Sikh occupational castes" with General Caste? Original research?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought several good sources to this discussion whereas other editors just seem to be giving us their personal opinion. Andrew D. (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again you lie. Your sources do not discuss the matter at hand and you forget that N, OR and V are being rolled out against you. Disagree with me? Start using the sources, then: you've had several years already. - Sitush (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. It's pretty clear Andrew Davidson that you've pigeonholed yourself with your narrow article scope (and title). You've identified that there is a disparity between the teachings in Sikhism and the reality of the caste system. Maybe that's a starting point for a prose article instead of a list, i don't know. All i'm seeing is a dead horse getting beaten here though. Kind regards, Cesdeva (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-The first thing that strikes me is the inconsistency caste ≈ Hinduism so I am not getting where Sikhism enters the picture. If the title suggest that the people had a certain caste before changing over to Sikhism even then it does not merit mentioning. Also General caste is a generalization at its best which seeks to encompass all castes major or minor which do not fall into any of the governments benefit schemes. There is no formal definition of this General caste making the scope of this article truly ambiguous and thus gives a scope for pov warriors to exploit this article and add incorrect stuff — Frc Rdl 14:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Force Radical: Did you mean delete? Your rationale for keeping looks like a rationale for deletion. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)~~ FR has now corrected. - Sitush (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The official government website for India should have this information on it. https://data.gov.in/search/site?query=caste You can download documents to search through if you wish. That'll prove which caste exists. I see" Population by Religious Community for Scheduled Caste (Each Caste Separately)". Different caste I know, but searching around might find the right one with the information required. Dream Focus 18:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. There is no list. I am getting really fed up of the Article Rescue Squadron people here: clueless, as at every past caste-related discussion. See my first two threaded replies to Andrew Davidson above. - Sitush (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't tagged for Article Rescue, that not why I'm here. And I simply assumed if they list some caste and their religion, they'd surely list the others somewhere as well. That's not being clueless, just common sense, their census should record this data somewhere. Dream Focus 20:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. How many more times must I say this? You're just demonstrating some weird sort of systemic bias, making assumptions about how India should do things. If all you can do is speculate or produce irrelevant sources, as AD has done, then you're just wasting your own time and, worse, that of others. Please also note that the Indian reservation system is not, in the strictest sense, based on caste anyway. There are plenty of communities with reserved status who are not castes. - Sitush (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: Both the explicit keep !vote and the user to whom you are replying do have a systemic bias, but it's not the one you seem to think; they auto-vote "keep" in AFDs. Best just ignore them or this will be closed as "no consensus; default to keep" because the back-and-forth became too WP:TLDR for outside commenters to bother. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that is what they do then they should be banned from AfD because they're disrupting to make a point. Caste AfDs often attract little attention and that makes such actions particularly disruptive, as evidenced in the prior AfD for this list: it is too easy to get a no consensus outcome, regardless of how much I write. - Sitush (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Total nonsense. I thought I was being helpful here, pointing where people who wanted to spend more time searching about could find information if it existed. I did not say "Keep" at all. I do not auto-vote Keep, ever. Most of the articles tagged for ARS I never participate in at all. Kindly assume good faith and stop spreading the same ridiculous lies every chance you get. Dream Focus 21:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Re-read my comment. I never said you had !voted "keep" in this AFD, and in fact in two out of three of my comments I specifically stated that there had only been one explicit "keep" !vote (not yours). What I said about you was that you tend to auto-!vote "keep" in a lot of AFDs, as can be seen in the evidence below:

Evidence requested; evidence given.

here, you !voted based on a nonsense equation of Shakespeare's "Dark Lady" with the "Dark Lord" of modern fantasy fiction, then tried to justify yourself by doing a Google News search and linking the first source you found that used the two words in sequence, apparently without reading the source yourself;
here, you !voted "keep" but then when presented with the evidence decided to unilaterally delete everything in the article, rename it, change its focus to somehing completely different, and then pretended the article had always been about that while never withdrawing your initial !vote apparently on principle.
That's just the last month: while looking around to see if you had ever gotten in trouble for copyright violation before, I noticed that your user page is linked to from well over 10,000 WP:-namespace pages, many of them AFDs; I checked a few (nowhere near them all, mind) to see if you had defended any of the articles against copyvio claims, and while I didn't find any of that, I did notice that you hadn't !voted "delete" in a single one of them. You know your own record better than I do: can you link to any from the last ten years in which you were in favour of deletion?

Anyway, here you may not have explicitly !voted, but a comment that does not say "keep", "delete", "merge", "redirect" or "userfy" but does essentially amount to "Sources probably exist" could easily be read as "Keep", especially given how you recently told editors to read "behind" your comments to establish whether you supported or opposed another content proposal.

As an aside, please retract your baseless personal attack stop spreading the same ridiculous lies every chance you get. I have never lied a single time in my interactions wih you; accusations without evidence (ditto your completely off-topic "hounding" accusation here) are personal attacks and are completely unacceptable.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know anything about this topic, but the same is clearly true of others, and that has apparently not stopped them from !voting "keep" based on the principle that sources discussing this probably exist and that the topic as exemplified in the page title must not be inherently biased/flawed to the point where nothing in the page history is worth preserving. Based on the apparent lack of sources, I'm working under the assumption that the India-focused editors, who have so far all commented in favour of deletion, know more about Indian topics than the AFD-focused editors, who have so far all commented in favour of keeping. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Other Backward Classes in Sikhism to form an article called "Castes in Sikhism". Also I'd like to remind everyone to be civil. Acebulf (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Won't work. In fact, the proposed merge target should be deleted also for the reasons I gave in my early responses to AD. There is an infinite number of communities (ca. 1800 identified by the British, now over 3200 because anyone can "create" a caste simply by calling themselves one; some only last a few years and then give up), not all communities affected by the reservation system are castes, anyone in any community can profess any religion they choose, and we've already deleted List of Indian castes (which lies dormant in AD's userspace ever since the AfD). An utterly pointless, impossible to maintain list that will merely serve as a honeypot for warring that, frankly, about three experienced contributors will be expected to manage. - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(In case anyone is unfamiliar, the page is currently at User:Colonel Warden/List of Indian castes, Colonel Warden being an alt-account of Andrew Davidson. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, then, as this debate seems to have been settled in the AFD for list of Indian Castes. Acebulf (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the numerous reasons stated by me above. - Sitush (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sitush. PhilKnight (talk) 23:51, 5 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. Materialscientist (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nurdin Rijal Ardhi[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Govvy (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY. NZFC^(talk) 15:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:40, 27 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) 10:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sar Cheshmeh, Khuzestan[edit]

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

I can't read the spreadsheet which seems to indicate that the place has no population, but GEONames points to a location that appears to be entirely ruined, if the aerial photography is to be believed. I'm willing to believe in a village if a census gives it a population, but according to the article, the census doesn't. I don't see how we can claim that it's a village when evidences suggests that at best it might once have been a village, maybe back in the days of Cyrus the Great. Geographic names databases are not good enough as sole sources for articles (they have too many mistakes); that and a census which apparently doesn't have a number just isn't enough. Mangoe (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (probably),if it ever was inhabited. WP covers the past as well as the present DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we can't claim that it IS a village when evidence shows that, at best, it may have been a village. If someone can address the issue of what exactly the census says, that might help. But simply dumping GNIS and names from a census together isn't good enough evidence. Mangoe (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it was certainly a village at once time, and the census data notes this and gives a name. But it's not a going concern, there is nothing there now except ruins. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG Chetsford (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like we have WP:V satisfied, but I don't know what the policy is on places, so it's hard to know how to weight the various arguments made here so far. Most of them sound perilously close to WP:ILIKEIT vs. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It would be useful to the next person who tries to close this if somebody could research our policy regarding notability of extinct towns and provide citations to the appropriate policy pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: the WP:GEOLAND policy basically says all inhabited places are presumed notable, this can be coupled with guideline that notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP). Therefore any place which was once inhabited is presumed notable. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prince of Thieves and DGG. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment I would be perfectly happy to have an article which could say, "Sar Cheshmeh, Khuzestan was once a village, but there are only ruins there now." The problem is that saying it "is" a village is something that everyone who is responding here admits isn't true. So the argument is that we need to keep an article whose content we know is false. I just don't see that. If someone who can read the census can tell us exactly what it's saying about this place, that would help, but that is apparently not going to happen. Mangoe (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The census lists it as a place, but of unknown type (town/village unspecified) and with a population of 0. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:43, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonica Dan[edit]

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

Nothing to support WP:Music or WP:GNG. London Hall (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A journeyman who bops around the Philadelphia scene; most of the media mentions to be found on him are WP:ROUTINE coverage of his appearances at other people's gigs and occasional guest spots on other people's recordings. The article looks like an attempt at WP:PROMOTION and has in fact been directly copied to other promotional platforms like this: [11]. He has earned some word-of-mouth namedropping among Philly hipsters, but not enough for a Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not an encyclopedic article, just a promotion. Deletion may not be cleanup, but no indepth sources exist to even help consider if this is a notable musician.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per two votes before this one, this is a promotional page for a guy with no notable coverage. Srt8 Outta Philly (talk) 20:33, 4 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! 05:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aagentah[edit]

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

Created by an SPA that fails WP:MUSICBIO. Sources are limited to social media and music hosting platforms. MT Train^Talk 14:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Author Update: Issue has been acknowledged, excessive social links have since been removed and notable magazine & label sources have been added to compensate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjones mcr (talk • contribs) 17:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 3 refs left which don't establish notability. Szzuk (talk) 20:01, 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! 05:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaivindra Singh Bhati[edit]

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

Non notable director. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:DIRECTOR. Sources listed are not WP:RS. A WP:BEFORE could not find anything which warrants an article Hagennos^Talk 14:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is about a non notable film which fails WP:NFILM and associated with the topic:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hagennos^Talk 14:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hagennos^Talk 14:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hagennos^Talk 14:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both no evidence of notability. The coverage in Hindi media does not provide notability under WP:FILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:38, 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 delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TopCashBack[edit]

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

Random online deal site, most edits by WP:SPAs, all cited sources are obvious press releases and Google offers nothing better with which to replace them. Appears to fail WP:CORP. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Top Cash Back is a major cashback site in the USA and UK. While the article can use substantial improvement, TopCashBack.com is consistently featured heavily in a major news organizations: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=topcashback.com. FirstDrop87 (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the first block, every single one was clearly based on a press release. Can you suggest individual articles that are (a) reliable, (b) independent and (c) secondary? Also, were you solicited to take part in this debate? I notice it's only your second edit this year, well over a year since you last took any interest in AfD, and you have never edited this article. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. Sourcing is mostly WP:SPIP, resulting in a highly promotional article, violating WP:NOT. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, article written like an ad and is promotional, fails WP:SPIP, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:51, 5 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Kangaroo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

After I toned down the spam, there's not much beyond a directory entry. No evidence of meeting WP:CORP and almost all coverage is basically recycled press releases. Article was written by a burner account and largely maintained by a WP:SPA. I am calling spam. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:53, 5 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) 00:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adorama[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP by a wide margin, the only actual coverage of the company as a company is a human interest piece in relation to its adherence to orthodox Jewish practice in its opening hours. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:08, 6 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. Michig (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ayogu Kingsley[edit]

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

Failing WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources are about Kingsley. Fails WP:BLP and WP:CREATIVE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Source found in the article and in a search are very weak mentions in largely unreliable publications. Does not meet GNG or ARTIST.104.163.148.25 (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. As stated by Kudpung, all the sources listed doesn't mention him and the only place his name appears is a passing mention on This Day saying he won some cash. Zazzysa (talk) 22:46, 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! 05:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swastika Dutta[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources to support this subject passes WP:NACTOR. MT Train^Talk 12:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's coverage in Indian news sources. Karl Twist (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find more than passing mentions in a local tabloid. MT Train^Talk 10:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see no evidence that any of her roles are "significant", and so far, no reliable sources have been found that discuss her life and career at any length. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's coverage in Indian news sources. And all sources are real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakhi Das (talk • contribs) 15:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Rakhi Das (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Note: The creator has been blocked by a check user for sock-puppeteering. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:34, 4 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) 00:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam-C[edit]

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

I declined a speedy on this article on the basis that if it went through AFC and was accepted there, speedy deletion might be controversial. However, this does not preclude me from nominating it for deletion on the basis that except for a short mention on this possibly reliable source, there is no coverage in any reliable sources that I can find. The rest of the sources in the article are blog posts, user generated databases and Spotify/YouTube. He is not singed to a notable label and has no charting music either. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:NBIO. Regards So Why 12:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per my previous nomination as this subject is not even remotely close to being notable but makes no actual claim of significance and has significant BLPvios. The user that accepted this at AFC in their first 10 accepts moved 3 copyvios to mainspace and half a dozen spam/PR pieces so it's not like it actually went through afc...CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:17, 6 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wittard: Nemesis of Ragnarok[edit]

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

Article appears to have no sources in the webisphere. Coin945 (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Did you even look for sources? GamesIndustry.biz, Adventure Gamers (preview), and GameZebo have all covered it. JOE BRO 64 13:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw thanks to TheJoebro64's analysis. :)--Coin945 (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Life Office Management Association. Noting too that AfD is not for nominating articles to be merged. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOMA 280 Principles of Insurance[edit]

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

Merge with parent article as no evidence of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Life Office Management Association. I see nothing that ought to be merged. -- Whpq (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Life Office Management Association - nothing worth merging. PhilKnight (talk) 00:19, 6 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When Obama loved Osama[edit]

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

Crystalballing. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page move note. Page was moved to When Obama loved Osama after the AfD was opened. —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; "upcoming" is the magic word. If the authors genuinely feel there's anything here worth keeping, I wouldn't object to temporarily parking it in noindexed draft space for three months until the film is released, and restoring it if and when someone can demonstrate non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. ‑ Iridescent 21:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (at least for now). Principal shooting has started, but I'm not seeing in-depth coverage of the film yet. WP:NFILM cautions against creating articles for films before they're released; this looks like a case where we should wait until the film is released before creating the article. If there were substantial coverage of the production—which I don't see cited in the article currently—then that would change. For now, though, it's too soon for an article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. I agree with the above reviewers; there's not a substantial amount of coverage and it appears that there's no coverage of the production, which would give it notability before its release. That being said as well, I also don't see anything of substance in the article as it is, and I worry, is the plot possibly a copyright violation? It reads like a promotional bit of material. Red Phoenix ^talk 22:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks like it - text is the same as at https://www.socialnews.xyz/2018/02/23/obama-loved-osama-complete-laugh-riot-deal. Tacyarg (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as others have said, "upcoming"; very little information about it as of yet, and the article is also very vague and appears to be slightly promotional in spots. Although this does seem to be WP:DAFT material, just saying. 65 HC A7 23:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hate to be repetitive, but it's not notable yet. There's also little to the article besides a promotional tone. Ira Leviton (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft or Sandbox as this is upcoming, we can preserve the efforts of the creator by moving this to a venue where the creator can edit this page when the time comes. Elektricity (talk) 12:09, 5 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. Michig (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland's Malt Whisky Trail[edit]

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

This is simple advertising. It has no merit as a subjec and no notability. All the refs are affiliated advertsing sites. This is a simple and understandable ploy to get punters into distilleries and buying Whisky. It fails WP:GNG by a mile (and it doesn't include the Islay and Skye distilleries!) Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment There is a lot of tourist coverage of this, and interestingly, there is also some coverage of it as a marketing tool. I'm going to take a look at the latter and see if it can be incorporated in the article. But yes, it's a marketing thing. Mangoe (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found a paper with good historical info which can be used to counterbalance the current promotional tone. Mangoe (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, afd appears to have been triggered by this edit, there may be WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:COI issues here, do appropriate tags/notices need to be left on article talkpage and SpeyMWT talkpage? Coolabahapple (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have added travel and tourism project tag to this article's talkpage so project participants are aware of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, this is a well known tourist route, having been established in the 1950s, lots of travel articles discuss it ie. The Yorkshire Post - "Travel review: The 'Cotswolds of Scotland'", Bournemouth Daily Echo - "Travel: The Craigellachie Hotel, the perfect base for a weekend in Speyside", Forbes - "Two Perfect Days on Scotland's Malt Whisky Trail", CNN (no, not "CNN...NN":)) "12 of the world's most enticing food and drink trails", The Daily Telegraph - "Learn about whisky and other drinks in Scotland" (may be deemed advertorial?), its discussed in Frommer's - see here, Rough Guides - see here, International Journal of Wine Marketing - here and here. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, apologies if the edits weren't great - first timer! This is the world's only Malt Whisky Trail though BBC - "Exploring Scotland's historic whisky trail", and based in Speyside, that's why it doesn't include whiskies from Islay and Skye (completely separate areas in Scotland). There are also pages on Wikipedia for other trails such as Kentucky Bourbon Trail, American Whiskey Trail. SpeyMWT (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)— SpeyMWT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep and improve, clearly notable per WP:GNG with plenty of coverage online in WP:RS, as noted by User:Coolabahapple and User:SpeyMWT above. User:SpeyMWT should nevertheless refrain from editing on this subject, due to the obvious WP:Conflict of interest. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, as this is a notable whisky trail of long many years and well covered by the media sources. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The importance of this trail seems pretty well established from a tourism perspective. Lots of coverage to pick from. I liked that it appeared in this tourism story from 2014. Passes WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a well known trail and a search would suggest there has been enough media coverage of it over the years to justify notability. Dunarc (talk) 21:31, 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! 06:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Tréguer[edit]

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

doesn't seem to be notable enough NAH 10:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to La Quadrature du Net or delete. He is quoted in some sources such as [12], [13] and [14], but I could not find any detailed coverage in independent sources. Gulumeemee (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True. But I don't really see the point of the redirect. NAH 11:48, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Government High School Thari MirWah[edit]

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

of the hundred thousands of government schools in Pakistan.. i don't see how this one pass notability.. too much OR in the article and no reliable and independent reference. Saqib (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unfortunately, there's not much of value here. —AnAwesomeArticleEditor (^talk
_contribs) 22:57, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shadab Rasool Buriro[edit]

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

no in-depth coverage and no press coverage over sufficiently significant period of time.. this is WP:BLP1E. Saqib (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear case of WP:BLP1E. Störm (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. samee ^talk 15:06, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Nawaz Awan[edit]

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

failed to find in depth coverage.. Saqib (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough to pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:52, 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 and redirect to Salman Khan#Philanthropy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Basit (Salman Khan fan)[edit]

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

clear case of WP:BLP1E Saqib (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MT Train^Talk 13:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on Salman Khan. This article is about somebody who is clearly labelled as a Salman Khan fan, so all the information on this person could go there. Vorbee (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does not make sense. Salman Khan has literary million of die hard fans including many prominent... what so spiecal about mentioning about this one on his bio? Saqib (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He does such gestures regularly as part of his Being Human Foundation, with several hundreds of 'fans'. MT Train^Talk 16:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect all essential information is already available in Salman Khan article at §Philanthropy. samee ^talk 15:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Salman Khan#Philanthropy as the info is already there and the article by itself is not notable enough. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:48, 5 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) 00:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awami Raaj Tahreek[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:GNG. most of the cited sources doesn't mention it. the rest are unreliable including fake BBC Sindhi.. this one is not registered party and certainly not the one created by Jamshed Dasti, as said in the previous AfD. Saqib (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources here all support the notability of a prior organization that this one claims to be the successor to — but none of them properly verify that this organization exists as a successor to it, because they completely fail to mention it at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:28, 6 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) 00:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ann M. Dibb[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ann M. Dibb

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

This subject fails the basic criteria of notability, WP:BASIC. Firstly, a person is presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. These sources provided are not intellectually independent of each other, they are internal publications of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, reporting on their own internal appointments. Secondly, in any case, the depth of coverage of these sources is not substantial, and qualifies as trivial coverage of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sansumaria (talk • contribs) 08:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - The vast majority of google news results for Dibb are about her father, Thomas S. Monson. There are exceptions, such as this, which are profiles related to her position as second councelor of Young Women (organization). Her profile or coverage may grow, but right now I don't see enough material for a clear, NPOV biography. I think improvement is posible and would approve of re-creation if better sources are found. I'm not sure how high of a profile she is that a redirect to Monson or Young Women would be helpful. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see decent sourcing coming out of the Mormon church, but that is of no use in terms of notability as she worked for the church and it is therefore not independent. I can barely see a claim of importance here-- she's important... why? When you put those two together I do not see notability being established by sources, and I do not see the reason for her inclusion in the encyclopedia either.104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:33, 5 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! 06:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Faizan Sarkar[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:BIO. MT Train^Talk 08:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sufficiently notable. Even the campaign as such is questionable notabilitywise. 13:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Satisfy WP:BIO. Aizan.Hadi^Aizan.Hadi 08:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aizan.Hadi^Aizan.Hadi 19:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Sufficiently Notable Personality, there are even more evidences which can be shared if required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aizan.hadi (talk • contribs) 14:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC) — Aizan.hadi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. MT Train^Talk 07:10, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suman Kumar Kasturi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A CV (including full publication lists and education details) of an author with no indication of wider impact, coverage, or notability of either works of person; sources are either primary or irrelevant. Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:NACADEMIC. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This CV was deleted last August. The only difference is that there are now a total of 3 citations instead of just 1. Agricola44 (talk) 16:19, 27 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upasana RC[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs are affiliated sources, advertisments or press release. Mothing that identifies notability. Fails WP:GNG. Would have been better as a draft going through review when these issues might have been identified before abruptly transitioning into mainspace Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry , but mainstream newspapers are considered as reliable sources right ? Deccanchronicle is a mainstream newspaper. Published Wiki pages of the movie have the actor listed as well. I may be wrong here , can you please let me know if these are not considered as reliable source as wiki guidelines lists them as reliable source . Chiraag7 (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliability depends on context, Chiraag7. The three pieces cited from Deccanchronicle are firstly obvious press releases, as opposed to genuine newspaper articles, and secondly they don't help with notability, as they are primarily about other subjects, and only mention Upasana in passing. And other Wikipedia pages are never reliable sources, I'm afraid. Bishonen | talk 08:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or move to draftspace. Bishonen | talk 08:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
- I agree to your concern, but all the actors pages that exist are based on the some article being printed . All actors pages that exist have the same problem , i am not taking about big names, but the small ones, eg "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aanchal_Munjal" or "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chetan_(actor)#References" these pages exists without any problem , they have the same references. i can show you many more pages like that on wikipedia . I am not sure how you differentiate between genuine newspaper article and press release, the articles are about movies and they mention about the cast. If you say wikipedia pages are not reliable , then why are all these references validated . I mean no offense , i am just trying to understand what exactly are you looking for ? Chiraag7 (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for improvement through WP:AFC as most of the text is not referenced and the pageant link is a dead link. Only referenced material should be included. However, she has had prominent roles so should be notable in due course Atlantic306 (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your input , that pageant link seem to have shifted to a new domain , i have corrected the same. Also i have added one more article from the "The Hindu" which is about her and also mentions that she has done 5 films so far. I think that newspaper is reputed enough to confirm the same. Let me know your inputs on the same . Chiraag7 (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an obvious promotional effort, supported by sources that are obviously promotional in nature. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify quite notable, only not well referenced. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:46, 5 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! 06:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Mew[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, we don't do articles based on fan art with minimal coverage. Much of this can be merged into the artist's article. -- Alex^TW 07:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to Jenny Parks this is the piece she's best known for. That article has a lot of problems too. I support deleting both both, and all the other articles like Catvengers and Star Trek Cats that we're going to see about (God forbid) every other cat piece she makes that gets featured on catster and neatorama.com Delete as promotional. Mduvekot (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As with all the other cat painting articles, into Jenny Parks. They are all an epic fail of WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BOMBARDMENT, including her article itself._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, none of the above editors have addressed whether the citations in the "Reception" section are useable for notability (i suspect not), "well why don't you coola?" yes i could but my cat bias (i luv dogs too:)) might show, plus its doctor who! Coolabahapple (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Normally coverage on the Pets Lady blog clinches it for me. (Not.) I find this article to be more of an advertisement for a single, silly, work done by an artist than a good encyclopedia article. The coverage is there but if this were about a person we would say that it all centers around one event.104.163.148.25 (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shealeigh[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. Most of the secondary sources used are dead links. I failed to locate significant coverage of reliable sources. Shealeigh has performed a song on the Ellen DeGeneres Show, but it appears to be the only claim to notability and per WP:MUSICBIO, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. She has also won first place in a singing contest but it doesn't look like a major music competition as it's more about "discovering new and unsigned artists". — Za wl 07:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources exist to pass WP:GNG: E.g., [15], [16], [17]--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 18:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 06:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added additional citations to the article, including two in-depth pieces about her in newspapers. The current article passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO (1, 9, 10) Lonehexagon (talk) 00:03, 5 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Dunk! Fest[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NALBUM Enwebb (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new source from Westword along with a quote about the performance's background. I think that and two other sources listed are reliable and nontrivial. CelestialWeevil (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the addition of the Westword source and its related background / quote allows this article to reach notability. CelestialWeevil (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 06:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Russian Circles. I respectfully disagree with the editor working on the article. The sources added, including Westword, are articles about the band in general that only mention this live album's release in passing. The album has not achieved independent notability in its own right, and its existence can be listed at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the position for redirect, but I still think there is some merit in the article. About half of the Westword article is directly about the live album, and there are a couple of pretty protracted quotes from one of the band members about the live album and its performance. Every other reference is wholly about the live album. CelestialWeevil (talk) 19:29, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deepen Shah[edit]

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

This NYT blog is the best source I can find, but it has a couple of quotes about him in an article about the company he co-founded. Seems to be some way off meeting WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 06:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Living theory approach[edit]

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

Basically a promotional article pushing for someone's theory with random articles as refs. RedUser (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 17:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 06:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is unquestionably a real thing, as the merest GScholar search shows. Maybe some WP:TNT is in order. Mangoe (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't an encyclopedia article. It's more like an essay. Perhaps, as Mangoe suggests above, this is a real thing and we just need WP:TNT, but if that's the case, delete whatever we've got now and allow recreation of a better-written and sourced replacement. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 6 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! 06:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tushar Kanti Barua[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG, and his citation count is pretty anemic (a high of 44), so he doesn't appear to pass WP:NSCHOLAR. Unless being a fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute of GB & I auto qualifies someone (but I don't think it does). And we'd need a source showing that assertion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TNT. There are no sources, meaning the whole, long article is OR. A SPA has written/nurtured this article for a long time, suggesting COI. Anyhow, this person may be notable, but I don't think it's worth much investment at this time on the article in its current form. Need to start over. Agricola44 (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 00:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is archeology, not biology. Using citation statistics without considering the subject gives irrelevant conclusions. A citation count of 44 would be trivial for someone in experimental biomedicine, but other fields are different. It depends upon the citation density, the number of publications in the field in which things could be cited and the average number of citations in them. Archeology is noteworthy for having very restricted and specialized publication practices, more so than perhaps any other field, so this question has come up frequently. He's an antropologist as well, but working in a less-studied area, where the same publication statistics apply, so the figure is actually quite substantial for the field. He's been director of a museum, and Fellow of both the major US and UK societies in the field. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 06:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fellowship in the Royal Anthropological Institute (FRAI) would be a pass of WP:PROF#C3 but I can't find him in their directory [18]. And I can't find any evidence that the American Anthropological Association has or had Fellow as an elevated membership class in the sense of #C3 — they offer "fellowships" but that means funding for research visits, not an honor for distinguished research. With one well-cited publication ("Prestige and Culture: A Biosocial Interpretation") in which he is in a middle position among 15 co-authors, and everything else much farther down in citation counts, I can't see a pass for WP:PROF#C1 — yes, this subject has very different citation patterns than biomedicine, so we can't take this record as meaning that he isn't notable, but it also isn't evidence that he is. And directorship of the Ethnological Museum, Chittagong sounds significant but the article makes clear that it was only for a short term while the museum was still in its planning stages, long before it opened to the public. So I don't see a basis for keeping the article. But I'd be happy to change my mind if the FRAI or fellowship of the AAA can be confirmed, or if other evidence of notability turns up. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm curious about these "very restricted and specialized publication practices", DGG. I thought we published in monographs and journals, like most social scientists. Citation rates do vary from field to field, but 30–40 is middle of the road for archaeology (see e.g. random papers on the Chalcolithic), and there's still only a few of those showing up on a GScholar search. He's not actually an author of the one highly cited paper that David mentions – Current Anthropology confusingly lists all the people who commented on a paper amongst the authors. And the article itself doesn't make a strong case for impact; the "most important" papers it lists are mostly conference proceedings.

For WP:PROF#C3, even if it could be verified, RAI fellowship is not very selective and I don't think it would qualifiy. Similarly membership of the AAA is open to anyone and as far as I'm aware they don't have fellows as such.

In terms of positions, I can't see how a short stint as director of a provincial museum indicates notability. The career history in the article is confusing (and again – all unverifiable), but it seems his highest position was docent at Zurich, which is not suggestive of notability either.

And we shouldn't ignore the fact that this is a poorly written, promotional and completely unreferenced BLP. Inclusions like the marks he got on his university exams and his disagreements with his bosses at the museum strongly suggest a COI. So even if the subject were notable, this is a WP:TNT candidate if I ever saw one. – Joe (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for the GS search, I don't know how you analyzed it, but you must have been looking at the first few screens only, and they are shown in rough citation order. there are 23,000 items there indexed with that word--only the first 6 screes show papers with more than 40 citations -- there are only about 60 papers out of that 23,000 with 40 or more. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well famously citation rates have a very long-tailed distribution and up to 80% of papers aren't cited at all. Honestly I don't know of a good way to objectively assess citation rates by field (other than broad data like this). I was trying to think of a way to back up my gut feeling (as somebody in the field) that 40 cites in archaeology is "good but not great". It does make me wish we had some more solid metrics for WP:PROF#C1. – Joe (talk) 19:02, 5 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! 06:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wartaqooqan[edit]

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

Maybe this one is an intermittent lake? Geonames just calls it a locality, and nobody else disagrees, but again, if we can't say what kind of place it is, I don't see inherent notability: Geonames alone just isn't reliable enough. Mangoe (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 00:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposedly an unpopulated locality, I looked on google maps and the entire region is barren desertlike ground with no real features nearby other than this lake and an empty road that doesn't even get that near. It is possible it was at some point it was the centre of a community that has since been wiped out, stolen or moved somewhere else. It could plausibly be a nomadic town, which was camped somewhere else at the time of the photograph but may come back with the seasons. (an intermittent town?). It may be a governmental region or some kind of designation by whatever government Somalia has now (assuming it has one) or a designation used by a previous government or maybe a local warlord, or the name of an African tribe that used to live there, or their tribal lands. Or the name of a deity that is supposed to live there. But really who knows? It could be anything. I am pretty sure a UFO landing site could get into these databases. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I have stated before, as this place exists, hence it should be kept. The problem the nominator seems to have is that it is not defined. However this dilemma is a combination of the weakness of the Somali government, as well as a fear by organizations that could have mapped these areas to go near to them. Admittedly there is a dearth of information, due to stubborn facts on the ground. However this reality should not make us resort to nuking mention of these areas. This part of the world is already lacking in info as it is. Why make it worse by deleting whats there? 92.9.152.17 (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is no proof it exists. The only mention is in a database which is known to include errors, and my entire first comment is pure speculation. There is absolutely nothing there in reality other than a seasonal lake. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 06:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I even ran it through Google Translate to see if it could get any more specific: "Broken Camp." The decimal degrees seem to me suggest it may be within 2-3km of the actual point on the map, which is incredibly unhelpful in determining its existence. Only sources seem to reference the same database WP references. I'm happy to delete without prejudice if we can establish more information, but it's doubtful based on the available sources at the moment. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:25, 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 Merge to various places. There's pretty good consensus here that most of these don't need stand-alone articles. There's a bit of a WP:TRAMWRECK here, which makes it difficult to figure out which ones fit into most.

The general opinion seems to be merge somewhere, but there's no good agreement on exactly how that merge should work. User:DanTD's scheme seems logical, but I'll leave the details up to whoever performs the merge. Leave redirects behind in all cases.

Lastly, if anybody can identify particular stations which are indeed notable on their own, feel free to break them back out into their own (properly sourced) article. Just don't take that as carte blanche to revert them all. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

36th and Market station[edit]

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

This page, along with numerous others, depict small stops along SEPTA's Subway-Surface Lines. The majority of these above-ground stops have no physical facilities or shelter, no curb, and only merely a small sign. It is nothing more than a bus stop, which I do not believe makes it notable enough for each stop to have its own page. Additionally, the stop pages are all stubs -- there is no content that cannot be displayed in a station list for the line. I would propose further to delete all above-ground non-major "stations" in the category Category:SEPTA Subway–Surface Trolley Line stations. — C16SH (speak up) 06:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these were recently created and are not notable on their own, and we don't typically list non-notable tram stops. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am also nominating the following related pages under the same rationale. — C16SH (speak up) 06:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into a listicle, with short sections for each station. This also raises the question of San Francisco's Muni Metro system, which has a lot of stub articles for its surface stops (which appear similar to these SEPTA stops...no signage, no platform). Toronto has a similar system but its streetcar stops are not given separate articles. Sounder Bruce 07:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If this goes, the three below should go as well. If the articles go, all surface MUNI Metro stops should go as well, since those are all stubs with copy-paste info/sources as well. (We just need to make sure the gps coords stay intact in some way.) Cards84664 (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the non-notable above-ground Subway Surface station articles listed above. Only the articles about the stations in the tunnel or the major terminal/loop stations should be retained. Most of these articles aren't really stations but rather just a sign on the sidewalk the trolley stops at. Dough4872 14:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment San Francisco's Muni Metro (and Boston's Green Line, which is similar) are considered light rail, which is a big step above trolleys like this. If these articles go, it doesn't necessarily follow that either of those must. Light rail stations are generally notable. Trolley stations generally are not. (San Francisco does have trolley stations, which are not notable and do not have articles, but this is separate from the Muni Metro.) And judging by the photos, the Muni Metro stations do have platforms and signage, unlike these. Smartyllama (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the SEPTA articles in light of my above comments, but I would object to deletion of the Muni Metro articles if they were nominated. Light rail systems and trolley systems are not the same thing. Smartyllama (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: What does that have to do with anything? Both Muni and Septa have some stops with platforms, and some without. They both have articles with copy paste info. A majority of articles for both are stubs. Cards84664 (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cards84664: Being a stub isn't a reason for deletion. And Muni includes way more than the Metro. All the Metro stations have platforms, as best I can tell. Many of the Muni stations in other modes (like the actual trolley, which the Metro isn't) do not. If you have evidence to the contrary, show it. Smartyllama (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: Can you clarify what you're asking for? I think you're getting Septa and Muni terminology mixed up. Cards84664 (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cards84664: Muni Metro is light rail according to the Wikipedia article on it. Light rail stations are generally notable. The SEPTA articles in question are trolleys, which are several steps below light rail in terms of significance. The Trolleybuses in San Francisco are also maintained by Muni, but are not part of the Metro. Muni's the controlling transit authority, the San Francico version of SEPTA. They operate notable stations and non-notable ones, depending on the mode. Light rail and trolleys are simply not equivalent. I believe light rail is referred to as trolley in some parts of Europe, but in the United States, trolleys refer to another, less notable mode of transportation. Smartyllama (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, we don't need to keep any stop which is just a stop (e.g. a sign and possibly a seat and/or shelter). We only keep actual stations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Smartyllama: Besides your opinion, what makes trolley stations less notable than light rail? Both of these systems have a subway. Both systems have some stops with platforms: here and here. Both systems have some stops without platforms: here and here. Both systems have an electric overhead wire. In the above discussion, Dough4872 mentioned that most of the SEPTA surface stops are just signs on a sidewalk. Note that most of the muni surface stops are just yellow stripes on a pole. Just because the vehicle looks older, doesn't mean the notability is any different. (While in transition, the GCRTA once used PCC streetcars and Breda Light rail vehicles at the same time.) Cards84664 (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm striking my above !vote and changing it below in light of this. Smartyllama (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Cards84664 pointed out, some of these stations are significant, while others may be less so. Nominating them all en masse is not a solution. If anyone has reasons why any individual station is non-notable, they can nominate it individually, but simply saying as a blanket statement that every single surface station is non-notable regardless of its significance in the system is clearly wrong. Smartyllama (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided We need to decide if only some are notable, or none are notable (i.e. stops/stations on private right-of-ways here and here. Cards84664 (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: Another note, in terms of stop notability, what should be done with the DC Streetcar articles? Cards84664 (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know. I don't know the system. But if its stops aren't real stations then they should be deleted too. This is our standard practice. There are thousands of tram stops in European cities and many thousands more former stops on defunct tram systems throughout the world that don't (and shouldn't) have articles for just this reason. They're no different from bus stops. No reason any favouritism should be shown to existing American tram stops. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Light rail is not the same as tram. Light rail systems are higher capacity and higher speed. Whether that matters for notability is a matter for discussion, but let's make sure we're coming at this with accurate premises, please. Smartyllama (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of that. But if light rail systems have street-running stops then they're not really operating as light rail systems in that section of the system, since by definition street-running cannot be at light rail speed - that requires an exclusive right of way - and the SEPTA Subway–Surface Trolley Lines and DC Streetcar do not appear to be classified as light rail systems in any case, so I'm not sure of the relevance to this discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest moving all SF Muni/light rail discussion to another venue, like WT:WikiProject Stations. Streetcar stops are probably not notable, and some systems are definitely straddling the line between streetcar and proper light rail, so it should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Sounder Bruce 07:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Sounds like a good idea to keep this page from getting too long, since the only differences between Septa, Muni and DC are the vehicles used. Cards84664 (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a list of SEPTA trolley stops, and redirect the articles there. If any of these stations becomes more notable in the future, then the previous content could also be used for context. epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was struggling to determine notability for every single station when proposing this deletion, but I think merging them into a list makes the most sense. — C16SH (speak up) 19:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the lists of trolley stops, except for the loops, portal-based stations, major stations, and termini. In other words Darby Transportation Center, Yeadon Loop (SEPTA station), Mt. Moriah (SEPTA station), 63rd and Malvern Loop (SEPTA station), Eastwick Loop (SEPTA station), Elmwood Carhouse (SEPTA station), Angora Loop (SEPTA station), 40th Street Portal (SEPTA station), 37th Street (SEPTA station), 36th Street Portal (SEPTA station), Sansom Commons/36th Street (SEPTA station), and everything underground should stay. I can consider the loops along SEPTA Route 15 as well, as any loops along any restored lines. 49th and Woodland (SEPTA station) should be kept under the condition that the connection to the Woodand Carhouse. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:10, 5 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 Balto (film)#Sequels. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Balto III: Wings of Change[edit]

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

Straight-to-video animation sequel without reliable 3rd party coverage, fails WP:NFILM. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Balto (film)#Sequels, where a sentence in that section has more about what this film is than this article alone. Nate • (chatter) 01:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Balto (film)#Sequels, as article is a massive copyvio and not notable as a stand-alone article. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kokhon Tomar Asbe Telephone[edit]

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

No indication of satisfying film notability. No independent coverage such as reviews. No in-depth coverage of film found on Google search.

May be conflict of interest. Author is also promoting lyricist Adhyaan. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico[edit]

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

Yet another county freeholder article with no source except her official biography [19]. And yes, the article was mostly copied and pasted from there. Otherwise fails WP:POLITICIAN. Rusf10 (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages of other Hudson County Freeholders for lack of notability and poor sourcing. Some, but not all of these articles also appear to be copied and pasted from the county website:

(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)

(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)

(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)

(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)- he's the county executive. Other than a NY Time's article about him losing in the Jersey City mayoral race, not much coverage of him either.

Delete as per nominator; there are a large number of articles about non-notable New Jersey politicians on here at the moment. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it happens elsewhere too (last year I nominated a large cluster of minimally sourced or unsourced small-town mayors from Quebec) — New Jersey's not unique in that regard, it just happens to be where somebody's actively undertaking a cleanup effort at the moment. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure - I'm just tired of writing the same delete statement over and over again! SportingFlyer (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the closer: As you'll see below, I support the deletion of all articles, including DeGise. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edited) Delete all. DeGise as county executive has minimal national news coverage, is more relevant that the others, so I was inclined to keep. The rest are strictly local politicians of local interest only with local sources only. However I was mistaken in my initial thoughts, and even DeGise seems to be a non-notable local politician. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Prince of Thieves and Enos733:- Thomas A. DeGise was never mayor of Jersey City, he ran for mayor and lost. A county executive really isn't any more notable than a freeholder, so I do think it is appropriate to bundle these.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain with facts not opinions why a County executive should be bundled with freeholders, which are not the same.Djflem (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I thought it said he was a mayor. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that DeGise is not similarly situated and should be included in a separate AfD, where the merits of his notability can be discussed individually. While DeGise may not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG, he is not just a "Hudson County Freeholder." --Enos733 (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Thomas A. DeGise. Mass nominations should only contain similarly-situated subjects. --Enos733 (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Refactoring comment as I misunderstood: DeGise was never the mayor of Jersey City, he just ran and lost. But being county executive is not an automatic notability boost, over and above anybody else on the freeholder board, in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG, and neither is having been a city councillor in Jersey City — but the sourcing for him isn't notably better than it is for any of the others (it's actually weaker than some of them.) The only evidence I see of "nationalized" coverage here is a single article from The New York Times — but that article isn't about DeGise, but rather merely namechecks his existence in coverage about the guy DeGise lost to in the mayoral race. And in the context of Jersey City, it represents local coverage within the NYT's local coverage area — but when a person's notability claim falls under one of those subject areas where we require nationalized rather than purely local coverage, such as city councillors and county executives, then they do not get a free notability boost just because they happen live in the NYC Metro and so their local coverage happens to be in The New York Times instead of The Palookaville Herald. It still represents local coverage, not wider coverage that inherently makes them more notable than other people who hold the same job, and get the same amount of local coverage, further away from New York City. And none of the others have any strong or well-sourced claim of notability at all either. To get over WP:NPOL, an officeholder at the county level of office has to show the substance and sourcing to support a credible claim that they're more notable than most other people at the same level — and that still holds true regardless of whether they were just a regular freeholder or an executive. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Thomas A. DeGise. Mass nominations should only contain similarly-situated subjects.Djflem (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment County executive and freeholder are not the same.Djflem (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if Degise is withdrawn, I'll AfD the article individually, as it does not appear to pass WP:POLITICIAN. SportingFlyer (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a waste of time to create a new AfD just for the County executive, if anyone wants to !vote keep for that one article that is fine, it can still be kept even as part of a group AfD. (as can any of the articles nominated here). Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:BUNDLE is a sloppy nomination and should be corrected.Djflem (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This procedural wikilawyering has to stop. You'd oppose all the deletions regardless of if they were done separately, so its really a moot point. County freeholder and county executive are two closely related positions and the sourcing in the DeGise article is not significantly different than the others.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to repeat myself and point out that it is perfectly acceptable to vote keep for just one of the article in a bundle. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You DO NOT know what I'd do, so don't make an ASSumption. Refrain. The Wikipedia:BUNDLE is a sloppy nomination and should be corrected, despite this edit to cover your tracks Djflem (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easy there! Calling me an ass does not further your point. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the bundling or that edit. The article was added to the nomination shortly after the nomination was made which is clearly how its supposed to be done as per WP:MULTIAFD. Just because you do not like the multiAFD process does not mean I cannot use it.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You DO NOT know what do not like. Refrain from such statements. Wikipedia:WDAFD is the correct procedure.Djflem (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WDAFD can't be used because several people have supported deletion of all the articles in this multiAfD, explicitly stating that the article in contention should be deleted, therefore it is not possible for Rusf10 to now withdraw it. Now as I keep saying, if you want it kept, then vote keep for that article! Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, even if I wanted to withdraw the nomination at this point all I could possibly do is withdraw my support for deletion, I cannot close the discussion and renominate since others have voted delete. That said, I am still standing by my original statement that the nomination was appropriate and is backuped by further evidence of WP:COPYVIO in many of the articles (possibly all, I haven't checked) including DeGise.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete remainder except for DeGise in this nomination (note this would be a procedural keep for DeGise). After a search for each nominee, the remaining subjects are county legislators and have only received local coverage of their work. Our precedents (per WP:POLOUTCOMES) is that local politicians must receive "national or international press coverage beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role." The problem I have with WP:BUNDLE is that a tendency exists to address entire categories of subjects without evaluating whether any subject may "a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits" (WP:MULTIAFD). (In addition, nominating more than one subject for deletion limits the ease of searching for information about each subject). In the present case, DeGise is a county executive, and not just a county freeholder. I do think that a county executive is more akin to a mayor because of their executive authority and should similarly be evaluated on its own merit (which is different than the usual outcomes of county legislators). Because of that, DeGise should have been nominated individually. --Enos733 (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's some confusion about the difference between a freeholder and county executive. Several counties in New Jersey do not have an executive, the freeholders choose a director among themselves instead to serve the same role.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense in general that there may not be a distinction in all cases (similar to mayors in a council-manager form of government). In the case of Hudson County the executive is directly elected by the people. --Enos733 (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both the freeholders themselves and the county executive are directly elected.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- A more through analysis of the DeGise article reveals it was largely copy and pasted from [20] which is a common theme of most of these articles. The website indicates that it is copyrighted material.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While it is convenient to use or ignore policy when it suits a preferred outcome it can be taken as a form of Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Active or tactic complicicy for the abuse of the policies, guidelines, procedures to which editors (to the best of their knowledge) adhere and upon which they rely is damaging to Wikipedia. A sense of propriety should prevail and not suffer for the sake of expediency.

One sees at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Cemetery (2nd nomination) User:Rusf10 was unable to use Wikipedia:WDAFD because it "woudln't be valid because people had already voted on the bundled nomination before I removed the second article." (demonstrating a understanding of the policy). Yet, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas J. Lynch Jr. with this edit User:Rusf10 did exactly that: withdraw the nomination of Joseph C. Irwin after someone had already voted on the bundled nomination, thus contaminating it. There was some consensus by editing to accommodate a correction of the error. Should the community afford User:Rusf10 the same consideration here? Despite User:Rusf10's shifting opinion that county executive and freeholder are the same (which they are not, and thus should not be bundled) and that s/he believes the error is a moot point (which it is not), I suggest that s/he be allowed the opportunity to fix this nomination by withdrawing the nomination for Thomas A. DeGise and, using proper procedure, do the right thing. (and trust, learn from the mistakes?)Djflem (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this goes too far, it might become a trainwreck. Then people could delete all the non-notable politician articles separately or in neat little packages according to the clear need for perfection. But it would be the same end result. I think Rusf10 is unlikely to use WP:IAR here regardless of pressure, but anyone can do a non-admin procedural speedy keep on that one article to remove it from the bundle. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was accommodation for Rusf10's WP:IAR at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas J. Lynch Jr., already a bad precedent. Allowing expediency to prevail over propriety here would be complicit, but gracious. Wikipedia:PROCEDURALCLOSE/KEEP on the one article would be proper procedure. (Give the other tainted nom a slide based on discussion).Djflem (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, but given the absolute disaster that occured when someone last got Rusf10 to "fix" his AfD bundle, it is completely reasonable to request that either Djflem does it himself or he gets another uninvolved party to do it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or even better, I posted on AN/I to get an admin to come over and deal with this whichever way is best. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I guess that was what had to be done because Djflem is not letting this go. Besides the fact that s/he is wrong here, repeating the same thing over and over again here is not helping anyone. As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas J. Lynch Jr., that's different, I withdrew my support for the nomination of one of the articles, the discussion was not closed and anyone who wants to vote to delete the article that I withdrew still could. Notice that I did NOT remove the deletion notice from Joseph C. Irwin for this reason (although someone else did). It was not WP:IAR--Rusf10 (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the question of inclusion in this AfD is not really relevant as all fail General Notability Guidelines and notability criteria for politicians and judges. I see only pedantic arguments that DeGise has a different title but largely similar function. There are no arguments that his article should be kept on its merits so running another AfD would be a waste of time. -- Wow! A situation that WP:IAR was actually designed for! Jbh ^Talk 16:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all None of them are notable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noification This nomination is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico requires attention.

Delete all- none of these are notable, and cries of "one of these is not like the others" do not really ring true. Reyk _YO! 15:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinction (http://wwww.hudsoncountyclerk.org/county-officials/):

Office	Branch	Term	Election
County Executive	Executive	4 years	At-large (county-wide)	Thomas A. DeGise
Freeholder Board of Chosen Freeholders	Legislative	3 years	One for each of 9 districts	District 1:Kenneth Kopacz District 2:William O'Dea District 3:Jerry Walker District 4:Joel Torres District 5:Anthony L. Romano Jr. District 6:Tilo Rivas District 7:Caridad Rodriguez District 8:Anthony P. Vainieri Jr. District 9:Albert Cifelli

Djflem (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt: So what? Are there any policy based reasons to keep DeGise? Is there any reason that you can put forward that his article would be kept at an individual AfD? If so make that argument. Otherwise the article will simply be put up for AfD, likely by the closer of this if it is 'procedural', and it will be deleted after seven more days and more wasted time. As far as the notability criteria for politicians and judges goes - much like a rose, an elected county official by any other name... Jbh ^Talk 14:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is a distinction without a relevant difference, and attempting to get the discussion shut down on this basis seems a lot like obstructionist wikilawyering. Reyk _YO! 10:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most or all. County-level officials generally do not meet NPOL. I won't comment on the one exception, as I have not reviewed it specifically. I suggest deleting all but that one for now, and then a separate nom for that as a stand-alone for more thorough review. Montanabw^(talk) 21:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except for McGise, which should be procedurally kept pending a separate AFD as it is a case that is different enough to the others so as to warrant closer examination. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Strong delete all We need to act expeditiously to remove all these articles on non-notable politicians from New Jersey. These articles were created on the assumption that holding the office of county freeholder was a sign of default notability. This is not the case, and so we need to move to remove these articles, which in some cases have somehow survived more than 10 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands, the wording is promotional. Deb (talk) 19:48, 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. J04n(talk page) 19:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Blumhouse Television anthology series[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article on this series, which has no title or writers at this time. The only press is coverage of the announcement of the partnership. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wait until it has a network and a title. Don't do 'untitled series' articles, please, it's a waste of time and resources when we actually have to move it. Nate • (chatter) 01:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a network: Hulu. It also has an airdate: October 2018. But I still understand the point being made here. Out of curiosity though, what "time and resources" are involved in moving a page? As far as I understand it, and I have moved pages before, all that is required is simply going to the move tab at the top of the screen and changing the title. I'm always open to learning from more experienced editors, so please accept my question in the genuine manner in which it was intended. BoogerD (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than that. We have to update all inline templates, along with the articles of cast, crew, networks and distributors as we roll by weeks without the show having a title but people signing on and confirmed in the entertainment media. An average move of that type with one editor takes two-three hours. So in our experience with television series and networks, it's better to have all the information ready to go when the show is announced with a title, cast and network (the airdate matters less as long as we have it in a certain quarter) than it is to be under an 'untitled' designation and have a lingering link that will get no traffic once the 'untitled' work gets a title. Nate • (chatter) 01:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That was a thorough and thoughtful response that one would expect from an experienced editor. I will take everything you have said into consideration. Have a nice evening. Cheers, BoogerD (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BoogerD, I see you have been on Wikipedia for 11 years! Here is my explanation for you. It will take three or four editors five to ten minutes to review this page and !vote on it. Let's say five editors at seven minutes a piece. This page without a doubt going to be deleted, so that makes 35 minutes of wasted editor time for something that actually should not be here in the first place. If the page was about a show that had aired and had reviews, then hey, no time wasted! It pays to follow policies. Hope that helps to explain things. Also, just logically speaking, if something does not exist yet, everything that can be said about it is promotional. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, ten minutes? To read an article that is a paragraph long? There is no guideline or anything in the manual of style that cites that a film or television show or special need have aired/been released or been reviewed in order to qualify for an article. I am certainly willing to follow the guidance of the community but I will defend my actions when someone is basing an argument on something not rooted in anything factual. Hope we can continue to edit together. Cheers, BoogerD (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources are purely promotion, and show does not even exist yet. Hello? Not notable if it has never been screened or reviewed. We are not a promotional site.104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources are from independent news organizations picking up on the notable news story of one of the top two major streaming services teaming with a major production company to produce a television series. If the sources were, as you put it, "purely promotional" then they would've been on an official Hulu website. I am willing to accept/listen to the argument that it might be premature to have an article for the series until there is are some producers/writers/stars attached. However, a film or television series or special does not have to have been released or reviewed to make it notable or worthy of inclusion in an article. Note the hundreds of pages for upcoming films, television series, and specials. You are right, Wikipedia is not a promotional website. Articles should be written in such a manner as to objectively cover notable subjects. They should be written by third parties not associated with the topic or those who would have a conflict of interest. That is not the case here. I would concede that the article may have been published slightly early. However, once more information is released it will certainly be worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Have a nice evening. BoogerD (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:Notability and WP:RS and also WP:CRYSTAL. For whatever reason, you are an 11 year veteran editor and do not seem to see how those policies apply here. You're on the losing end of the argument here, as above.104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for presuming that in the 11 years that I have been on here, as you kindly noted, I have not read read any of the policies, guidelines, or manual of style articles. I have actually. My point still stands. I'm not arguing that this specific article not be deleted at this moment in time. However, your assertion that a film or television show need be released or reviewed before an article is created is just patently untrue. Good night. BoogerD (talk) 07:27, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArtDaily[edit]

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

This article, about an art news website, does not cite a single source and reads mostly like a news release, especially in the History section. A Google search of the website's name does not reveal any secondary sources that might vouch for its legitimacy or even mention its name.

I stumbled upon the website through this article, which doesn't seem at all like a professional piece of news, to say the least. Furthermore, I find it suspicious that the site calls itself "ArtDaily.org" while actually having a ".com" URL.

Additionally, the article's creator, User:Jvillarl99, sounds like he could be the website's founder, Ignacio Villarreal, which, if true, would be a clear WP:COI and make the article a blatant piece of self-promotion.

I put a WP:PROD tag on the article, but it was removed by User:Kvng, who said, "Volumes of incoming links (mostly in refs) indicates this may be a reliable source and may be notable. Deleting would create a lot of redlinks and this does not improve things for readers."

If this article can't be sourced with WP:RS, IMO it needs to go, especially if its existence leads some WP editors to believe that this site is a WP:RS for their articles. Armadillopteryx^talk 02:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify at the very least it needs WP:TNT. Over 100 WP in-links though, normally through citing articles it has written. Could not easily find valid sources which discuss it. SportingFlyer (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I should have probably clarified in the nomination that viewing the ArtDaily article I linked up there is important, as it indicates the kind of "journalism" that passes on that site. Seeing that (and finding zero WP:RS to vouch for ArtDaily) is what led me to initally WP:PROD the article. Armadillopteryx^talk 12:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ keep for the benefit of readers. I know this is an unconventional keep reason but I do feel strongly about it and need to hear a practical (as opposed to policy) reason why this should be deleted. There are at least 100 articles on wikipedia that use this site as a source. Readers need to know that it is mostly based on press releases with minimal editorial control. I don't oppose replacing the content with something more WP:NPOV but we don't need to create the disruption of deleting first to do that. ~Kvng (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: The number of Wikipedia articles that cite ArtDaily is more than 100, but do you feel that that number that should be greater than 0? Would you, in good conscience, use it for your own articles? Keeping ArtDaily only because many pages presently link to it would seem to enable rather than correct the problem.

This site fails one of the fundamental criteria for being a WP:RS, which is to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Since you recognize that it is a publication "based on press releases with minimal editorial control," why do you prefer to keep its article instead of encouraging editors to re-source or remove claims that come from it? Given the lack of secondary sources that mention ArtDaily, we can't even source our own observation that the site lacks the resources to fact-check. Do you think that the encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia are helped or harmed by keeping this article, whose simple existence will be enough to lead some editors to believe ArtDaily is a reputable source? Armadillopteryx^talk 16:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really care how this one shakes out but do want to point out on the San Francisco museum of modern art page, one ArtDaily article has a link to this page and the other is a nonlink to ArtDaily.org. Shouldn't be all that hard to clean up if this page is deleted. SportingFlyer talk 22:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is presumably OK to use this site as if it were a WP:PRIMARY source (i.e. carefully). I think the encyclopedia is helped by having an article about this source. We can and should edit the article to remove any content that makes it look any more reliable as a source than it actually is. If we delete it, we'll leave 100 redlinks and readers will make their own divergent assumptions. ~Kvng (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In principle I wouldn't oppose keeping this article if we could find reliable secondary sources that mention ArtDaily (i.e. anything that could be used to source the article). But there don't seem to exist any such sources, so what content could the article contain? At the moment the only possibility seems to be to overwrite one wholly unsourced article with another wholly unsourced article. That solution wouldn't be acceptable per policy or even common sense, IMO. In fact, I think that if the article is deleted, the "A page with this name has previously been deleted" tag at the destination could easily include a short warning about using the site in articles. Creating red links would, hopefully, draw the attention of editors who have used ArtDaily as a source to that message. Personally, I always click (newly) red links to see what happened to pages I know used to exist.

As for considering ArtDaily a WP:PRIMARY, I don't think it quite falls under that category. It seems to author little to none of the content that it publishes, so we can't know where any given article on the site comes from. It could come from a source close to an artist, it could come from a gallery, or it could come from a random troll, as the example I've linked above seems to. I think the lack of oversight and editing there makes it impossible to categorize, even as an unreliable source :-/ Armadillopteryx^talk 15:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how a redlink could be an adequate warning to readers. A redlink would be better at drawing attention to the issue but would be worse than a bluelink at explaining what the issue is. ~Kvng (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just not seeing (or finding) independent source which could established notability. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did multiple Google searches, and there's no coverage that would indicate this site is in any way notable. Fails WP:GNG. And the reason is quite clear - it is a site built solely on copying and pasting selected press releases from news services. If you subscribed to Business Wire or Marketwired and set up filters for art-related keywords, you'd be able to replicate this site. It's not rocket science. I looked at the first few articles that link to this site and the incoming links are there because editors used this site as an unreliable source. Deleting this and causing redlinks would actually have the added benefit of alerting others to find alternate sources in all those other articles. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:00, 5 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! 06:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ivaylo Ivanov (criminal)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:PERP. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator: it's kind of unusual, but it didn't get a ton of coverage apart from the normal run of the mill news cycle. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Continuing coverage through 2015-6 in criminology literature - e.g. [21][22][23] - in addition to news coverage in 2008-2010.Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Editors please read these book sources. They are brief blurbs without any indepth analysis. Heck, the first one looks like exact text from this article or vice versa.

Delete - This is exactly what WP:NOTNEWS was meant for. There certainly has not been significant impact from this relatively small-time criminal and misrepresenting sources as done above will not make the subject any more notable. "Continuing coverage" are actually routine follow-ups after lapses in any material whatsoever.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

au contraire, WP:NOTNEWS applies to " routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities".E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you genuinely believe the news doesn't routinely report on crimes? Sad.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV. No fewer than 7 separate stories about Ivanov appeared in the New York Times over the course of three years, [24] several are INDEPTH stories. Similar in other New York area newspapers, srory also covered in national and international press including Bulgaria, Canada and Israel. It is likely that Nom's WP:BEFORE searches were hampered by the fact that the story is a decade old and there are several other people named Ivaylo Ivanov (including a footballer, a pastor, a corporate executive) who get their names into English-language media regularly, and perhaps hampered further by lack of access to a news archive (many of which are paywalled). However, using keywords in news archive search produces dozens of articles, (UPI Police find weapons in N.Y. apartment; "New York police evacuated several residential buildings after finding pipe bombs and a collection of guns in an apartment Sunday. Ivaylo Ivanov, 31, arrived at Long Island College Hospital shortly after midnight Sunday with a gunshot wound to the hand police later said was self-inflicted accidentally...") and the case is revisited in a number of academic books on hate crime, usually discussed as a type in a group with other cases a scholar is describing as similar in some specific way.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that this doesn't meet WP:PERP. Spray painting graffiti and making bombs are sadly routine. There were a few articles that came out during the events and ensuing trial, the NY Times article being the most notable publication, but it was routine coverage that you'd find in any copy of the Daily News. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:43, 5 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. Per changes made to article since nomination. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raw intelligence[edit]

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

Short and simple; Wikipedia is not a dictionary per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. If the article can be expanded to be an elaboration on term as opposed to just a definition, I would be willing to reconsider this nomination. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Provided, that is, the article could be more fleshed out as per Wikipedia standards.TH1980 (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect I actually created this by accident, if you check the history, when trying to post a talk page discussion about where the term should be redirected to. I'm thinking perhaps we could redirect it to Espionage#Methods_and_terminology and make a note about the term there? I'm just not sure if another article might be more appropriate. ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge It is one sentence long. Espionage is fine. Or put into draft space until it is fleshed out. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Let's put this factoid into another article, and add a redirect to there. —cnzx (talk • contribs) 04:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:DICTDEF fail. Or in this case - Wikipedia is not a FBI terminology glossary. Could be merged elsewhere. Could be expanded (beyond FBI specific scope). But as long as it is a one-line long FBI glossary term - it's a delete.Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC) Struck !vote per modification below.Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the term is widely used, it is used by the CIA and FBI, but not anywhere else. However it could be redirected to Research and Analysis Wing. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a significant concept in such affairs and it's easy to find sources such as:

Understanding the Intelligence Cycle
Leaders and Intelligence
Handbook of Scientific Methods of Inquiry for Intelligence Analysis

So, what we have here is a raw article – a stub. Per WP:DICDEF, these are commonly confused with dictionary entries and that policy explains how to tell the difference. Andrew D. (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect This is a DICDEF, which can easily be covered in the article suggested above.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge, as above, WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I have made a start on expanding the page so that the DICDEF issue is no longer relevant. @SamHolt6: is invited to please reconsider their nomination, as they suggested. Andrew D. (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew D.'s WP:HEY. Present article content and sourcinge establish notability, and DICTDEF has been addressed.Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is now a real article, passes the WP:GNG, and is not just a definition. Dream Focus 19:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that Andrew D. has greatly improved the article. Neutrality^talk 21:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no longer a dictionary definition and notable enough to meet GNG. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:51, 5 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) 19:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BGS National Public School, Hulimavu, Bangalore[edit]

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

Throughout its 8-year history, this article has been either extremely promotional (as it is currently), or less than three sentences long. It has never had any citations or sources, and it has questionable notability. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per long standing consensus on schools. Promotional tone is no reason to delete. There are enough sources to confirm its existence: 1 and 2, with mentions in other reputed sources as well. MT Train^Talk 09:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Had the nominator done a WP:BEFORE, they could've found more objective details of the school at the CBSE website. MT Train^Talk 09:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I had done some reasearch, but I found little more than passing references. What do you mean by the "long standing consensus"? WP:SCHOOL and WP:NHS both point to WP:GNG and WP:ORG, as well as WP:NGEO, which don't appear to have any special exceptions for schools. I also found WP:SCHOOLRFC, which states that schools must meet WP:GNG and not simply exist. It also states that we should aviod such reasoning as is at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES due to circular reasoning. LittlePuppers (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second source goes on to mention the school receiving some top honors (website), enough to make it notable. There's a claim of a British Council award, but I'm having difficulties finding RS. MT Train^Talk 12:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't see that either (all I saw was some recognition of the director and a few passing references). In that case, I might end up rewriting that whole thing - it's had a rather sad history. LittlePuppers (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that they have a British Council award, are you mistaking the link to a British Council website for learning English (in the footer) for that? Also, thanks for helping with this. LittlePuppers (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find sources for the British Council award, so probably it was made up. Either that or it must've been a trivial award. But their name pops up several times in BC's website, so the school must be registered with them for evaluation. There's a print version of Deccan Herald about the school titled Going 'beyond academics' is the school's mantra in the school's website, which I tried to find in their archives, but could not. I believe that article has a host of good information, but accessibility is the issue due to the font size in the scan. MT Train^Talk 08:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability guideline for schools is: "In practice articles on high/secondary schools and school districts are usually kept, as they are almost always found to be notable, unless their existence cannot be verified in order to stop hoaxes." This applies here. Instead of deleting it, I would recommend improving it and fixing its problems. —AnAwesomeArticleEditor (^talk
_contribs) 22:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See above for why I don't think 'this is what usually happens, so we should do that' is a good reason, but after discussion with Mark the train I've somewhat changed my position, and we've done some work to improve the article. I was considering withdrawing this from AfD, but I ended up not (for various reasons such as me having no experience with AfD, that it would probably end up with the same result, and me thinking (at the time, although I'm not entirely sure now) that Mark the train's speedy keep was somewhat similar, that others might have constructive comments, etc.). LittlePuppers (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable source coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion of the sources currently in the article? LittlePuppers (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found out one more source on a dispute regarding the school by The Times of India's e-paper 1. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 4 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. Michig (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ZenCash (cryptocurrency)[edit]

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

Not a notable crypto-currency. Wouldn't meet any SNG, and doesn't appear to meet GNG; coverage is blogs, press releases, and their own website. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete no reliable sources Retimuko (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominator. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep scepticism about Zencash (and other dubious cryptocurrencies) is best expressed in their respective entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcpearce (talk • contribs) 12:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice did you have something to say regarding whether this article belongs on Wikipedia? --Calton | Talk 16:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Davidcpearce Please reason your !vote (this is not a vote, so without reasoning whatever your argument is your !vote has no weight and should be ignored here when closing) . Please see WP:AfD, why are you making Keep !votes with tangential comments at several AfDs? Widefox; talk 21:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nope, nothing there. --Calton | Talk 16:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with sentiment and evaluation of nom. Current sourcing fails GNG as several primaries, non-independent, and weak WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources. Appears entirely WP:TOOSOON. As with several cryptocurrency articles we're seeing, there's an assertion of notability but without quality WP:RS we can't describe the actual topic of why this is different from the others, and just becomes a me-too which is best handled as a redirect to a list. Widefox; talk 21:08, 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 delete. The case for 'keep' did not demonstrate notability in the responses to their !vote. If article creator believes they can ultimately find sources that clearly demonstrate notability, I can restore this to the user sandbox upon request. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles "Trip" Dorkey III[edit]

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

A WP:MILL lawyer with a heavily-promotional article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 26 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) 00:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator; reads like a narrative resume, and even though there are a number of sources, the article itself is not well-sourced; the only articles about him are primary sources, no newspaper article is directly about him. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not know Mr. Dorkey and I have never spoken with him and am writing the article because I am interested in and read about the legal profession; the article reflects research and references that indicate that Dorkey stands out in the world of “Big Law” that is filled with narrow specialists and as a Renaissance lawyer with numerous highly reported matters across many legal disciplines (unlike a run of the mill fungible name in his profession). His notability comes from a unique long-term mix of legal practice, law firm management, active participation in politics (a controversial issue reported in the article), public service appointments, and civic leadership (multiple footnotes in the 31 footnotes applied and the 4 added ones).

Dorkey‘s substantive adaptability to changing legal environments and a management role includes the executive committee at Haythe and Curley and head of the U.S. practice and managing partner of the NY office for Torys. (I have added footnotes in Dorkey’s legal experience to document, from articles).

Sourcing-- I have added two footnotes that relate to newspaper feature stories about Dorkey; in the New York Sun and in Canada’s Globe and Mail and a total of four new footnotes that I believe respond to constructive criticism of originally unincluded items. Dorkey’s highly reported cases appear with verified Lexis citations in his bio page at Dentons and LinkedIn and he has attracted and responded to reporters from the New York Times, several times (as per my footnotes).

I would appreciate any advice/suggestions as to whether the article would be improved by removal of any footnotes for lack of special or needed substance. Would footnotes 11. 19. 21, 25, 31 warrant such consideration? Ildar2013 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typically you would never need to remove footnotes to improve an article: the issue with this article is, even though there are a lot of sources, none of the sources show he's anything more than a partner in a large law firm, which doesn't make him notable. The "Who's Who" guides listed prominently at the start of the article in my mind don't make someone notable; while they're great for marketing successful attorneys, being listed there doesn't make someone pass WP:GNG. The Globe and Mail article mentions him but isn't about him. The New York Sun article is the best source, probably, but is more of a general interest interview than demonstrating notability. This article reads to me like he's nothing more than a good attorney who has done what good attorneys do for over 40 years. SportingFlyer talk 22:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarification on footnotes. Perhaps you are unaware that US News and Best Lawyers in America, also referenced in first paragraph is the peer reviewed directory that is generally accepted in the legal profession to include the top 5% of lawyers in the country and I include a reference to that point. The other point that I believe needs to be taken into account is that the long term mix of high level political and public service while maintaining full legal practice is extremely rare. Finally I think there is a more generous and reasonable way to interpret the value of the article in the Globe and Mail; it focuses directly on Dorkey’s forward thinking attitude about lawyer coaching. Ildar2013 (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very aware of both US News and Best Lawyers in America and they do not suffice to provide notability for Wikipedia, as any reference to him would be trivial within these articles for WP purposes. In the absence of other sources, Globe and Mail article needs to be about Dorkey. SportingFlyer talk 19:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article has a lot of fluffy sources but nothing of substance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 3 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 speedy delete. G4 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New United States Football League[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This appears to have been in "development hell" for a decade, and never played a game. It may be defunct. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it appears to have been re-created immediately after the most recent AfD closed as delete, can an admin check for WP:G4? power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 26 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) 00:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per the result of the previous discussion from earlier this month. Lepricavark (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as it was recreated only a couple days since its AfD closed three weeks ago. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - This is a result of a previous deletion discussion and there has not been any tremendous changes to the sources and notability of subject. Salt because of the successive recreations that don't seem to address the issues raised in previous AFD discussions. Kagundu Talk To Me 06:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete The plans have now been abandoned, though the website, Facebook and Twitter are still active. Should've been deleted long ago. But better to merge it. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Query Merge to what?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the United States Football League page. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / merge Obviously, this football-league-that-never-was doesn't warrant an entry. However, it does deserve a paragraph or so in the USFL article, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a recreation of proposed league article previously deleted. Salt until issues can be addressed in a Draft. Yosemiter (talk) 16:15, 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.