Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 February	1 March >

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) 00:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Suriname International Badminton Tournament champions[edit]

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

Article is essentially a list that is a duplicate of the one at Suriname_International#Winners The Verified Cactus 100% 22:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CFORK. Raymond3023 (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant content fork. PhilKnight (talk) 00:06, 8 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maximo (MRO)[edit]

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

blatant advert for non notable product entirely sourced to their own website Theroadislong (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely promotional article with no reliable sources to establish notability. The references presented currently are primary sources, actually most are leading to the website of the subject. Xaxing (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC) striking blocked sock puppet Atlantic306 (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly the article seems to be out of date and lack the type of context that would make it really useful to a Wikipedia user. It also needs some better sources.

That said, I would suggest that it meets our notability criteria as one of the two EAM solutions (along with Infor EAM) in the "Leaders" quadrant of the Gartner 2017 Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Asset Management. My opinion is that for software, placement in a Gartner MQ listing for several years (since 2011 at least for Maximo) equates to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If we have more specific criteria for software, feel free to link to them.

I think a rewrite or quick edit from a knowledgable person (not me) could improve the article a great deal. A good place to start might be to pull a copy of a couple of industry analyst reports and write up the pros and cons as determined by these outside observers. Right now, I don't see the type of copy/paste or peacock words signs that usually appear on blatant spam. Also of note, this WP article has been around for 13 years. (Disclosure: I work with IBM software, but not this particular offering, and not directly for IBM.) Rupert Clayton (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Placement in a listing isn't a substitute for reliable, independent, secondary sourcing. PhilKnight (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:RS. The idea that listing in a Gartner report means anything is absurd. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. I'll set the redirect to point to Frozen (franchise). (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen 2[edit]

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

Production does not start until the summer: http://comicbook.com/amp/2018/02/28/frozen-2-writer-update-movie-jennifer-lee-

This is just a lot of speculation and talk about if they're making a sequel; all things that wouldn't even be in the article when more real information comes out. JDDJS (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect again per the last AfD; WP:TOOSOON for the moment. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON, possible WP:CRYSTAL. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When I started editing here, it was a draft, and someone just had placed a tag to move it on mainspace then, giving a source to Josh Gad's announcement. After few days, a reviewer moved it on the basis of "film production has been started". I remember I removed the redirect links for it from some other pages too.

Here, I have added some sources that say that the voice actors have been recording for their roles; including Bell for Anna, Gad for Olaf and Groff for Kristoff. So I don't think deleting this page would be good, however, the production section in the page may be too long and may have some unnecessary details too. But if this is still too soon, then please move it back to the draftspace for some more workout on it, until per above mentioned source. Thanks! M. Billoo 07:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not really much of any content related to actual production, just a bunch of speculation. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - No need to erase content; this can be easily moved to the draft space to be worked upon while the namespace article can be redirected. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 16:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - As Philip suggested, just move the article into "draftspace". While it is indeed too early to have the article exist, it's a well-known fact that Frozen 2 is coming out. When it is time, just move it back into mainspace. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as the content is good but it is TOOSOON for this article. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per PanagiotisZois. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per PanagiotisZois. The Optimistic One (talk) 00:21, 8 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) 00:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Panayiotis Diamadis[edit]

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

Does not meet neither Wikipedia:Notability (academics) nor Wikipedia:Notability (people). There is no notability as there is no academic or reliable third-party sources discussing the topic. The article is Original Research Τζερόνυμο (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Looks NN to me. I am strengthened in my view by Australian Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, being a redlink. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:57, 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. Consensus is that the subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 21:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G.C. Dilsaver[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. Unable to locate significant secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I find a few results searching google news, they are a bit bloggy and not really about Dilsaver but about how his book's inspired the blogs author. Results on google books are also mostly about his book and are passing. Neither of these sets of results give anything that would show the subject has enough coverage to write an article that passes NPOV concerns, especially given the promotional nature of the article and of the coverage. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Maintain as secondary reference supported. All claims have references that have been previously verified.

The claim to notability is the Catholic Pontifical University of America's stating in its review of his work that they consider him "the father of Christian psychology" ^[1] ^[2] His work has been critiqued as the first truly Thomistic psychology by ^[3].

International recognition: ^[4]

and ^[5] His book was chosen and endorsed among the very few books offered with membership from this prestigious international organization.

Dilsaver also has a full page on his work in the introduction to the definitive english edition of ^[6] ^[7]

I took much of the language to describe his work from the website, not as a promotion per se but to accurately convey its nature and claims. John Galvin (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC) — John Galvin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ https://www.hfsbooks.com/books/imago-dei-psychotherapy-dilsaver/
^ https://web.archive.org/web/20131203134340/http://cuapress.cua.edu/books/viewbook.cfm?book=XDID
^ Kenneth Baker, S.J. in the August/September 2008 issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review
^ http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/08/14/restoring-the-image-of-god-in-our-lives-protects-our-mental-health/
^ https://humanlife.ie/
^ John Paul II The Theology of the Body; A New Translation Based on the John Paul II Archives Translation, Index, and Introduction by Michael Waldstein Pauline BOOKS & MEDIA Boston
^ https://www.scribd.com/doc/79394300/Waldstein-Introduction-to-Theology-of-the-Body

Delete as mere PROMO for non-notable author of non-notable books promoting his personal, nonnotable FRINGE theory of mental illness. inadequate sourcing found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claims about this author are sourced to a few press releases. The material he has written looks as though it falls under WP:FRINGE and there are just not sufficient WP:RS available. Notability has not been established when judged against the criteria listed by the nominator. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Maintain~~ All of the above are taken from independent reviews not "press releases." The above blanket statements for delete are unsupported and do not address the citations notated. The Catholic Pontifical University of America Press is not a fringe institution, Homiletic and Pastoral Review and the London Catholic Herald are highly respected institutions, as is the Broadcaster EWTN and Sapientia Press (who publishes only a few top Catholic writers, unless one is unjustly discounting these institutions because they are Catholic. Dilsaver's book on psychology is foreworded by no one less than Daniel N. Robinson, who has his own bio on Wiki. Fringe does not mean controversial.John Galvin (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out the vote as a second vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep -- The list of publications is not a long one. However the claim that he is regarded as "father of Christian psychology" (if true) ought to be enough to merit keeping this. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That reference comes from language written to promote his book, not from any independent source I could find. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. clearly a major influence in his field,as shown by coverage in reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Which reliable sources are the reliable ones? Are there some that aren't listed here? The introduction to two book about John Paul II's theology cites an article Dilsaver wrote about JPIIs TOB, but the coverage hardly amounts to a page and is not about Dilsaver himself. The Catholic Herald article is in the section, "Comments & Blogs", and is a book review, again not about the individual. "Father of Christian psychology" seems to be cited to PR blurbs, and I can't find an independent source that says anything like that. The book that is supposedly the basis of this claim, "Imago Dei Psychotherapy", gets next to no hits on google scholar, etc. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow Smmurphy's points to be discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've reviewed all the sources; 1&2 are self-promotional; 3 is an article about a book he wrote, probably the best source; 4&5 discuss his writings in the introduction of another book; 6 is a link to when he was on television; and 7 is a link to what appears to be a place to purchase a lecture he gave. An additional source search is largely promotional or lecture-based. I'm reviewing this as a WP:AUTHOR claim since his notability seems to be about the books he's written, and this isn't satisfied under any of the four prongs of WP:AUTHOR. Simply not notable per our guidelines. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, All the sources? Or all the sources listed above? When searching Google scholar search various forms of the author's name yielded seven unique citations, searching Imago Dei Psychotherapy yielded four more additional unique cites, and searching imago Dei and Dilsaver yielding four more unique additional cites for a total of 15. "Father of Christian Psychology," is a direct quote from the academic press of the Catholic University of America, a singular independent source able to stand alone due to its authority.23:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Galvin (talk • contribs)

All the sources in the article, as you could have figured out easily by the summary. As you note, I can find his thesis very easily on Google Scholar, but I only see a couple other citations searching "G.C. Dilsaver" which wouldn't get him anywhere near academic notability, much less WP:AUTHOR. SportingFlyer (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1 and 2 are clearly not "self-promotional" but a statement of a mostly highly prestigious academic publisher. The following is an example of a cursory search, and it must be noted that within certain circles (i.e., conservative Catholic ones) the following non-secular or non-mainstream sites are held in high esteem and authority:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C27&q=%22imago+dei+psychotherapy%22&btnG=

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C27&q=%22imago+dei+psychology+thomsitic&btnG=

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C27&q=%22imago+dei+dilsaver&btnG=

https://thinkingthroughthesumma.wordpress.com/category/vir-be-a-man-be-virtuous/magnanimity/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Galvin (talk • contribs) 17:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9EE9636A623407BE

https://www.academia.edu/13829058/A_Canonical_Investigation_of_the_Infallibility_of_the_Teaching_in_Humanae_Vitae

https://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1010&context=sod_mat

referer=https://duckduckgo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1010&context=sod_mat ft 1

https://pblosser.blogspot.com/2014/08/mutual-submission-in-john-paul-ii-gc.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8npGFrnoDk

https://onepeterfive.com/the-fatherhood-crisis-at-home-in-the-church/

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C27&q=%22g.+dilsaver%22&btnG=

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C27&q=%22gc+dilsaver%22&btnG=

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=7443081998371915052&as_sdt=5,27&sciodt=0,27&hl=en

http://www.womenofgrace.com/en-us/search/default.aspx?q=dilsaver&type=0

https://www.gloria.tv/search/dilsaver

http://catholicism.org/great-book-available-doctor-dilsaver-celebrating-god-given-gender.html

http://crowhill.net/blog/in-reading-a-popes-writings-should-we-take-his-psychology-into-account/

https://pblosser.blogspot.com/search?q=dilsaver

https://onepeterfive.com/the-fatherhood-crisis-at-home-in-the-church/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Galvin (talk • contribs) 16:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.fraternitypublications.com/inspiration.html John Galvin (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for providing more sources... I've looked through all of the ones you provided, but I still don't think he qualifies under WP:AUTHOR. WP:AUTHOR 4 clearly does not apply. For 3, none of his writings would be considered significant enough to be on Wikipedia, so that's out. For 2, he may have created a new concept or theory, but again, I'm missing the significance piece. Which leads us to 1, but here's actually where Google scholar is insightful: in none of your searches do we get past the first page of results. For academics or for people who influence academic works, I'd expect this to be in at least the hundreds. I'll walk away from this discussion now. SportingFlyer talk 19:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If his writings have deemed him to be the "father of Christian psychology" by the Catholic University of America, it should be considered significant enough. Expectations for that number of citations applies to medical or financially lucrative empirical science research, which are both well funded and highly populated. The field of Christian psychology, Christian humanities, or conservative gender studies is neither funded nor well populated, but within these sub-disciplines the author is highly cited.John Galvin (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral There seems to be some mention of his opinions in Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body which can be considered as coverage in independent sources, although I am yet to find some particular article or news or a book chapter, totally dedicated to him. Excelse (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Using a book blurbs to source anything, especially a grandiose claim that someone is the "father" of a whole field of inquiry, is absolutely ridiculous. In addion, GScholar indicates that the works of Dilsaver have been ignored almost completely, with hardly any citations at all. According to GScholar, the "seminal work" Imago Dei Psychotherapy has been cited a grand total of 3 (three) times since it was published 9 years ago. Even if we follow the count posted above concluding that there were 15 citations, that's woefully short of showing any notability at all. "Seminal works" make an impact, they get cited hundreds of times and are the subject of third party discussion and in-depth reviews. This is a promotional puff piece (note the proud mention of this WP bio on his Amazon author page. Fails every notability guideline by a mile. --Randykitty (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nom and Randykitty a seminal academic work that has been around since 2009 and barely been cited seems not to point to notability as an author or academic. His notability seems to be limited also the rather pompous unattributed title (considered by many) father of christian psychology coined in a publicity blurb on a bookseller's page probably as a means of boosting the sales does not help. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment “A publicity blurb on a bookseller's page probably as a means of boosting the sales does not help.” If it this were a statement by Harvard or Yale or MIT it is doubtful you would say this. But within the Catholic academic circles the Pontifical Catholic University of America Academic Press is not considered a “bookseller” but a highly prestigious authority. One would think the pejorative bias and ad hominen references should discount, if not disqualify, the most recent “delete” comments, as well as a couple of the previous ones.

Again, as per citations, comparing the author's philosophical and theological works to mainstream academics, especially those of the highly funded medical and empirical sciences (which is the bulk of Google Scholar content) is not applicable. The author's sub-disciplines are relatively quite small, and more so quite counter-status quo; as such the citations are more than adequate.

Totally discounting the author's notability regardless of commendatory commentary from such esteemed Catholics or institutions such as Kenneth Baker or Daniel n. Robinson or the London Catholic Herald or EWTN or the page dedicated to his writings in John Paul II The Theology of the Body; A New Translation Based on the John Paul II Archives Translation, Index, and Introduction by Michael Waldstein, or the University of St. Thomas or the many other non-institutional, but still highly respected, populist citations smacks of a certain sectarian elitism, even anti-Catholicism.

Finally, none of my assertions have been addressed, much less disproved. Instead in support of “delete” only assertion of arbitrary “expectations” or implicit motivations or inapplicable comparisons have been offered.John Galvin (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am very much mistaken John Galvin judging by your user name you have a very close connection to the Catholic University of America who is selling his book on their web site. Regardless of your opinion of this organisation (which is probably right) it is still selling this book for $50 on their page and the "father of christian psychology" is unattributed and here on Wikipedia it is known as a weasel word. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Randykitty's argument is most compelling. John from Idegon (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - John Galvin, meeting our arbitrary requirements is what is required to have an article here. Your argument above seems to presuppose that you have some sort of right to add content here. You don't. If you do not find our requirements to your liking, you are more than welcome to go buy your own domain and servers and start your own website. John from Idegon (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable author with little mainstream coverage - fails WP:RS. External links violating WP:EL and WP:PROMO; edit history meeting WP:SPA; and first edit being a revert are all problematic. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:35, 8 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. Note on the canvassing issue: I have on occasion pinged other editors during AfDs myself, most often DGG (for cases concerning academic journals or academics). DGG (and the other editors involved here) are absolutely independent people and, indeed, when pinged DGG has agreed with me as often as not. In addition, this is not a vote and I have considered the arguments brought forward by both sides. In the end, I found the analysis of the expositions by the IP editor, as well as the careful analysis of Theredproject most convincing. Randykitty (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annika Connor[edit]

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

Apparently not notable by our standards, fails WP:ARTIST. Sourcing is very weak – interviews, blog-type sources etc; I removed some of the worst of them, but stopped when I realised that there's essentially nothing here. Someone on the HuffPost blog site named her as a "rising star". Wikipedia articles are reserved for those stars who have already risen, and thus have in-depth coverage in solid independent reliable sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have to say Keep on this one. Yes sources are not great but still sufficient to prove at least notability at the right side of the threshold for inclusion. Any other concern is covered by WP:NEXIST.BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She also covers WP:ARTIST per gallery solo shows in NYC.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is absolutely nothing here to say that this painter is notable. All coverage is routine and very low quality. There are about four barely acceptable sources, and by that I mean that they just barely qualify as sources. The majority of the coverage is interview-style and promotional in nature. Fails all notability tests, and especially WP:ARTIST on all counts.104.163.148.25 (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Bratland has already been giving a good rationale why WP:ARTIST. Appears you ignore sourced gallery solo shows.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YES! I'm glad you mentioned those. Let's talk about the "solo shows"

The first solo show listed was at Bungalow 5, a furniture store. The "review" used as a source looks a lot like a paid advertisement or press release copy, as the review author has written over 15,000 articles for that publication. Wait-- look at the url: it is artnews.conteart.com, not artnews.com. Anyway, let's continue...
Next up is "The Hitchcock Kiss" at QF Gallery in the Hamptons. According to their site, which they have in all caps, "QUATTLEBAUM FORETICH GALLERY IS A CURATORIAL PROGRAM, ORIGINALLY HOUSED IN A HISTORIC HOME IN EAST HAMPTON FROM 2012-2014. CURRENTLY THE GALLERY EMPLOYS A MOVABLE, SHIFTING MODEL OF SPECIAL PROJECTS THAT FEATURE EMERGING AND ESTABLISHED ARTISTS, ARCHITECTS, CURATORS AND DESIGNERS." So it was a temporary gallery in the Hamptons. Ok...
Number three is a claimed solo show at the reputable Able fine Art Gallery NY. I see a few low-quality sources for this, so it might actually be verifiable. And Finally,
the last show at "untitled gallery" specifically says that she was featured in a group show.

In summary, this is just an exaggerated list of very very average shows that do more to prove she is not notable than they do to prove she is. You do not have to be much of a successful artist to get shows like these. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Megalibrarygirl and Cullen328 may want to look at this one. Softlavender (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing much?--BabbaQ (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not canvassing; these are highly skilled, highly respected, and highly neutral administrators, who specialize in rescuing articles at AfD, particularly articles on women and artists. If I were canvassing I would have !voted myself, but I feel the case needs more research than I am willing to give it. Softlavender (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have now canvassed three editors to this AfD. Give it a break. Please. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to you below: [1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ARTIST with three verified solo shows (and possibly a fourth) in NYC galleries, plus numerous group shows, and a significant profile[2] focusing on the subject. Also and interview at Arte Fuse. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARTIST does not say one is notable once they have three solo shows. If it did, every Sunday painter who showed in tiny Cafes or popup galleries would be notable. Also, the claim that a significant profile in "highbrowmagazine.com" helps is just plain weak. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are not reading the guidelines right. If an artist has had solo shows a guideline doesnt have to specify that exactly three soli shows are notable. Possibly nitpicking on your part.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean I missed the part of the guidelines where it says notability is established by exhibiting in furniture stores like Bungalow 5? Please point that part out to me.104.163.148.25 (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Solo shows in notable art museums are evidence of notability, but solo shows in non-notable commercial galleries are not, since putting on such shows is their business. I do not consider Highbrow Magazine to be a reliable source for establishing notability of an artist, and this coverage looks like the product of a public relations campaign. Interviews do not establish notability because that coverage is not independent. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say but solo shows in non-notable commercial galleries are not, since putting on such shows is their business. The fact that they are "commercial galleries" is irrelevant and the fact that "putting on such shows is their business" is irrelevant. Bus stop (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Cullen was pinged to come here.BabbaQ (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged Cullen because he is a highly skilled, highly respected, and highly neutral administrator, who specializes in rescuing articles at AfD, particularly articles on women and artists. If I were canvassing I would have !voted myself, but I did not and will not, because I feel the case needs more research than I am willing to give it. Softlavender (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with notifying someone of a discussion, especially an admin with significant experience.104.163.148.25 (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely wrong to ping and contact admins and editors to votestack.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why even put yourself in a position of having to defend a discussion notification? By appearances it's indistinguishable from votestacking. Out of hundreds of thousands of editors, two individuals. Isn't it sufficient that this discussion was listed on multiple arts and women related alerts? It seems unlikely an insufficient number of art or women topic experts have been notified, or that these two select individuals don't monitor any of the alerts here. I don't believe you intended anything nefarious, but appearance of votestacking is unavoidable, and it's a bell you can't unring. It's almost never a good idea to notify editors by name, rather than noticeboard or broadcast notices. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat: These are highly skilled, highly respected, and highly neutral administrators, who specialize in rescuing articles at AfD, particularly articles on women and artists. If I were canvassing I would have !voted myself, but I feel the case needs more research than I am willing to give it. Softlavender (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's too bad you don't seem to be able to understand why the appearance of votestacking is a problem. If you can find more conventional ways of altering interested groups of discussions like this, I think you'll see see less drama and a smoother process. Pinging editors by name pointlessly and needlessly creates an atmosphere of suspicion. If you believe Wikipedia can't make sound consensus decisions without two specific experts, then how can you support the idea of such a project at all? The whole thing is built with the collective wisdom of hundreds of thousands of people, not two indispensable experts.

These repeated assertions without evidence, "I'm fair minded because I say so", "It's not canvassing because I say so", "This gallery is insignificant because I say so", "That magazine is insignificant because I say so." Any old editor is capable of making unsupported assertions, "because I say so". It's not convincing. And why should we even have to be having this spat? Use normal AfD alterts, post neutral notifications on interested noticeboards and not hand-picked users, and all this trouble is avoided. It makes no sense why you would insist on this. I hope you stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat a fourth time: These are two highly skilled, highly respected, and highly neutral administrators, who specialize in rescuing articles at AfD, particularly articles on women and artists. If I were canvassing I would have !voted myself, but I felt the case needed more research than I was willing to give it. It's too bad you don't respond to Cullen, who answered your concerns. In terms of pointlessly and needlessly, I'll state a fifth time: These are two highly skilled, highly respected, and highly neutral administrators, who specialize in rescuing articles at AfD, particularly articles on women and artists. If I were canvassing I would have !voted myself, but I felt the case needed more research than I was willing to give it. In terms of "I'm fair minded because I say so" I never said any such thing; "It's not canvassing because I say so" I never said any such thing; "This gallery is insignificant because I say so"; "That magazine is insignificant because I say so." I've never said or implied any such thing and have never even mentioned galleries. Softlavender (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, BabbaQ, and Dennis Bratland, I was pinged but I had no idea whatsoever how I would respond until I took a sincere look at the article and the available sources. Do either of you have any evidence that I am somehow biased regarding this topic? If I truly thought that this artist was notable at this time, I would fight to keep the article by improving it and adding sources. I am personally aware of at least half a dozen women artists with longer and better established careers that I do not consider notable enough at this point. Consider me an inclusionist philosophically who also believes in enforcing our notability standards and opposing rampant promotionalism. I wish this artist the best and hope that she will be universally considered notable as her career progresses. But not yet. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender you have canvassed three editors so far to come here. Now I see that the third person was DGG which you left a personal note at about this article basically begging the editor to !vote Delete. This is starting to look really suspicious and votestacking. Messages like these are looking suspicious.BabbaQ (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my previous replies to you here [3] and here [4] regarding this claim of yours. Softlavender (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article was written by Kelizabethw, an SPA, who also uploaded the professional photograph (claimed to be "own work") [5] and therefore appears to be the subject's publicist. The rest of the article [6] was written by Tweebunny, another SPA. Softlavender (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only just. There does appear to be promotional intent and the text needs a bit of work. Possibly a COI notice should also be placed. Deb (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There's enough there to keep it under GNG. The Art News coverage and Whitehot article tips it for me. I wish, however, that there was more coverage of her. I hit the databases and didn't find anything to add from EBSCO, HighBeam or Newspapers.com. On Google Books, she is mentioned in a few books (one I can't access). I agree with Deb about placing a COI tag, especially with Softlavender's research about the editors on the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: One of three editors pinged or talk page contacted to come to this AfD to !vote.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to say that the WIR brigade (which I support and contribute to at times) is being taken in if they think this is a notable artist. This is just an artist who has taken some marketing classes and knows how to get her name and profile into a few middling publications. In short, she is trying to make a living in a digital world. That marketing might involve work as a voice actress, selling art on Saatchionline along with a hundred thousand others, publishing a book on Amazon about her artist friends, doing an interview with Luxurious Prototype, the online men's luxury magazine or KDHamptons, the Luxury Lifestyle Diary of the Hamptons, or getting a semi-decent profile in Grand Piano Passion, a magazine devoted to poeple with a passion for grand pianos. I do hope that editors can see the difference between this kind of coverage and, say, inclusion in permanent collections, exhibitions in reputable galleries and museums, and of course independent reporting and interest by good news sources. Wikipedia certainly has a problem with the dearth of articles on women. However that is not going to be helped by promoting truly non-notable persons on the thinnest of rationales as is happening above.104.163.148.25 (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is a reputable gallery? How is this distinguished from a gallery that is not reputable? Bus stop (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, check out this offer on the Voice acting page. "Please note, Connor's paintings are also available for licensing if you are shopping for cover art for your books. Connor retains the copyrights to all her paintings and high res images of all of her works is available if a licensing deal is made. Please be in touch if you would like to discuss licensing any of Annika Connor's art for your book covers." This is not a notable artist, but rather a young artist trying to make a living. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I forgot about the problem of being a young artist trying to make a living! Shouldn't these young artists be learning how to starve properly? Bus stop (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) "WIR brigade" is the kind of ad hominem that says a lot more about you, and your agenda, than it does about anyone else. 2) There are uncounted hundreds of thousands of articles about privileged topics -- whites, men, westerners, recent topics, easily-located online topics, English language topics, etc -- as discussed in Wikipedia:Systemic bias, and they have not been subjected to anywhere near sufficient scrutiny. The number of borderline-notable or non-notable male artist bio articles numbers in the thousands, if not tens of thousands. If a group trying to correct systemic bias, like WIR, happens to succeed in keeping a handful of borderline notable articles about women, it pales in comparison to the many thousands of articles that will never even be nominated for deletion, or will be scrutinized only after several years have passed, for the simple reason that there are so many of them. In short, why not focus on whether this topic is or is not notable, and leave all the other baggage for another noticeboard? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that some women feminists call each other hags? CLaiming ad hoiminem is really off base, if you knwo what the latin translation is. It's an attack on a person, not a group. And, speaking as a contributor to the work of "WIR brigade", I did not mean it as an slight, as is clear by my other comments. I actually meant it as a kind of compliment, since if you follow their talk page, it is indeed a bit like a fire brigade. The point was the "WIRB" occasionally promotes non-notable subjects simply because they are women. Not often, but sometimes. I'm sorry you took it as anything else.104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's time to let this go, but attacking this woman for the crime of self-promotion is so trite. Nobody minds when men are ambitious and self-promoting, but when women do it, they're attacked. One study described it as ambitious men being seen as "being more assertive, stronger, and tougher" while ambitious women were targets of "moral outrage (i.e., contempt, anger, and/or disgust)". Do we scrutinize every bio about a person who wrote good things about themselves on Linkedin.com? We're now skeptical of every painter who tries to sell their paintings? It's laughable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is not attack on the artist, and indeed no attack. The issue is about supporting the inclusion of very marginally notable subjects with the intent of correcting systematic bias, as DGG sums it up nicely near the end of this discussion.104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Cullen328 and the COI issues. While I agree with Megalibrarygirl that there might be adequate notability, we don't have the source quality to quite get there yet. Let's just call it WP:TOOSOON for now. Also, agree with Dennis Bratland about the ad hominem remarks. The baggage can go elsewhere, this discussion stands on its own. Montanabw^(talk) 21:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An presumably promotional article about a very minor artist. There isn;t even any indication she is more than an amateur trying to sell her work. The criterion for WP:CREATIVE is significant critical discussion independent sources, or (if pertinent) works in the permanent collection of major museums, or both. She works in a genre which museums would collect if she were notable. There are no critical stud--the Art News item is a trivial review of a show, and the others are either not independent, such as a show brochure--which is always written by the artist of the artist's publicist-- or not in any conceivable sense reliable in this subject.Interviews are not independent sources for notability. Conceivably she may ecome notable, but not now. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We need more coverage of women artists. There are thousands of notable ones that are not yet covered, and those are the ones to write.

I'm going to give a local plug here--if in the NYC area, come to the WM-NYC & A+F editathon at the Museum of Modern Art this Saturday and work on one. See the announcement: [7] (and the listing of other related events in the area this month at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/ArtAndFeminism 2018. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - DGG was brought here after this message from Softlavender to DGGs talk page. Canvassing and votestacking.BabbaQ (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, please learn the difference between WP:APPNOTE and WP:CANVASSING. DGG is an administrator who deals widely with AfDs and my message was neutral and mentioned only that the AfD was contentious. If the rhetoric by the IP and Dennis Brantland had not occurred, and the repeated accusations of canvassing made by you and Dennis had not occurred, I would not have felt to call on another administrator for additional clarity, but because of all that noise on this AfD, I felt that the administrator with the most experience with AfDs of any admin (and an ArbCom member to boot) would bring a careful eye to the matter. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting specific admins or editors are suspicious. And why contact these specific editors in particular. Their !votes will likely be discounted by the closing admin because you told them to come here. The votes from them are Delete,Delete,Weak Keep. It kind of speaks for itself really. I leave it at that.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's way better to assume good faith rather than challenging admins. Just saying. They are volunteers who are very, very unlikekly to be out to game the process.104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate, with diffs, where I "told" anyone to come here. Neutrally and briefly notifying or requesting input from knowledgeable and respected persons is not suspicious, as I explained above. "And why contact these specific editors in particular": I have already answered that question here [8] and here [9]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

anyone who is certain of what I will do in a marginal case will often be disappointed. I will look at anything people ask me to within my fields of interest, and I say what I think, without paying any attention to what they may have expected. You do not have to take my unsupported word for it--the very most recent item on my talk page is one where I did not give the response that was apparently hoped for. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you DGG. I am simply stating that contacting three editors about one AfD is canvassing in my opinion. The result Delete, Delete, Weak Keep is also quite telling but that is on you guys. I leave it at that. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just as it is not accusing me , it should not be taken as accusing anyone who asks me to look at anything of bias. If anyone does ask me for such a reason, they are likely to be disappointed, and the editor who asked is experienced enough here to know that. I have specifically said, and now say again, that what I am interested in is borderline AfDs and I will be grateful for anyone who notifies me of one. Recently, I've been increasingly likely just to clarify the matters at issue and not !vote. But to Softlavendar and anyone else, admins do not get extra votes atAfDs, and arbs most certainly not; the relevant factor in asking someone here is that the person asked is aware of the issues and able to explain them,and consequently might be helpful in coming to some conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So if all three highly experienced administrators had !voted "Strong Keep" you would not have made these accusations (repeated nine times so far)? That is what is "quite telling". Softlavender (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A battleground mentality from you won't change the facts here. I am not the one who contacted these three editors, you where amd the result followed the pattern it did. Let's leave it at that.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please substantiate, providing diffs and exact quotations, how I am engaging in "battleground mentality". It is you who have made accusations of canvassing, repeated at least nine times, and repeatedly insinuated that requests for input were non-neutral or skewed, when in fact I've explained over and over why and how they were not. It seems that your real objection is that three neutral, highly experienced and highly respected administrators who specialize in AfD, and two out of three of whom specialize in AfD WP:RESCUE of articles on artists/women, did not !vote in exact sync with you. Softlavender (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A person can be fair and honest, and still be predictable. A random group of respected and neutral admins is going to give a much different result than a hand-picked group of respected and neutral admins. People have personalities, and when you know them well you can guess which ones you'd call on in a specific case. Of course they're all going to say they are totally fair. You can say you had no intentions of stacking the vote. But when you invite hand-picked editors to a discussion, that's canvassing. It looks bad. Outsiders have no idea whether to believe anyone when they affirm passionately that they are totally fair and neutral. You know who else says that? Biased people say that, too. It's meaningless. But an outside observer isn't going to have that problem in a discussion where the usual broadcast noticeboard notifications were followed, and nobody is known to have been invited by name. You can be deny having any bad intentions as vehemently as you want, but you can't shake the taint of illegitimacy that comes with canvassing.

Anyone who as been canvassed should ignore it. Going and !voting and then saying "You can trust me! You can trust me!" in a louder and louder voice doesn't remove the cloud of illegitimacy that comes with canvassed votes. You can't fix it just by saying "Don't worry" because when your objectivity is in doubt, saying "I'm objective" merely begs the question. You have to step back and let Wikipedia's crazy process run without any thumbs on the scale. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct Dennis Bratland. The mentioned editors can claim to be as objective as they like. The problem is that they !voted after being pinged and talk page contacted to come here and !vote. That they say "You can trust me" seems kind of hollow. Anyway the closing user will see this and probably put very little weight to the canvassed !votes.BabbaQ (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for BabbaQ and Dennis Bratland: there's getting along with other people, and there's taking every opportunity to not get along and to assume people are against you. The former usually works best, generates synergies and builds trust. The latter just gets tiring. Just saying.104.163.148.25 (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. COI promotional article on a non-notable young artist with no significance at present and who fails WP:ARTIST by a long shot. To quote the second sentence of the Highbrow interview: "A staple on the New York social scene, Connor has spent years cultivating a reputation as a philanthropist, feminist, fashion icon and muse." This wiki article seems to be another attempt at cultivating an image -- as a significant artist. There is nothing about her art that is remarkable, and the very weak sourcing shows it. The fact that during the Trump era she has done some political-based works and thus cultivated some mentions does not change that. (PS: I said above I was unprepared to !vote in this AfD but the more I look into it, the more I agree with others: this is not a significant artist and we should not have self-promotional articles on non-notable artists.) Softlavender (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By what means have you determined that nothing about her art is remarkable? You say there is nothing about her art that is remarkable. Please share with us the criteria of evaluation that you are using. Bus stop (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly she is an "emerging" artist. If so, let's wait till she has emerged. -- Hoary (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you base this on?BabbaQ (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a general principle in en:WP that non-notable persons should not have articles. -- Hoary (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per BabbaQ but promotional wording must be addressed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Le Lapin Vert (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's another general issue here. We have many relatively uncovered subjects in need of editors. Sometimes the lack of coverage is due to systematic bias. It is very important that people here try to correct it. The way to do so is to write articles on the most important uncovered people (or whatever), not on those people who one happens to notice or happens to have some personal interest in. Trying to write articles on people in such a field who are not notable does not help our coverage, but actively harms it--it encourages the misperception that other people in the field are likely to be also non-notable. If someone wants to try to decrease our coverage of some general topic, they can do so effectively by trying to write articles on obviously unencycopedic representatives of the subject. I'm not sure everyone interested in systematic bias is aware of the harm that trying to write and especially trying to defend borderline and non-notable topics in the area can do. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. DGG I hope even you realize how pointy your comment above looks. BabbaQ (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DGG is quite overtly making a point, as is proper. It's general thrust is pretty clear (and I happen to agree with this). I'd imagine that DGG hopes that the point of his comment looks clear. -- Hoary (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People look and should look at well-attended AfDs to try to understand what is actually wanted here--they are the best guide to current practice. Ir's therefore a good occasion to make a related comment that would give some explicit guidance. It has to do with this and related situations in all projects, formal and informal. I encounter it most with people trying to make articles in the faculty of a department: they start with the ones they know, or, if a publicist, with the recently appointed, instead of starting with the most notable. If they did it from the top, they would be much less likely to even be suspected of promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a proposal that could be discussed over at the WikiProject council, or at someplace like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. Until something changes, it is considered legitimate and within guidelines for projects dealing with systemic bias to maintain alert lists for AfDs for any topic within scope, with no consideration for which are the most or least notable. An anti-bias project's work doesn't mean there is an excuse for canvassing, or for pointy attempts to target a specific article because of unrelated animosity to certain projects or their members' activities.

This is where we end up as soon as we stray from the basic question: is or isn't this notable? Focusing on the article creator's possible COI motives, the motives of the participants, allowing canvassing to become an issue by inviting editors by name, criticizing WikiProject activities... How do you see through all that and judge the topic alone? It's too late to undo once we've wallowed in this mud long enough. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I've spent the last week watching this conversation progress, since this was listed in the Visual Arts AfDs, and have spent way too much time trekking through the references and exhibitions. It is a tough one, and I understand why people are falling on both sides. I don't think she passes WP:ARTIST, but she might pass WP:GNG. As Artist: IP editor 104.163.148.25 has read the exhibitions correctly (except The Untitled Space exhibitions did "include “Flora/Fauna”, a solo show of works by the artist revolving around nature" per the page). The problem is that with the possible exception of The Untitled Space, none of those of galleries are notable. The Untitled Space has had a substantial press footprint, but for hot-topic group shows (this press focuses on the theme and curatorial work, not the individual artists). The only WP:RS in the bibliography is White Hot, and probably Arte Fuse, but the rest are pretty junky. I have seen much more reliable sources discounted here at AfD. I did some looking on her acting career, and it seems like none of them are speaking parts. There are three results in Google for Grumbacher Gold Medallion Painting Prize from other people's CV, and none in OneSearch, so I can't even prove the prize itself exists. I will say that licensing your work, per [10] is totally normal, and not a problem. I think User:Cullen328 is right that it is WP:TOOSOON and maybe will be viable at a later point. User:DGG I agree that she is a ~~very~~ minor artist, but I do think there is evidence that she is more than an amateur. As Socialite: it appears that the legendary Bill Cunningham photographed her no less than 10 times at society events [11]. Honest question: does that make WP:GNG for Socialite? I would doubt it but if someone says otherwise, I could be persuaded to convert to a Weak Keep. Lastly: BabbaQ, please ease off the Canvassing accusations, as these actions are all within the guidelines of appropriate notifications.--Theredproject (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Theredproject, please not that when you commented I had not made a comment for two days. To indicate that I still was making comments by that time is simply wrong. I stand by my comments. BabbaQ (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite a fine analysis. You are right, I missed the flora/Fauna item, as it also listed group shows. In terms licensing your own work, this is quite normal. It is however very rare for the artist themselves to be promoting it and handling it themselves. but that's a side point. I do think you may be giving her too much credit as an artist. There is a fairly established trajectory for notable artists that includes basic gallery shows in reputable venues, larger gallery shows in reputable venues, solo show in reputable venues, exhibition catalogues and monographs by reputable publishers, media coverage in serious publications and inclusion in museum permanent colletions. What is sad abotu this discussion is that even though all of these items are missing from Miss Connor's CV, we are still here talking about it. While some may not have the advantage of knowing the art world and being able to judge notability quickly as a result, we all have the advantage of knowing the notability guideline for WP:ARTIST, and that is being blatantly ignored by those who would !vote keep. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say that there is a fairly established trajectory for notable artists that includes basic gallery shows in reputable venues, larger gallery shows in reputable venues, solo show in reputable venues, exhibition catalogues and monographs by reputable publishers, media coverage in serious publications and inclusion in museum permanent collections. How have you determined this? From where do you know this? Bus stop (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added additional citations to the article. Meets WP:ARTIST because her work "has won significant critical attention." In addition to what's been described above, her painting American Angst (2016) was part of the "Uprise / Angry Women" exhibit at The Untitled Space in New York City, which was featured in the Huffington Post, Teen Vogue and Mashable. Additionally, due to all the times her work has been featured in various galleries, the amount of coverage about her satisfies WP:GNG for "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Lonehexagon (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

note that Lonehexagon only votes keep on articles with female subjects, irregardless of article merits. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that Lonehexagon votes in accordance with consensus at AfD 76% of the time. There is nothing wrong with an editor specializing in articles or AfDs about women, or mathematical topics, or butterflies, or politicians, or rivers and streams. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that his/her consensus votes are 64% or so. A 50% is approximately equivalent to not randomly voting. The point I was making is that the editor has a very clear agenda to always vote keep for articles on women. The agenda could not be clearer, although I see she/he has voted recently to delete their first article with a female subject.104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the report, "Without considering "No Consensus" results, 78.3% of AfD's were matches and 21.7% of AfD's were not." I understated the percentage a bit, IP editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@104.163.148.25: another way of looking at it could be that the editor only !votes on subjects they believe are notable. There are inclusionists who do not vote on subjects that they do not believe are notable because they believe that their role is not to weed out the non notable subjects but to save borderline notable subjects. There are deletionists who do the opposite. Looking at statistics is not a good way of judging whether this person is randomly voting on an agenda. It is better to AGF and challenge their reasons if they are not policy-based. Some editors have a very high percentage of results because they only!vote on clearcut cases, this is less useful IMHO than someone who tries to save borderline cases. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Maybe slightly off topic: is there a way to see what an editor's percentage that they vote in accordance with consensus? Or did you just calculate that yourself? Feel free to move the convo to a talk page, if it is too much for this AfD. --Theredproject (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone shared a link to the tool on my talk page. Tx. --Theredproject (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources do not show that she meets NARTIST yet. She has had commercial exhibitions in galleries (mostly the same) but not in permanent exhibitions. I do not think that the sources prove that she has met with significant attention. And as per criteria #4 being the artist that painted one of 80 paintings chosen for an exhibition in a gallery in which she exposes commercially that does not seem to be itself particularly notable means that she doesn't quite make the cut yet. The other sources do not show that she passes GNG they are mostly WP:INTERVIEWS blogs and what's on pieces. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Megalibrarygirl and Theredproject both brought up good points about this perhaps meeting GNG and not WP:artist, and I side a little more with the latter argument. Right now the sources seem very weak and (as 104.163.148.25 broke down in the second !vote) are exaggerated ways to display notability. Softlavender also brought up allegations of WP:COI which I agree with. I could be swayed to vote weak keep if better sources were presented, but since this AfD is a week old without any better sources coming out, I feel comfortable staying on the delete side. As an aside to BabbaQ, nothing above was canvassing, please stop trying to WP:BLUDGEON the process. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stop baiting Semmendinger, and talk about bludgeon, I have not made a comment in this AfD for four days, and you comment about it like I have. I stand by my comments.BabbaQ (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect nothing less, you shouldn't change your stance... but baiting? Who's baiting? I read the entire AfD to get a better understanding of the thoughts here and noticed you responding to every single person not voting your way. In my book that's bludgeon. WP:COAL. I'm not going to check the history and check to see how long it's been since you last posted, but hey, if it's been four days then I take it back. Good on you for passing the ball. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to disagree, I am not the only one having the same concern in this discussion. I will not discuss the situation any further. No worries, I have left this discussion days ago. For next time though take a extra look at when someone last commented otherwise it is indeed WP:Baiting for someone to return to the discussion. BabbaQ (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional. Weak sources. That's it. Disembodied Soul (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Theredproject, to see a editor's percentage of !voting with the consensus, use the AfD stats analysis tool. The percentage is more meaningful if you examine the AfDs: Anyone can establish a perfect record by participating in only the most obvious discussions. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with User:DGG! I just left a similar comment above before seeing this one. Easy to leave a "as per nom" when there no keep !votes or vice versa. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:43, 8 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) 00:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VAR Technology Finance[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable company. MER-C 19:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As said by Mark the train, it is quite promotional article, and, besides fails WP:NCORP. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:48, 7 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 Gentoo Linux. Randykitty (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funtoo Linux[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG (could not find more specific guidelines). Gentoo derivative. Cites mostly primary sources. Was redirected to Gentoo, propose redirecting it again. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funtoo Linux Kleuske (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References added to the article.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/gentoo-and-funtoo-linux-users-can-now-enjoy-the-gnome-desktop-without-systemd-503091.shtml

References found to this topic:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=AlS5DgAAQBAJ&pg=PA171&dq=%22Funtoo+Linux%22&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjapML6q8nZAhWRLVAKHSucA8oQ6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=%22Funtoo%20Linux%22&f=false
http://www.iue.tuwien.ac.at/pdf/ib_2010/CP2010_Weinbub_3.pdf
https://www.ibiblio.org/software/distributions/

I am sure the article can be made more up to date, but I don't find deleting it appropriate nor redirecting it to Gentoo/Derivative. Palica (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are what's called "passing mentions". The first two only establish the fact that it's used, the third is mention in a list with many distros. They do not establish notability, which requires in depth coverage by independent reliable sources. This is not "in depth coverage". Kleuske (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is crammed full of mostly unsourced articles about variations and details of free computing systems, UNIX, LINUX, etc. Maybe is a synergy between free information and free software, but I like it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "I like it" is not a policy, as far as I'm aware, and does not establish notability. Nor does WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Kleuske (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - you are right, neither of those are policy, and I am not relying on either of those essays, I am arguing per WP:WIS. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Prince of Thieves: And what part of Wikipedia:Introduction did you have in mind? Wikipedia:Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- 21:47, 28 February 2018‎ [Kleuske] (unsigned)
      - I am referring to the concept of what Wikipedia is, rather than what it is not. I don't see what your comment has got to do with it or really expect anyone to agree with me. I am certainly not referring to notability. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect. We already went through this once before and found it non-notable. The situation has not changed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - why so stubborn about old consensus. Wikipedia:CCC. softpedia - is that not a notable reliable source? Ok, and "passing mentions" - that would mean that the distro is being used even in research articles. I just don't see a need to remove the article/restore redirect. Palica (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gentoo Linux. I have reviewed the sources and after eliminating the unreliable ones, two are left standing: [12] and [13]. The first is good. The second is only a passing mention. Not quite there yet. ~Kvng (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- if the first one is good, how many sources are needed? why aren't we there yet? what about these two articles?
  - http://www.linux-community.de/Internal/Artikel/Online-Artikel/Mein-Linux-Funtoo/Tippfehler
  - https://www.onli-blogging.de/1531/Von-Ubuntu-zu-Funtoo.html Palica (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is a blog and therefore not considered reliable. Personally I think the sourcing is sufficient already, but clearly I am n a minority on this so far. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - https://www.slant.co/topics/871/viewpoints/35/~best-linux-distributions-for-desktops~funtoo-linux
  - there are more questions where funtoo comes to a mention https://www.slant.co/search?query=funtoo Palica (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect Kudos to POT for understanding that OSE is not a policy, and that Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of human knowledge. However, I think redirecting is the best option here. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:50, 7 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. No prejudice against recreation should he clear WP:POLITICIAN in the future ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Sanders[edit]

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

Son of a well-known politician, who has yet to hold public office, which does not qualify him under WP:POLITICIAN. Levi got 5 seconds of press attention in 2015, during his father's campaign for the Presidency, when, according to the New Yorker the press discovered: "that Levi was not the product of his first marriage, as many people had assumed, but, instead, the child of a brief relationship between Sanders and Susan Campbell Mott, other than that, the coverage I can find is routine mentions in articles about his Dad. I cannot find that he has done anything notable. This is his first campaign for public office and, according to the Washington Post, Levi "surprised Democrats by entering the race," for the seat now held by Carol Shea-Porter, who is retiring. Eight Democrats have entered the contest for her seat( United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire, 2018). Page has previously been redirected to Bernie Sanders, where Levi has a sentence.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Article creator here. A lot of news coverage has been generated regarding his potential congress run. You clearly haven't done enough resarch, Sanders was a Senior Policy Advisor to his father and extensively campaigned for Phil Murphy (current governor of New Jersey), who was notably not endorsed by his father. Last year, Sanders was also one of the main speakers at the People's Summit- clips of this have been uploaded on YouTube. I understand that simply being the only son of Bernie Sanders, does not make him worthy of inclusion as he would be simply 'famous' rather than 'remarkable'. A combination of his own political activism and his father, possibly the most important American progessive of all time make Levi notable.--Failosopher (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF. In light of my detailed nomination statement, the assertion that I "haven't done enough resarch," is discourteous. Note also that, in 2015 I created Larry Sanders (politician) (it had been created and deleted in 2010,) and in 2016 I created Jane O'Meara Sanders. I am always willing to change my iVote, if someone brings articles in WP:RS media independent of Levi in some depth or that some significant accomplishment that has drawn attention in the press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 20:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 20:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited. Failosopher: if you want to claim that he is notable in his own right, you will need to cite some independent sources as evidence. The article currently cites three sources: one is a "profile", and the other two are based on interviews with Sanders. None is independent. Maproom (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands now; right now, the article is basically just a WP:INHERITED blurb. Not prejudiced to its recreation. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above re 'inherited' notability: as other editors have noted, does not affect possible future re-creation if he becomes independently notable. Eagleash (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the creator is correct that his announcement generated news coverage, what he's missing is that as of right now that coverage just makes Levi a WP:BLP1E. People do not automatically qualify for articles just because they've gotten their name into the news cycle for a day — they qualify for articles when that coverage is happening in the context of something that passes a notability criterion, which being an as yet non-winning election candidate does not. If he wins the seat in November, he'll definitely get an article, and it's possible (although far from certain) that the dad factor will help him generate enough substantive and ongoing coverage during the campaign to clear WP:GNG as being more notable than most other candidates. But he does not automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article just because he got a one-day blip of coverage for announcing his candidacy yesterday, and who his father is doesn't automatically make him more special than any other candidate who isn't getting an article for that yet. Bearcat (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge.

On search engines, there are many sources (possibly reliable) and news articles that discuss about Levi Sanders. This can clear WP:N and WP:V, possibly, since there is quite a lack of references on this Wikipedia article.

It might be appropriate to have the article as a biography or find a way of merging it with the Bernie Sanders page.

Definitely shouldn't be deleted, but kept or merged.

These are my opinions on it.

Thanks CrayonS (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the Time Magazine article User:CrayonS just added to the page: 5 Things to Know About Levi Sanders, Bernie Sanders' Son Who Is Running for Congress is strong proof of Levi Sanders complete lack of notability. The 5 facts-to-know about Levi are 1.) he shares Dad's politics; 2. he doesn't even live in the distirct he's contesting, 3. he's never held office (he had a low-level career as a "Social Security benefits specialist", until Dad's campaign took off and Levi went to work for Dad, 4.) "The race will be tough", and 5.) Bernie's step-daughter is running for Mayor of Burlington (Dad's old job). It proves that there is nothing notable about Levi except that he is the son of a notable man.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A person does not automatically qualify for an article on "because media coverage exists" grounds just because they blipped into the news cycle for a day in a context that doesn't otherwise pass a Wikipedia inclusion criterion. A blip of campaign-related coverage is not enough to get a not yet elected candidate for office into Wikipedia just for being a candidate — it just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a topic who's earned permanent inclusion in an encyclopedia yet. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire, 2018, per WP:POLOUTCOMES. The election campaign is notable, even if the subject may not be. --Enos733 (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Delete it then. Wikipedia only likes famous people.

If we were going to make him a WP:BLP1E, I agree we do need more coverage about him.

In Bernie Sanders's personal life section, it does say that Levi Sanders is his son.

Thanks CrayonS (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. An article is premature as he is only a candidate for his party's nomination for office. If he wins the nomination then there would be a better argument for an article, particularly if profiles of him are published in major media as a result. Nixon Now (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire, 2018. MB298 (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited and besides, the subject is not very well referenced, and it fails GNG and WP:NPERSON. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Drafitify Move to draft and wait to see that he does not become more notable. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:51, 7 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. As the page author has not edited since a week prior to the AFD notice being posted, I have little hope of receving any comment from them. (non-admin closure) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

“Mr Juicy” Gino Gambino[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable professional wrestler. Galatz ^Talk 18:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 18:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete - surprised it was de-proded. Non notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. SportingFlyer (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article was moved from Draft without being reviewed first. Not notable. 101.189.95.32 (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Not notable and not reviewed in proper AfC process. Ajf773 (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not notable. Merely a self promotional stub. Kb.au (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional in nature. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Just another promotional stub. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:14, 7 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) 00:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Alberto Rodríguez[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources do not corroborate the article or do not even exist; e.g. "DEA Congressional Testimony, October 23, 2011" (not listed among DEA Congressional testimonies in 2011).

More: Talk:Cali Cartel#False claims

As stated in that Talk: Cali Cartel -page, Jorge Alberto Rodriguez and Jorge Alberto Rodriguez Herrera (a real relative of the Cali Cartel brothers) are different persons! The identities are deliberately mixed-up. Every bit written on this article is unsourced, misleadingly sourced or leads to two different identities of whom very little is actually known. And what is known is relatively mundane. Consider the rather extravagant, unsourced claims regarding "The 400". Absolutely nothing links said claims to Jorge Alberto Rodriguez, our inmate number 09086-017. Worse, this fakery has infested even the far more visited Cali Cartel article; Jorge Alberto Rodriguez is mentioned throughout but try checking the sources. I just did a Google Books search on Ron Chepesiuk's The Bullet or the Bribe, a source provided for Seizures, one of the sections mentioning Jorge Alberto. Zero presence of Jorge in that book. Another source, this time from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Nope, nothing there either. And this is a consistent pattern. "Jorge Alberto Rodriguez", as presented here in his namesake article or the Cali Cartel article, is nothing but a product of someone's imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.90.44.25 (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for now while I investigate further. Delete: The nominator is correct that the article conflates (at least) two different people. Jorge Alberto Rodriguez may well have been arrested and imprisoned in 1990 (there are no sources in the text to verify this, and I can't find anything online about the arrest of such a supposedly key drug lord) – there was certainly a Jorge Alberto Rodriguez involved in drug smuggling from Colombia who was in a US prison and appealed against his conviction in 1993 [14], and a Jorge Alberto Rodriguez released from a US prison in 2012 [15] (type the inmate number 09086-017 into the box and press Search). Both of these sources are already in the article text, but there is nothing definitively linking them as the same person.

We can definitely say that neither of them was Jorge Alberto Rodriguez Herrera, the son of Gilberto Rodriguez Orjuela of the Cali Cartel, because he was a free man living in Colombia in 1995 when his father was arrested by the Colombian authorities, as stated here in this Colombian newspaper article from July 1995 where he tried to enter the US after his father's arrest, but was caught and deported back to Colombia [16]. In another newspaper article he is stated as being an engineer by trade (nothing to do with drugs) [17], and in this article about the children of the Orjuela brothers, he is not even mentioned among his half-brothers and sisters as being involved in illegal activities [18], which is surprising if he really were heavily involved in the Cali Cartel, as the article states. There is nothing to support the penultimate statement that "He is regarded as one of the wealthiest criminals in history, with an estimated net-worth of US$3.7 billion"... as noted by the nominator, the source regarding the DEA testimony doesn't exist, and the second source is here [19] and makes no mention of the subject's wealth – in fact it shows that he was one of two men who had their assets unblocked and their names removed from the list of Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers, which doesn't tie up with this subject's supposed importance as a drug lord, or with the dates that he was supposedly released from prison (this unblocking order is from 2009).

This article was created by a WP:SPA with the username "Cholito111908" (the subject of the article was supposedly known as "Don Cholito"), and it may be pure coincidence, but it was created just a month after Jorge Alberto Rodriguez was released from prison in April 2012. The book that the user ElizabethCastro says she was writing in the first AfD nomination has never materialised... neither has Ms Castro since the AfD nomination in 2015. Richard3120 (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there are questions and the article creator is suspicious, it's best to play it safe for borderline notability articles. Even if the sources really are about the person they claim to be, this person isn't amazingly super-notable anyway. SnowFire (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - valid concerns have been raised. PhilKnight (talk) 00:39, 8 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, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Russell[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST, not widely covered by third party sources Aloneinthewild (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Effectively a CV of a man with a job. None of the subject's roles have been inherently notable, including his recent appointment (not mentioned in the article text) as Communications Manager for Motherwell FC. Fails WP:JOURNALIST, WP:BASIC. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A former news reported that joined a football club as press secrectary, i'm not seeing notable in the article, refs or on google. Szzuk (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article has no secondary sources, and coverage such as [20] doesn't meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:55, 7 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) 00:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Cowan (journalist)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST, not widely covered by third party sources that I can find Aloneinthewild (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject was a nominee in an "Awards Scotland" Television Journalist of the Year category in 2014: [21]. However, even if that had been won, such an award would not have been sufficient to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. The article text is CV-level, and notability is not inherited from covering notable news stories. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:JOURNALIST. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a biogrpahy of a living person that has as its one source twitter. This is way below even being close to even one reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am having some doubts now. @Johnpacklambert: if own Twitter can be counted as poor reference? Though it is clearly rid of BLP violation. Lorstaking (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter is not a reliable source for anything. It does not matter who the operator is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, no apparent notability, fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:06, 7 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. Consensus to keep, the sourcing in the article has received attention post nomination, so closing. (non-admin closure) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helen LaKelly Hunt[edit]

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

The current sources are not WP:RS and I cannot find RS to replace them. No WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Satisfies WP:AUTHOR on the basis of her extensive, extensively discussed published work. For instance, here are some reviews or discussions of her book Making Marriage Simple: Huff Post, Oprah.Com, US News, Times of India, and so on. And that's just one book. The same could be done for the others. Clearly notable.192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -- Borderline promotional, as so often with self-help authors. It would appear there's a not-very-well-hidden agenda to promote The Sister Fund as well. The husband's notability is somewhat doubtful as well. On the whole I would keep if better sources can be added. Deb (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Definitely meets WP:AUTHOR on the basis of her much discussed published work. As noted by Coolabahapple, there are notable reviews/discussions of her book Making Marriage Simple: Huff Post, Oprah.Com, US News, Times of India. She has a track record of producing work that is noted by prominent sources. Knox490 (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides authorial considerations, she's an inductee into the National Women's Hall of Fame. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPERSON. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage in reliable sources such as US News and Times of India Atlantic306 (talk) 17:57, 7 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)} 17:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prema Pallakki[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up anything to show this film meets WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't meet WP:NFILM. Notable cast members do not generally grant notability. What is missing is critical reviews and press coverage. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No RS and fails WP:NFILM. FITINDIA 09:46, 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 keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Longi Silicon Materials[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Longi Silicon Materials

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

Note that this article has been moved to

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) SpinningSpark 21:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Most of the coverage I could find is either ROUTINE (this, this, this, or this) or not enough to pass GNG (this and this). pv-tech.org, which this article relies upon, claims to be a trade journal but I couldn't find independent description of it as a source. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing news of LONGi:

I looked at other articles about PV and found that PVTech is used as a reliable source in numerous other Wikipedia article about PV. But I then listed the other online sources of news that those articles had cited and searched them for news of LONGi. I found a very large amount of news about LONGi in those other sources. Rather than deletion, perhaps the article should be improved by enhancing the depth and number of citations from an array of different sources. MaynardClark (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of LONGi:

According to internal and external sources, LONGi has set certified world records in PERC efficiency three times - within only five months (October 2017-February 2018). MaynardClark (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing contentions about Xi'an LONGi Silicon Materials:

I have added several RECENT references about LONGi's record of rapid achievements in PV innovation. There is plenty of news from 2015 across the array of professional secvtor media related to PV R&S and manufacturing.MaynardClark (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LONGi's multi-national production:

I have noted that LONGi has factories in at least three nations (China^[1], India^[2]^[3], and Malaysia). This needs to be researched further; LONGi may have production facilities in more nations. I don't (yet) know about how how they handle energy source issues and waste stream management inside their factories. MaynardClark (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Xi'an Longi to invest $126m in 100MW China PV plan. Publicover, B. ReCharge. 30 September 2015. Updated 28 September 2016. Accessed February 28, 2010.
^ Xi'an Longi to invest $126m in 100MW China PV plan. Publicover, B. ReCharge. 30 September 2015. Updated 28 September 2016. Accessed February 28, 2010.
^ Deals and company news from the global solar sector this week. Recharge: Solar Power Deals & Company News. 21 September 2015. Updated 28 September 2015. Accessed February 28, 2018.

Keep. Plenty of evidence of notability;

Covered by Bloomberg, Financial Times Markets Data, and Reuters. While this is routine data and news, it is detailed and these companies don't cover just anybody. You won't find your local solar power installer listed there.
Longi is listed on the Shanghai stock exchange Bloomberg
Longi Silicon and Zhonghuan Semiconductor announce new expansions with over 10GW of new capacity planned lengthy article in PV Magazine
ET Solar, LONGi join to create global mono-crystalline solar panel brand lengthy article in Solar Power World
ET Solar And LONGi Silicon Team Up On Mono Modules article in Solar Industry magazine
Chinese firm Xi’an LONGi to set up ₹1,600-cr solar module, cell manufacturing plant in AP article in The Hindu Business Line. Incidentally showing the international interest in this company.
Longi Green Energy is mulling to open manufactory in USA, Bloomberg article in Photon.info

SpinningSpark 22:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this information should be incorporated into the article itself (I think). MaynardClark (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they should, and maybe you'd like to WP:DOIT, but we don't delete articles just because they're not finished. ~Kvng (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, MaynardClark is arguing to keep the article despite not giving a bolded recommendation. SpinningSpark 08:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability clearly established based on sources listed by Spinningspark. ~Kvng (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for all the reasons listed above. This article should be finished or enhanced, but some of us may find time in our current schedules for developing it further at this time. MaynardClark (talk) 15:33, 8 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 Archbishops' Council. Anything worth merging is available from the article's edit history. Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advisory Council for the Church's Ministry[edit]

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

Subject isn't notable. While ACCM is a publisher of Anglican thought, it is not the subject of any independent material I could find. Many of the sources I could find (including the one live link provided in the article) only briefly mention the subject; therefore, the subject fails WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think headquarters departments of one of the most important churches in the world should generally be seen as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I missed the guideline that says Anglican stuff is presumed to be notable. You can imagine how normative judgments like that lead to systemic biases in this project. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - In what possible way is it systemic bias for organs of a major church to be seen as notable? Come on! And no, I have no connection whatsoever with the C of E, nor am I religious at all. I merely believe in common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the top organizational levels of any major religious denomination with several centuries of history should be presumed notable. It's not just Anglican stuff, I recently created an article about a similar organization within the Church of Iceland. That being said, I see no shortage of perfectly good sources so it's a clear keep for me. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Prince of Thieves: Perhaps you misunderstand me. I'm not going to nominate articles that have presumed notability, like "hall of fame" bucking bulls or professors in named chairs. I'm not sure how "the top organizational levels of any major religious denomination" get any sort of presumption short of WP:ILIKEIT. I'm not trying to waste editors' time with this; this nomination is entirely procedural. If you hit me up on my talk page and tell me that everyone agrees that it's forbidden to nominate church-related stuff, I'll get your message. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Chris troutman: Well certainly we don't want piles of articles about the committees of local choir groups and such. But I would definitely say any national or supranational church governing body in a major denomination should be either kept or merged while leaving a {{R with possibilities}} redirect. These things are pretty well covered in specialist publications. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. Just a talking shop that can be created, amended or ended at any time. 2 refs in article, 1 404, 1 primary. Szzuk (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Archbishops' Council, which it is a department of, as this is simply an advisory council body within a larger council body, which runs the anglican church. (renamed three times at least, as vaguely alluded to in the article). I do think it is notable, but it is also a tiny stub and there is nothing to merge. I would vastly rather work on something work local than part of the Anglican church. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep If not, Merge to Archbishops' Council, (rather than delete). I am not all that familiar with the Anglican church's structures, but I suspect this is notable. We are talking about the English Established Church. Nevertheless it is difficult to judge from a placeholder (stub) such as this. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge It clearly part of the function of the (notable) Archbishops' Council Mattyjohn (talk) 00:57, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Granneman[edit]

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

I tagged this article 3 years ago (see Talk:Scott Granneman) for notability and there's been no meaningful resolution since. Article is still sourced basically by the subject's personal homepage. Lots of books are listed, but spot-checking via WorldCat indicates double-digit or fewer holdings, which is very low in the area of computers/IT. Thought it time for community to have a look. Agricola44 (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Patent PROMO for guy who runs a small web development business, and teaches a course as an adjunct. Fails WP:BASIC, fails WP:PROFESSOR, fails WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:12, 7 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, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Alia International Indian School[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES or WP:GNG; no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources in English, Arabic, or Hindi, and so far the article is completely unsourced. Prod contested by an admin on the grounds that it's a secondary school. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: Apart from this and a few passing mentions, there are no sources to indicate the school is notable. MT Train^Talk 17:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and Redirect per policy, and using the R from school template for this purpose. Policies trump guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to locale.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. _{Vermont | reply here} 23:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An unsourced article about a private school, which has suffered from vagueness ("an unknown villa") and has previously been a vehicle for hearsay and allegations. No evidence of attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:41, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Riley[edit]

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

Written like an autobiography. The performer has used his own account multiple times to add information, and I am unsure of his notability. Cssiitcic (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Autobiographies are rarely notable, and worse, may contain incorrect information with questionable or no citations.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 04:06, 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) 15:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Western Investor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Although I was heavily involved on the keep side in the original AFD discussion a decade ago, Wikipedia's notability and sourcing requirements for bands have been tightened up considerably since then. Their most solid notability claim at the time was charting on CBC Radio 3, but that's now much more clearly deprecated as a WP:BADCHART that cannot get a band over NMUSIC #2 by itself anymore, and they haven't done anything since releasing This Beautiful Town in 2006, so they don't have a solid claim to passing any other NMUSIC criterion — and they simply don't have any strong reliable source coverage about them to pass WP:GNG, either. They were a valid article topic at the time, but our notability and sourcing standards are much stricter in 2018 than they were a decade ago, and this band just doesn't have anything that passes them anymore. I am sad to say that it has to go, given how well I remember the passion of the original discussion, but NMUSIC has simply changed too much since 2006. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Really interesting historical record here of how notability has changed-- but Bearcat is ultimately right in his nom. I've looked everywhere for sources and I wasn't able to find anything in addition to the CBC Radio 3 chart, and per Bearcat's nom, that isn't enough for notability. I'm !voting delete. Nomader (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I created this article back in 2007, and I will be sad to see this piece of history go. (Bearcat is, of course, correct in his assessment of the change in notability standards from eleven years ago.) There was minor heat that resulted when I created the article, had a speedy deletion reversed, and then argued for its retention along with Bearcat (who – cool fact – got on-air props from The R3-30 host Craig Norris about his successful efforts for this article) ... which led to me going down a path of years of involvement at AfD and searching for sources for vulnerable articles. With apologies for the moment of self-indulgence, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:08, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Instruction[edit]

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

Puff piece for Victor P. Maiorana, who has assigned this meaning to the phrase. Can't see that its currency is wide enough to justify an article. TheLongTone (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent coverage; the other ref I found was a letter by Maiorana [22]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:02, 7 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. Killiondude (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rinaldi Group[edit]

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

Cannot see why this businessis notable; coverage seems rum of the mill. And that includes coverage of the workers death; a shocking number of people die as a result of accidents on building sites. TheLongTone (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't even find anything but passing mentions in the trade press, bar a single accident. Mattyjohn (talk) 00:48, 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 merge to Pizza Pops. Killiondude (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Faraci[edit]

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

Doesn't meet GNG and barely notable, only created due to his death today. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of very substantial coverage. An article on the product he develooed exists so at worst a merge would be appropriate outcome. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing really to merge. It is already stated Pizza Pops were invented by him in the 1960s. The only other info is his birth/death. I guess we can keep this redirect though to Pizza Pops. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

False. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pizza Pops. Madg2011 (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pizza Pops but also note this article also violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL and so should probably be rewritten there. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pizza Pops. I was going to start a draft for this person, but the article was already created.--Auric talk 14:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Auric. 2001:569:7C07:2600:31DD:602E:28C1:EA41 (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pizza Pops. No prejudice against recreation if someone puts in the work to find more evidence of sustained reliable source coverage about him to get him over WP:GNG — in the database I've got, he gets just one hit apart from the "Paul Faraci has died" blip itself, so I'm not the angel of salvation here — but a person doesn't automatically qualify for a standalone article just because his death occasions obituaries. And that's especially true when two of the five obituaries are reprints of the same wire service article, and thus combine as one reference per citation overkill rules. He's a plausible enough search term that we should retain it as a redirect to the thing he's known for — but the sourcing here just isn't good enough to earn him a standalone article as a separate topic, and even the content is mainly about the product apart from his birth and death dates. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Whatever can be the outcome of this discussion, I thought it was right to merge the birthdate and deathdate of the inventor, including a reference on his death in the main article for the Pizza Pops. --Lemur12 (talk) 18:44, 7 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 Oath Keepers. I would not be opposed to protection of the redirect if it is believed warranted. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect has now been semi-protected for 1 year by Dlohcierekim (at 11:53, 8 March 2018‎ ) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer Stewart Rhodes[edit]

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

Merge with oath keepers. Not enough to warrant his own article. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep quite a lot of coverage of this militia founder and leader. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - no substantial coverage presented that is independent of Oath Keepers. VQuakr (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page. Am fine with merging it with Oath Keepers.

Delete Article relies too much on primary sources and sources published by Rhodes. Then there is the SPLC, which is basically a fund-raising racket, that is in no way a reliable source for anything, both trying to support its incoherent hate group list by mischaracterizing many who are put there and at the same time listing at least one individual as a hate group, not even counting some of the organizations it identifies as "groups" that do not clearly have more than one actual member. Such high presure salesman tactics should not be used in created a neutral point of view encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oath Keepers, as typically done with leaders/founders of minor groups. Not independently notable and a separate article is not required. Possibly protect the redirect, to prevent restoration. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect. Half the footnotes here are primary sources or blogs, which cannot support notability, and he's not strongly enough the subject of the other four more reliable sources to deem him as passing WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 7 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. Satisfies WP:NFILM (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dalkeith (film)[edit]

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

WP:NFILM Daask (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a Variety article on the film. The Cinefile article also goes into quite a bit of detail. Limoted release but ran for months in indie cinemas. Also notable for the audience it targeted (older peeps). Not Pirates of the Caribbean but meets notabiloty criteria. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found lots of coverage, some listed below.

Reviewed by The Age - Schembri, Jim (26 September 2009), "DVD of the week", The Age

"Dalkeith went on to become a long-running, much-loved regional classic at such venues as the family-run Waverley Cinema, where it ran for over a year."

And The Christchurch Press - Croot, James (26 June 2004), "SOME CREDIT FOR DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT", The Christchurch Press

"Shot in Ballarat over 15 days for $A800,000 ($NZ850,00), Dalkeith has been lauded as the little movie that could across the ditch. Shunned by government funding bodies and given a wide berth by distributors, veteran advertising director Leigh Sheehan's debut film has broken records in Melbourne cinemas and made its private investors a tidy sum. "

Reviewed by The West Australian - Naglazas, Mark (12 January 2004), "Dog flick skirts the pack.", The West Australian

"THERE'S a touch of Seabiscuit about Dalkeith, a small Australian-made feelgood comedy-drama about a washed-up greyhound who beats the odds and lifts the flagging spirits of its unlikely owners, residents of a retirement home"

Long piece in the Herald Sun - Kearney, Neil (11 January 2003), "Dog of a film running strong", Herald Sun

"The idea came after director Leigh Sheehan watched an A Current Affair report five years ago about a pet greyhound adopted by the old people at Dalkeith nursing home in Traralgon."

Long piece in The Age - Webb, Carolyn (11 November 2002), "The Culture - The greyhound keeps running.", The Age

"An Australian film that failed to get a commercial distributor is entering its 10th month at a Melbourne cinema. Owners of Waverley Cinemas say they are catering for a neglected cinema-going market - the elderly - in showing Dalkeith."

Long piece in the Herald Sun - Shrimpton, James (27 November 2001), "Fun plot, but old stagers feel the cold.", Herald Sun

"A NEW Australian comedy has been playing to packed houses in Ballarat where it was filmed, but has been ignored by major film distributors."

Piece in the Herald Sun - "This film's no shaggy dog tale.", Herald Sun, 18 August 2000

"FILMING began this week on Dalkeith"

Long piece in the Herald Sun - Hart, Bob (27 April 1999), "YOUR FEEL GOOD DISH LICKER FLICK.", Herald Sun

"THE heart-warming tale of Dalkeith - the greyhound raced by elderly residents of a Traralgon community hostel - is to become a feature film."

Enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the depth of coverage indicates that this would easily meet notability criteria as expressed at NFILM. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep the many reliable sources above enable WP:GNG to be passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:12, 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 Speedy deleted Waggers TALK 15:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manend Media[edit]

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

New News website of questionable notability. I can only find their Facebook page on google. Seems to be to new of a site to have attained sufficient notability as of now. Travelbird (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Speedied under A7, created twice earlier as Manend. MT Train^Talk 13:58, 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. Killiondude (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bibhorr formula[edit]

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

Questionable formula. The links provided are to a book self-published in February 2017, social media websites and a site of Merian-Webster where one can propose new words. At most this seems to be a promotional article to make an obscure new mathematical concept well-known. But I am happy to be corrected if someone with detailed knowledge about mathematics can establish the notability of the seemingly brand-new formula. Travelbird (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is complete (and non-notable) nonsense. And is it just me, or do all these various references look like they were written by the same person using pseudonyms in order to make it look like there's wider interest in this than there really is? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DV. --JBL (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable pseudo-mathematics that somebody made up one day. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Almost looks like a hoax, actually. If it were real, I'd think it would upend all of mathematics as it replaces trigonometry. I don't recall from high school math class that doing so would be so easy. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete as complete nonsense. Yes, if this were true it would revolutionise trigonometry, but as such it is obviously false as trig is so well grounded. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The formula doesn't even work for a 3x4 triangle. Gives the angle as 50-something radians. LOL Acebulf (talk) 04:07, 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 keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Trimble[edit]

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

No evidence of notability could be found. He (or rather his company) is sometimes mentioned in passing as one of the many producers of streetcars in the late 19th century, but that's it. Fram (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE? One of the top returns on Google Books notes "he name of James A. Trimble is closely associated in the minds of street railway men with the subject of cars, and Trimble cars and car woodwork have a wide reputation for excellence of construction, durability and fine finish. The Trimble car works were started in i86g, in a small shop next to the present building, and were originally devoted to the manufacture of street car woodwork.." And that the company grew into a 6 story building in New York City. Seems manifestly notable to me. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I did WP:BEFORE. That quote reads like an advert (a press release printed in the very specialized press, the "Transit journal" / "Street Railway Journal"), not some independent review. E.g. the NY Times seems not to have given any attention to the man or his company, which seems strange if this really was a notable NY company. One has to dig deep into the very specialized directories to find some bits of info. Fram (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep, because the article has been significantly expanded since being nominated. NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 and 4 are the same, source 3 is an advert, source 6 is an unreliable website, source 2 and 7 look like press releases reprinted in the industry journals. Source 5 only has passing mentions[23], which leaves us with source 1/4, a short entry in a directory of all trolley etc. builders[24]. One entry in a directory, passing mentions in another book, and some reprinted press releases and an advert are not sufficient to establish notability for a company. Fram (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pretty clearly meets GNG. This is a historical biography, not contemporary commercial spam; here we hare seeing the (probably inevitable) spillover of the reaction to the latter, in my opinion, which will prove quite damaging to the encyclopedia if allowed to gain steam, so to speak. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is coverage of Trimble's roll in selling 80 double-decked tram cars to St. Louis in 1900. Carrite (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is without question a notable firm, although it seems to have gone through several name iterations. The founder is also probably notable but one would think there should be an article on one or the other but probably not both. The journal Street Railway Journal includes copious coverage of the firm's doings and that doesn't even start to touch what is there to be found on Newspapers.com, which a dedicated article writer could spend time finding. The footnotes on this piece are a complete fricking mess, but that might just be a case of a newcomer finding their way; I couldn't successfully fix one of them myself and I've been doing this crap for the better part of ten years. Anyway, there's plenty of work to be done here, but getting the ball rolling involves ending this challenge in a Keep. Carrite (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Devyatova[edit]

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

Vanity biography of a non-notable individual. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive that Marina Devyatova is a well-known singer, and familiar to all russian speaking people. If you check the sources here https://www.google.nl/search?q=%22Marina+Devyatova%22&tbm=nws&gws_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=oKCWWvHNBcb9UoeVnrAI , you will be able to see a big number of articles about this singer, even in the biggest russian newspapers. Maybe you should include a Russian speaking editor in this discussion to realize how notable this person is. I would also like to know what is the notability criteria on which you have assumed that this person is not notable? (you can see that she has wikipedia page in 10 other languages). In the article, I included even her imdb page, but I don't know if you consider that imdb is not enough for notability? Anass Sedrati (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anass Sedrati: Indeed, I now see that there are articles on her in 10 other language Wikipedias. However, the imdb page, which I did look at, mentions nothing notable about her. Why don't you add some further material with reliable sources to show that she is indeed a notable individual? Being a finalist in a talent show is not enough in itself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: I don't know how you judge the notability for a singer? That she has a given number of views on Youtube? All I am saying is that she is famous in Russian speaking world and has already pages (and Russian speaking Media) that talk about her as an artist. This is a video of her singing in Youtube with 6 million views (and you can find many others) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrdGQPtlteM. I don't know if you will still consider that she is lacking notability even after this? Regards. Anass Sedrati (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anass Sedrati: I am quite prepared to withdraw this nomination, but please do add some more information to the article. All it states at the moment is that she is a "Russian singer and interpret of traditional songs." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: Thank you for your collaboration (and preparation to withdraw the deletion nomination) and for confirming the the problem was not notability. I will add some more information, but since you have confirmed that the issue was not notability (it was the reason you stated in your first message), then please go ahead with the withdrawal, and thank you again. Anass Sedrati (talk) 16:56, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Coomber[edit]

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

Apparently not notable by our standards, does not meet WP:ARTIST, some shows in some fairly minor galleries, the routine business of a working artist. Sourcing is tenuous in the extreme. I started removed some of the worst (e.g., Houzz: "With Houzz, professionals can showcase their work and provide insight into their values") but stopped when I realised that there's essentially nothing there. Article creator is blocked as an undisclosed paid editor, and there seems to be every likelihood that this is in fact a paid advertisement (and, lest we forget, Wikipedia does not tolerate advertisements). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Looks like a cv or promotion. The article is tagged with paid, it is hard to tell how it came about but it certainly doesn't appear an organic article. 30+ refs, I checked about half a dozen at random and they mean nothing, the others look the same but weren't checked. Szzuk (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete went through all the sources, and also did a search for other sources. There were articles that talk about her, but they took forever to find and were blogs. Doesn't meet WP:ARTIST. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing is not strong enough to support notability, and is of very low quality.104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Zoob[edit]

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

Apparently not notable by our standards, does not meet WP:ARTIST. Sourcing is tenuous in the extreme – a passing mention in the Tatler, for example; I started removed some of the worst, but stopped when I realised that there's essentially nothing there. Article creator is blocked as an undisclosed paid editor, and there seems to be every likelihood that this is in fact a paid advertisement (and, lest we forget, Wikipedia does not tolerate advertisements). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like an advert or CV. Notability not established by the refs. Page is tagged with possibly paid, more likely a COI. Szzuk (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing is not strong enough to support notability.104.163.148.25 (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotion. Mduvekot (talk) 14:00, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraf (1907)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. My original reasoning was: fails WP:NNEWSPAPER - no indication of significance. Reference cited is a footnote in an article about something else entirely, not in-depth, not enough to support an article. No other sources located, either on Google, GBooks, GScholar, or the www.marxists.org site. ru.wikipedia also doesn't have an article; it's a redlink on their disambig page for telegraph.

Since the de-PROD, two more sources have been added, but neither is in-depth enough to count for GNG, and neither indicates that the paper would pass the NNEWSPAPER criteria. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NPOV, there is not enoug information or sources to clearly establish a neutral point of view - one source may be biased as to the slant or notability of the paper. The cited Fiedler book"grigorij+starzew" associates journalist Grigorij Ewlampijewitsch Starzew with the paper, but I can't find anything more on him. If anyone can transliterate that name into Russian, they might be able to find out more. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathone Sangma[edit]

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

I think he fails WP:N. He was candidate of NCP in Meghalaya Legislative Assembly election, 2018 & Came in limelight because of his Death in IED blast. Apart from these, there is nothing notable. Godric ki Kothri^•✉•✎ 10:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Election candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if they weren't already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then they have to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable enough for a Wikipedia article — and dying on the campaign trail does not boost his notability over and above any other candidate. Any candidate could always show as many sources as are shown here, so the amount of coverage his death got is not evidence that he's a special case. Bearcat (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not holding a public office. All coverage relate to the assassination and death of the person, which is quite common for any incident of sabotage. MT Train^Talk 04:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Marco Di Meco#Discography. Once more sources become available, I would not be opposed to the redirect being reverted and sources added (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Against Capitalism Première Symphonie[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM (royally), WP:TOOSOON applies, since it was released yesterday. Kleuske (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marco Di Meco. Nothing significant found. --Michig (talk) 07:17, 7 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)} 17:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mañana (band)[edit]

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

Unknown band from Switzerland. Article has no references, and couldn't anything online either. London Hall (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found a bunch of sources.

German language review of Interuptions - Krebs, Marc (16 August 2008), "Grosse Effekte, mittlerer Effekt; Die Basler Band Mañana veröffentlicht «Interruptions»", Basler Zeitung

German language article about the making of Interuptions - Studer, Patrick (26 September 2008), "Pophymnen mit Weltformat; Druck widerstanden; Starproduzent am Werk", Berner Zeitung

German language review of Interuptions - Grether, Urs (6 October 2008), "Verloren gegangen in der Marktfalle", Basellandschaftliche Zeitung

German language review of concert - Ganz, Markus (26 January 2009), "Grosse Gefühle im kleinen Raum; Mañana beendet die «Rockwoche» in der Roten Fabrik", Neue Zürcher Zeitung

German language article on gig in England - Bauer, David (18 October 2005), "Fünf Freunde auf Eroberungstour - «Die Briten wollen englische Bands»", Basler Zeitung

My German is non existant so I relied on google translate but they looked good in there. Enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the many German reliable sources detailed above, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:13, 7 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) 00:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Louis Harrell[edit]

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

This subject does not appear to meet the notability standard for entertainment professionals at WP:ENTERTAINER. I cannot see that even one of the films mentioned in the article is notable, and none of the movies he is claimed to be "best known for" lists him as one of the stars on IMDb. There is no evidence of a substantial fan base, and I cannot see evidence that he has made any substantial unique contribution to the state of the art. I tagged the article for Notability a week ago, and nothing has been offered to support his notability since then. Gronk Oz (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom is correct, article subject fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ENTERTAINER. Subject has not accrued the prominence in his industry to be considered notable enough for an encyclopedia. The only substantive source I can find in the article is an interview ([25]), and also per nom IMDB is user-generated and thus not verifiable.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:05, 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) 00:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moderator of the Sutlej Reformed Church of Pakistan[edit]

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

The article about the church has been deleted after this discussion. I propose we also delete this article for the lack of WP:NOTABILITY. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced article on the deleted subject per nom. samee ^talk 22:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DElete - I voted querying the AFD on the denomination. However the deletion of the denomination (if right) makes it inevitable that the article on its moderator must also go. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Gorin[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial sourcing. References are mainly quotes from subject pertaining to cases unrelated to subject. Article failed "Article for Creation" twice. reddogsix (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks broad based coverage to show actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gorin has "personally handled significant and notable cases" (as per notability guidelines) and is recognized as "making a contribution" in the criminal law field under CA Anti-Paparazzi statute. Though no one source substantial covers Gorin, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnysmith42 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC) — Johnnysmith42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Per WP:BLP we need in-depth coverage of Gorin himself, not merely passing mentions. Notability is not inherited. reddogsix (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIn Gorin's case, though there is no single source establishing notability, the multitude of various sources establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SILQCX (talk • contribs) 06:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC) — SILQCX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Per WP:BLP we need in-depth coverage of Gorin himself, not merely passing mentions. Notability is not inherited. reddogsix (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Government (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This is way too broad, and categories already cover this. The page would cover tens of thousands of pages. Again, much better covered by differential categories, not disambiguation Isingness (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the argument that a term is too broad for disambiguation doesnt make sense. If there is more than one term, then it needs disambiguating. The argument that there are too few different meanings is sometimes a valid reason for a delete, but usually it seems disambiguation pages are all-too-useful and therefore immune from this argument for deletion. The idea that categories covers the topic doesn't make sense, as people don't readily access through categories, they access different related topics through disambiguatio, and categories are more for oraganization. -Inowen (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD might make more sense if there were thousands of entries on the page, but I only see a few. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - "there are too many possible meanings of this word to have a disambiguation page" doesn't make sense and isn't a valid reason for deletion. Madg2011 (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per Madg2011. Simply do not understand what deleting this would accomplish. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Government article and its hatnotes have been a disaster for a great while; there are enough terms to have a DAB page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:10, 7 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CFPP-FM[edit]

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

Another Canadian radio station, of the religious type that formerly had to have a conventional CRTC license but then became exempt. This type of station serves primarily to broadcast mass, so that senior citizens with mobility issues can still "attend" church -- but they broadcast nothing outside of church service hours, so they're not of wider interest. And the fact that they're now exempt from having to have conventional broadcast licenses anymore means that we can no longer verify anything about them -- if they go out of operation, we have no way of knowing that, and on and so forth. And if we can't verify it, we can't keep it. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: License-exempt church stations, which already lack the presumption of notability for broadcast stations (which is reserved for stations that have a license), are unlikely to generate the sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline, much less be independently notable of the church that runs the station. (And given that most of the results I'm seeing about the church that holds the CFPP-FM license are in fact about CFPP, including CRTC pages, directories, and Wikipedia and its mirrors…) Really, the assignment of a "regular" call sign is all that distinguishes CFPP-FM from the various religious VF stations whose articles were deleted at AfD a few years ago — and of course that alone isn't going to get over any notability humps. (Oddly enough, at least one of those VF stations is actually more powerful than CFPP…) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wcquidditch: With the changes made, would that be enough to change your !vote? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:11 on February 28, 2018 (UTC)

Discussion unrelated to the AfD thread

Question: @Bearcat and Wcquidditch: What is a "license exempt church station"? I know it's Canadian (I'm from the US), but I'm not familiar with these. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:45 on February 21, 2018 (UTC)

While waiting for an answer to my above question, I did find some more information about CFPP's history. Seems it was previously on 89.7 prior to 1995. Here's a more complete history for CFPP, including the link for the license (or licence) revocation. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:48 on February 22, 2018 (UTC)

According to this site, which admittedly is not reliable in nature, it appears if CFPP changed it's callsign to VF8000, which was removed from the "ISEDC" database. Not sure what ISEDC is, maybe you Canadians will know. I know we AfD'd alot of VF stations en masse awhile back. Perhaps we can bring that one back, merge it's history with CFPP, do a little updating and see what if we can get a real article out of it. I'm willing to help, but seeing as I know US stations, I might need some help from up north on this one. :) Worth a shot? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:01 on February 22, 2018 (UTC)

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. Government agency. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty self-explanatory; it's a license-exempt radio station operated by a church. We don't use the term Part 15 for unlicensed low-power stations in Canada, because 15 isn't the number of the section in Canadian broadcast law that governs them, but they're exactly the same thing as Part 15s outside of the differing terminology. The CRTC used to require these stations to be licensed just the same as any other more conventional radio station — but in an early-2000s round of regulatory simplification it dropped that requirement, and then issued a bunch of pro forma decisions to revoke the licenses of stations that had them — but the revocation doesn't necessarily mean the station had ceased to operate at that time, it just meant that the CRTC had no reason to maintain or monitor the licenses anymore due to the rule change. But we can't keep articles about them just because they're technically referenceable to the old CRTC decisions themselves, because we have no other way of verifying what happened to any of these stations after they no longer had to go back to the CRTC for license renewals anymore: no reliable sources will address whether such a station is still operating or not, if a station has stopped operating no reliable sources will address when or why, and on and so forth. There's simply no sourceable substance that can be written about these stations besides "it used to exist but we have no way of verifying whether it still does or not", and there's no encyclopedic reason for anybody to care about them. Even conventionally licensed general interest radio stations still require their notability to be sourceable to at least some evidence of reliable source coverage in media or books, rather than resting solely on CRTC/FCC sourcing alone. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: So we can't use the "it had a license, now it doesn't, so the station is defunct and the page is here because the station once had a license" arguement? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:13 on February 22, 2018 (UTC)

What would be the value in that argument if we can't source anything about when or why it went defunct? Bearcat (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if we could bring back VF8000, there is some more information we could use. Plus, if the ISEDC database is searchable, unlike the CRTC database, we might find that when or why. I'd rather check everything before putting a radio station article out to pasture. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:35 on February 22, 2018 (UTC)

There's never been a VF8000 article for us to bring back, and there's no more reliably sourceable information out there about it in that form than there is about it in CFPP form. And no, Spectrum Management doesn't offer a way to recover deleted details about defunct stations — it verifies the defunctness of a station only via the lack of any record on a call sign or frequency-and-location search, not by maintaining a record with a "defunct" flag on it. If a station doesn't pull up a live entry in their database, there's no way to recover a deleted one that might have existed in the past. (Oh, and just a reminder: the CRTC database is not "unsearchable", there are just some things — call sign changes, etc. — where it isn't useful because they aren't part of what the CRTC does.) Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Crap. I think we should still try to save it with what information we have and just call the sourceable end date 2014, but beyond that, there isn't much we can do. But we do have sources, so it isn't a total loss. I was unaware that it was searchable. Can you link me to what parts are searchable? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:04 on February 23, 2018 (UTC)

I don't see what purpose maintaining an article about it would serve at all — it's not a general market station about which there would be any ongoing interest, but a station of about as much inherent notability or public interest as the "music synced to the house's Christmas lights" iPod "station" that I drove past on the way to my brother's house last Christmas Eve (which was a nice little Christmassy moment, but nobody would expect an encyclopedia to have an article about it.) Technically speaking, even our notability criteria for radio stations have less to do with "because it existed" and more to do with "because there's a reasonable prospect that some people will actually be looking for information about it" — which is exactly what a VF station like this doesn't have, and exactly why we deprecate prerecorded tourist information stations and Part 15s. And I'm not sure what you mean by asking what parts of the CRTC website are searchable — the CRTC doesn't do all of the same things on it that the FCC does (frex, there's no way to make a usable "AMQ" or "FMQ" template out of a preformatted CRTC search — decisions and notices are organized by date, not by station, so there's no magic URL that will automatically generate a complete station history, and nothing on the CRTC website is going to help you document or source a call sign or branding or format change, or the shutdown date of a license-exempt VF station, or whether a newly-licensed station has actually made it to air yet or not), but anything that's on their website is searchable if you type a term into its search bar. The only issue is knowing what it is or isn't relevant to search their site for. Bearcat (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: I still think, with the information we have, even if it is all CRTC links, it's still enough to say the station existed, had a history and then under Canadian law, "didn't exist" anymore. I can't in good conscience !vote to delete an article that has even stub potential. So, I gotta !vote Keep on this one.

As for the CRTC site, I misunderstood, I thought you meant that there were parts that were finally searchable. As in searchable by callsign, frequency, etc., like the FCC site. Again, I misunderstood. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:08 on February 23, 2018 (UTC)

But nobody has any reason to even need a stub for this. It serves no value to retain it, because nobody cares or ever will about a "Part 15"-type station that formerly existed only to broadcast Sunday mass and nothing else — and NMEDIA explicitly states that while CRTC/FCC sourcing is necessary for some details, it's not enough sourcing to get an article kept all by itself if it's the only sourcing that can ever be provided. "Stub potential" isn't the point of Wikipedia — if the article has no potential to ever become more than a mere stub, because the topic is so unsourceable that the article can never say anything more than it already does, then an article simply isn't necessary or warranted. Bearcat (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, let's let the reader decide what has value and what doesn't. We don't, they do. Personally, I don't think see the value of listing every germ, but we do. An article can "live" on FCC documents alone, not sure about CRTC, but FCC, yes, per NMEDIA. We have five (5) sources, that's enough to meet NMEDIA and GNG in my book. That would take it from stub to start. Since Canada doesn't have Part15s, we can't use NMEDIA's Part15 rules in this instance. I'm sorry, we just aren't going to see eye to eye on this one. We normally do, but we aren't here.

Just for the record, Sherbrooke, isn't a "small town", it's actually a major city of 161,323 people as of the 2016 Canadian census. According to this coverage map from RECNet (a highly reliable source), CFPP covered/covers most of the city with a 60dBu signal, the rest covered with a listenable 54dBu signal. That's 161,000+ people with 1 watt, nothing to sneeze at. Again, just for the record. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:21 on February 23, 2018 (UTC)

No, actually, NMEDIA explicitly states that FCC/CRTC licensing documents are not in and of themselves enough to get a radio station kept forever if no other sources can be provided. They're a necessary source for some details of what a radio station's article needs to contain (e.g. they're necessary as the reference for a station's ERP and HAAT), but they're not a sufficient source in and of themselves if they're the only source available. And secondly, you completely missed what I actually said if you think "Canada doesn't have Part15's, so we can't use NMEDIA's Part15 rules". We just don't use the term "Part 15" to name them — we call them "VFs" — but we do have stations that are the same thing in substance, and fall under the same "not inherently notable" rules, as Part 15s. NMEDIA's "Part 15" rules do explicitly state that they do also apply to VFs in Canada: they're based on the substance and sourceability of what such a station does, not on whether "Part 15" is the name of their authorizing legal framework or not. The rule explicitly names both USian Part 15s and Canadian VFs alongside each other as examples. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what it was after it turned it's license, it had a license, which under NMEDIA, makes it notable and notability doesn't end when the station signs off. Again, I'm sorry, but you aren't going to sway me on this one. My !vote remains Keep. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:31 on February 23, 2018 (UTC)

NMEDIA explicitly states that the existence of the CRTC licensing documents is not in and of itself an exemption from the article ever having to contain other sources besides the licensing documents alone. A radio station does have to be sourced to at least some evidence of reliable source coverage in media before it gets a notability pass — it doesn't have to have a ton of that, but it does have to have more than none of it. And nobody ever said that all defunct radio stations automatically cease to be notable just because they've gone defunct — but regardless of whether it's active or defunct, a radio station's notability does depend on its sourceability, and this one never had the necessary sourceability even when it was active. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that was accepted by the community and was quoted numerous times by Dravecky (may he rest in peace). Throwing a mass of text with as many italics as you can is just going to entrench me even more on my Keep !vote. We may see eye to eye on a lot of things, but this one isn't going to be one of those. Let's walk away, OK? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:21 on February 23, 2018 (UTC)

It may have been the case that CRTC/FCC documentation was once considered to be all the sourcing that a radio station ever actually had to show at all, but that isn't the case anymore — consensus can change, and consensus has been tightened up to require sourcing beyond just the license itself. For one example of why, keep in mind that stations that never launched at all, and had their licenses expire unbuilt, can still technically be referenced to their initial CRTC/FCC licensing. So CRTC/FCC sourcing is accepted as necessary sourcing for some of a radio station's technical details, but not sufficient sourcing in and of itself to confer a permanent notability pass on a station that can't actually be referenced anywhere else.

And you were part of the discussions where the consensus was established that we needed to tighten up the notability criteria for radio stations to require more than just the license itself for referencing, for that matter, and you've agreed in the past with the deletion of other stations in the exact same boat as this — so I simply don't understand why you view this as somehow different from all of the other low-power license-exempted stations we previously deleted as having verifiability and sourceability problems, when you supported those other stations' deletions.

Keeping this would set a dangerous precedent that would disembowel parts of NMEDIA as it now stands — so I will decide when I'm ready to let go and walk away, because defending the established consensus is important enough to require a firm stand. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was part of the discussion when there was ZERO references, but 5, even CRTC. I can't let that go. That, to me, meets GNG. I'm stubborn enough to stand firm on this, even if the AfD goes the other way, my !vote will not change. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:05 on February 24, 2018 (UTC)

@Bearcat: CFPP is an active callsign, I just can't tell you where. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:11 on February 24, 2018 (UTC)

According to the ISEDC's own database (heads up, it's a .zip file), last updated 12/12/2017, it shows CFPP-FM is "operational". Granted the information is just over 3 months old. But that shows as of December, according to the Canadian government, CFPP-FM was operating as CFPP-FM. Can't get anymore reliable than that. I can't explain the in-between though. That's for a Canadian who knows the CRTC and ISEDC databases better to figure out. Again, I will help as best as I can, though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:25 on February 24, 2018 (UTC)

I was going to update the page with the five (5) CRTC references, but with the new information, I'll hold off until you respond back. Do ping me, please. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:27 on February 24, 2018 (UTC)

@Bearcat: I'm assuming that you've had a chance to take a look at the information from the ISEDC? Does this at least partially confirm this station is still on the air in some form? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:08 on February 24, 2018 (UTC)

And I'm stubborn enough to stand firm on what NMEDIA says, which is that the basic government sourcing alone is not enough to get an article kept if it's the only sourcing that can be provided at all — the existence of those sources is a necessary condition, but not in and of itself a sufficient condition if there is no reliable source coverage anywhere else. What NMEDIA says is that the government sources can assist in building a temporary presumption of notability pending the addition of better sources, but cannot carry a permanent notability guarantee all by themselves if no better sources can be provided at all. And no, the ISEDC data dump does not prove that the station is still operational, or even that it was still operational as of December 2017 — that only proves that it was still present in the database as of the last time they did a deletion run on it, which is not a thing that necessarily happens daily or even weekly. A licensed station that goes out of business will get reported and deleted as soon as the CRTC publishes a license revocation, but can still linger in the database for years if its owners don't actually file an application to have their licenses formally revoked — and with an unlicensed station that doesn't have to answer to the CRTC, all bets are off as to whether any paperwork to report the station's defunctness ever happens at all. So exclusion from that database does prove that a station is defunct, but inclusion in it at any given time does not singlehandedly prove that a station isn't defunct. Even going back to the Canadian Radio News blog entry that you showed for the defunctness of VF8000, the two CHYK-FM rebroadcasters listed directly above it in the same "deleted" list were actually taken out of service a full year and a half before the date on that post — it just took Le5 that long to file the paperwork necessary to get them deleted from the database. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will update the page with the 5 or so CRTC and ISEDC links here in a bit, that will update the page with all current and sourceable history. For the life of me, with all the information in front of you and all the information that I continue to uncover with simple Google searches and searches of CRTC and ISEDC databases, which you say are unsearchable (just not easily though), you still want to swat this article down. I don't get it and this is beyond policy. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:08 on February 25, 2018 (UTC)

NMEDIA explicitly says that the government database sourcing is not in and of itself enough to get an article kept if no other sources can be provided. It explicitly says that some evidence of media coverage is required. And kindly stop misinterpreting or misrepresenting what I said about the searchability of the databases, as well: I never said that they were "unsearchable" — that came from you, not me, and I clarified that they are searchable, but that what they do just doesn't always help in every possible situation (e.g. the CRTC site cannot help you verify a call sign change, because the CRTC doesn't have anything to do with them. But that's not the same thing as the CRTC site somehow being "unsearchable", and the only person who ever said it was "unsearchable" is you, not me.)

But again, no matter what you can find on the CRTC and ISEDC sites, NMEDIA explicitly says that's not enough to get a radio station kept all by itself if no other sources exist anywhere. This is not "beyond policy" — I'm acting correctly in accordance with what NMEDIA itself explicitly says that the rule for the includability of radio stations is.

The exact statement from NMEDIA, if you need it, is as follows: In the case of radio and television stations, the licensing documents from the appropriate regulatory agency (the FCC in the United States, the CRTC in Canada, OFCOM in the United Kingdom, etc.) are acceptable references for some facts — they may in fact be the only possible source for some details, such as the station's transmitter power. However, these sources do not constitute a permanent pass of this notability standard by themselves. Radio or television stations referenced only to the licensing documents themselves are granted a temporary presumption of notability pending the addition of better sources, but are not granted a permanent exemption from ever having to cite improved sourcing — even if the licensing documents are cited in the article, it may still be deleted in the future if real media sources simply cannot be found. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been extremely busy for the past two days and I'm very tired. So, I'm going to add the sources I have and I'm going to leave it up to everyone else. This entire thread is giving me a migraine and, not only trying my patience, but making me consider another year+ vacation from Wikipedia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:10 on February 27, 2018 (UTC)

Strong Keep: With the sources added, I believe this brings the article in line with NMEDIA and GNG. I also thing it brings it out of danger of being deleted under AfD rules as well. Also, WP:BCASTOUTCOMES and just because a station turns in it's license does not mean it is no longer notable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:01 on February 27, 2018 (UTC)

NMEDIA and GNG both require some evidence of sourceability beyond just the basic CRTC/IC directories alone. They require some evidence of media coverage, such as the local newspaper writing a story or two about the station's launch and operations, before a radio station passes either of them. Bearcat (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed, we've said what we've needed, neither of us are changing our !votes, and further discussion will change nothing. Please leave it at that. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:29 on March 1, 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree for the same exact reasons stated by the nominator and by User:Wcquidditch. YborCityJohn (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @YborCityJohn: With the changes made, would that be enough to change your !vote? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:11 on February 28, 2018 (UTC)
Delete I couldn't find any examples of a reliable source actually talking about the station. I can see that it definitely exists, but none of the sources are more than a directory listing, and directory listings without significant coverage don't indicate notability. Are there any news sources that actually discuss this radio station, (who's on it, what the programming is about, etc)? Lonehexagon (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lonehexagon: Sadly what I could find is what you see on the page. I didn't get much assistance so I had to make do with Google, Bing, and other various search engine searches, along with a few radio station-specific sites. The latter, though, focuses on the US and not Canada. Bearcat being from Canada (I'm from the US) again wasn't much help, so I had to make do with information that I basically had to learn on the fly to put the article together. FCC information I know in my sleep, CRTC/ISEDC is a foreign language to me. I'm barely conversational, and I really needed a translator. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:02 on March 7, 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. An unsourced claim does not notability make. Randykitty (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mighty John Waynes[edit]

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

Fails to assert any sourced notability beyond an MRR mention. Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)l[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC. 01:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep has claim of being the most prominent band of the punk genre in Indiannapolis in the later 1990s - early 2000s which would pass WP:NMUSIC criteria 7. 16:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
It says the were "considered the face of original garage rock revival / post-punk revival", which is more niche, and regardless the claim is unsourced.Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Sablin[edit]

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

Only references are about his death, despite Google translate on the articles calling him a "famous" actor he appears to have only had minor/stunt roles. The page ru:Саблин,_Дмитрий_(актёр) was deleted in 2016. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:12, 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 merge to E-Land Group. No Consensus on NewCore Outlet; feel free to bring it to AfD if you want. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Outlet[edit]

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

Unsourced article and I can find no reliable sources on the web. MT Train^Talk 04:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to E-Land Group. I can verify it exists since I used to live close to one. But is it notable? I can't see many sources that would suggest it is, but there is stuff. English newspaper search turns out little, but Korean for 2001아울렛 [26] much more - but I don't read Korean fluently. The one article I GTrled was a rewritten PR piece, sigh. There are few English-language mentions in GBooks, but not much outside annoying snippet views. I suggest a merge to parent company, E-Land Group. I strongly suggest we do the same for the NewCore Outlet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to E-Land Group, since there are zero reliable English sources that I can find either, but the chain does appear to exist. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:17, 8 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 Uranium One#Congressional investigation. Randykitty (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Douglas Campbell[edit]

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

BLP1E. Named in an FBI statement about a political scandal, with no other information. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BLP1E requires fulfilling all 3 conditions, not just the first. The other two clearly are not fulfilled:

2 "person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual"
3 "the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented"

This is a significant event and the individual's role is well-documented and substantial. He is not a low-profile individual because of how significant the Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy is. I believe my creation of the page Feb 13 was justified. ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Uranium One#Congressional investigation which is where everything there is to say about him is already said, in a single short sentence and with the context that is needed to make sense of this. Mangoe (talk) 13:42, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Sly(Ghana)[edit]

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

I don't quite see how notability is established in this article. We get quite a lot of articles about non-notable disc jockeys. All claims of notability are sourced by dubious-looking, unverifiable sources. Fails WP:NMUSIC. hiàn 02:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:26, 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. After discounting the copyvio, it's unclear what those proposing a merge actually find mergeable. So Why 16:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Kings[edit]

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

It isn't entirely clear what this article is about. It has no references and does not establish notability. Portions of this article are written in the first person, which is not encyclopedic. This may be some sort of class project, but it is not an encyclopedic article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has numerous problems, the most important being I'm not entirely sure what the article is about. I feel like an AfD is a bit harsh, though. It's not entirely unreferenced, but the references aren't clear or in proper format. Not surprising considering it's the contributor's first submission to Wikipedia. It's definitely not a Wikipedia article as it stands as it currently violates WP:NOTESSAY, but I'm thinking Userify may be the best place for this and giving the author a chance to make changes. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an admin may want to make sure this isn't a sock, though. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge content into existing articles on Nubians and Nubia. None of the information is sourced, but it looks as if the original author might know what they are talking about, just English is not their native tongue. Bkissin (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this appears to be a copyright violation as a substantive portion of the text is taken from this message board, which was posted in 2012. Dan arndt (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge cause this information or content already exits on articles Nubians and Nubia I think it should be Merged with any of those. Chabota Kanguya (talk) 10:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after the revdel, there's not enough context to determine the topic. More areas of Africa than just Sudan have had black kings. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:46, 8 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve Jones-Wright[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL. No other claim of notability and no references covering her separately from the District attorney race. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom after source review - no notability independent from political run. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. She is notable for more than just her run. She has served as a public defender in San Diego since 2006 and has been a vocal defender of California's cannabis laws. She was also involved in an incident where she was pulled over and handcuffed at gunpoint due to a DMV error, which she recorded and posted to her Facebook page. According to WP:POLITICIAN, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.'" That has been accomplished here as she's been written about with significant coverage in several publications including the The San Diego Union-Tribune, KPBS Public Media, Voice of San Diego, and The Nation. Lonehexagon (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a single source in the article that discusses her outside of her candidacy, though. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article with additional citations of articles that are not about her run yet still discuss her. There has been significant coverage about events from her life before her run, for example her history with cannabis convictions. It's true she is a notable candidate. She is black, female, reform-minded, and has a strong progressive history as a public defender. That's why she is receiving significant coverage outside San Diego, for example in The Nation and Culture Magazine.^[1] Lonehexagon (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment question for others: setting aside the political run, what level of sourcing is needed to become a notable public defender to pass WP:BIO? SportingFlyer talk 19:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just rifled through others in the public defenders category and aside from the Culture Magazine article you noted can't find anything that mentions her apart from her political run. Looking at the public defenders category, it seems from the sample of 20-30 articles I read that every public defender here is notable for something other than their public defense work. SportingFlyer talk 19:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no specific Wikipedia guidelines about public defenders as far as I know. WP:POLITICIAN states an unelected candidate may be notable if they receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." She has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. Lonehexagon (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, and perhaps I've been jaded through voting delete on so many non-notable politicians of late. I've looked through all the sources again and I still don't think she's independently notable as a candidate but the closer should take into account I'm closer to neutral than delete on this. SportingFlyer talk 19:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the notability guidelines for politicians and nothing else adds up to actual notability. It is time for California Progressive Democrats to stop using Wikipedia as a campaign platform.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence reminds me of WP:DONTLIKEIT. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JPL, you need to be careful. Wikipedia does not have a uniquely serious problem with "California Progressive Democrats" doing this — we have an across the board problem with candidates of every ideological niche from the extreme left to the extreme right and everything in between, in every US state and many other non-US countries too, doing this. You really need to be more careful not to make it sound like your personal inclusion criterion for candidates is whether they agree with your political views or not, rather than whether they pass a Wikipedia inclusion criterion or not. This is far from the first time I've seen you appear to argue for deletion on ideological grounds rather than "Wikipedia policy" grounds, for the record — I can't read your mind, so I don't know whether you intend to be understood that way or not, but it is the way your AFD comments sometimes come across. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete published independent sources only establish that she got pulled over by the police once and that she is running for political office. If she achieves political office and does some notable things that get covered in the press, there will be reason for an article. Otherwise, all this will be forgotten.104.163.148.25 (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to being pulled over by the police, she has been covered independently for her support for the state's cannabis laws as a public defender. This has been discussed outside her candidacy. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I do not listen to your arguments anymore, since you vote keep for women candidates at AfD 99.999% of the time. You obviously have an agenda to save articles on women no matter the notability. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by all my edits and votes, which is why I'm happy to attach them to an account as opposed to editing anonymously. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem with ascribing her preexisting notability for her prior work in the public defender's office and/or on pot reform is that the sourcing for that simply isn't cutting it. The sources here that are strongly about Jones-Wright, for the purposes of establishing whether she passes WP:GNG or not, are tied directly to the candidacy itself — all of the sources that clearly exist outside the campaign coverage just namecheck her existence in coverage about something or somebody else. The Nation cite, for example, just mentions her name one single time apart from the caption to a photograph, and is in no substantive way about her — while she doesn't have to be the sole subject of a source for it to count for something, she does still have to be more than just mentioned. And no, a candidate doesn't clear the notability standards for her prior work just because her prior work gets mentioned as background in the candidacy coverage either. There's also a significant reference bombing problem here, because we rarely if ever need a single statement to be referenced to four or five different citations for the same piece of information — and far, far too many of the references here are to podcasts and community hyperlocals, not strongly reliable media outlets.
So no, her preexisting notability as a public defender has not been properly established by the sources at hand — with these sources, I'm still left evaluating her notability solely on the question of whether or not candidates in primaries get Wikipedia articles on that basis in and of itself. Which they don't. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between local sources for a small town vs local sources for San Diego. The San Diego newspapers serve the San Diego area, but that's 3 million people, several times the population of many states. Lonehexagon (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just saw this last night. On the Daily Show, Malcolm Jenkins spoke about how the criminal justice system needs change from within to correct systemic racism, and pointed to Jones-Wright's run in San Diego as a key race.^[2] Lonehexagon (talk) 16:18, 8 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. So Why 16:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Ontario Nokia Cup[edit]

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

Not verifiable. The southern Ontario men's provincial curling championship with no references other than to partial team info at curlingzone.com . The page author apparently has programs from the event, but no other sources appear to exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is notable based on previous AfD discussions we've had, but I did warn the article creator (who I believe to be Ian Tetley) that the article could be put up for deletion if he didn't include any references. Since the event occurred before the modern internet era, online sources are scarce. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The pre-internet note is relevant; there's certainly enough coverage of the 2018 Ontario Tankard to meet GNG. But without some sign of existence of secondary sources (newspapers.com doesn't seem to have any major Canadian papers for 1997, unfortunately), I don't see how this can be kept as a stand-alone article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it's true that an event from 1997 won't Google very well, that doesn't absolve anybody of having to do the work to find enough offline sources to make it keepable. Libraries have microfilms, and news databases exist, from which pregooglable coverage can be extracted, so an event's lack of googlefu is not an exemption from having to cite any sources at all. In the limited number of newspapers I can access for this period, however, the only part of this I can actually add a reference for right now is "was held February 4-9 at the Guelph Memorial Gardens in Guelph, Ontario" — and even that's just not enough. I'm quite sure that proper sources will exist in the kind of midsize-city Ontario newspapers that are mostly missing from the database I can access, but I simply can't save this myself with the resources available to me. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can actually find some real sources, but those real sources do still have to be shown, not just presumed to probably exist, before the article can become keepable. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- For whatever it's worth, I do plan on finding sources one day for this, and similar curling events from this time period, so if this article gets deleted, I may one day re-create it. I don't think you need to find sources from the local Guelph paper; this event gets coverage from across the province, and so I can probably find something at the library in Ottawa. There's always just contacting the Ontario Curling Association as well. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I don't mean to suggest that the Guelph paper would be the only place this would have gotten coverage — but it's certainly one paper where coverage would absolutely be especially guaranteed to exist, precisely because it's where the event was held. The database I have access to either lacks, or is inconsistent at best about, all of the midsize market papers in Ontario: not just Guelph, but Hamilton, London, Windsor, K/W, Kingston, Belleville, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, North Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, St. Catharines and Timmins too, and even for Ottawa I can certainly find some stuff but there are gaps so I can't guarantee that I'm always finding everything. Sometimes I can find stuff in those newspapers (e.g. Sudbury and K/W from about 1999-2005, but not before or after that), but in general the only Ontario papers I can be 100 per cent sure that I'll always find everything they published are the Toronto Star, the Grope, the Post and the suburban Metroland weeklies in the GTA (because the "Newsstand" database was merged with the "Torstar" database last year.)
    If you're willing to work on potentially salvaging this in the future, you do also have the option of asking to have it userfied in your own sandbox so that you don't have to start over from scratch — if you're open to that, I'd be happy to support a userfy. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - That may not be necessary, as an admin, I would just be able to find the article syntax at "View and restore deleted pages". -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:35, 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. Essentially nobody put forward an argument for keeping this article. If anyone wants this userfied, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter and Irene Ludwig Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. No reliable independent references whatsoever. Dial911 (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the German page is well-developed but no help in references as it is just the home page for the foundation; however, I found a couple different sources online talking about the death of Irene and a contract signed with the city of Cologne. [27] [28] also [29] I can't really make a determination about source quality due to language issues but this isn't the most well-fleshed out AfD. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 18:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Peter Ludwig himself was a highly notable art collector, per obits and other coverage in The New York Times [30][31][32], The Economist [33], The Guardian [34], Los Angeles Times [35][36], etc. We really ought to have an article about him, based on the existing German Wikipedia article, which could then include some of this content about the continuing activities of his and his wife's foundation, as well as mentions of his various funded museums (and links to those which already have articles in English Wikipedia). As to the current AfD, I suspect the foundation is notable, based on the content of the corresponding German article, although the sourcing in that article is not as extensive as we like to see in English Wikipedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Can't find any information on the topic and existence of a German wikipedia article doesn't mean anything. But I do agree an article on Peter Ludwig himself would be appropriate.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:32, 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. Killiondude (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Chenese Lewis Show[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources aren't reliable secondary sources; the only exceptions are the Essence Magazine article and the Ebony article, which are both very short and do not constitute significant coverage. I couldn't find any better sources with a bit of googling. IagoQnsi (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it definitely fails under WP: GNG therefore I have to vote against keeping this article. YborCityJohn (talk) 07:32, 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. Killiondude (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haya Ibrahim[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Sources are mostly in Arabic, but don't appear to be significant enough to meet GNG or suggest that ENT is met; several simply list her as one of the cast members when discussing her one film. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. Looks like self-promotion. Deb (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neither WP:GNG nor WP:NACTOR is met. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:40, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grace (Russian singer)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the notability guidelines for musicians or for biographies. Has been tagged with the multiple issues template for almost 7 years. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 00:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another one of the thousands of actresses whose articles need to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:50, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slavko Dedić career record[edit]

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

This player has not even a FIDE title. A biographical article is questionable, but this statistical page is definitely not relevant. Steak (talk) 09:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:30, 7 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.

^ https://culturemagazine.com/where-loyalties-lie/
^ "Malcolm Jenkins - Leading the Eagles On and Off the Field - Extended Interview - The Daily Show with Trevor Noah | Comedy Central". Comedy Central. Retrieved 2018-03-08.

[1] ttps://www.hfsbooks.com/books/imago-dei-psychotherapy-dilsaver/

[2] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20131203134340/http://cuapress.cua.edu/books/viewbook.cfm?book=XDID

[3] Kenneth Baker, S.J. in the August/September 2008 issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review

[4] ttp://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/08/14/restoring-the-image-of-god-in-our-lives-protects-our-mental-health/

[5] ttps://humanlife.ie/

[6] John Paul II The Theology of the Body; A New Translation Based on the John Paul II Archives Translation, Index, and Introduction by Michael Waldstein Pauline BOOKS & MEDIA Boston

[7] ttps://www.scribd.com/doc/79394300/Waldstein-Introduction-to-Theology-of-the-Body

[8] Xi'an Longi to invest $126m in 100MW China PV plan. Publicover, B. ReCharge. 30 September 2015. Updated 28 September 2016. Accessed February 28, 2010.

[9] Xi'an Longi to invest $126m in 100MW China PV plan. Publicover, B. ReCharge. 30 September 2015. Updated 28 September 2016. Accessed February 28, 2010.

[10] Deals and company news from the global solar sector this week. Recharge: Solar Power Deals & Company News. 21 September 2015. Updated 28 September 2015. Accessed February 28, 2018.

[11] ttps://culturemagazine.com/where-loyalties-lie/

[12] "Malcolm Jenkins - Leading the Eagles On and Off the Field - Extended Interview - The Daily Show with Trevor Noah | Comedy Central". Comedy Central. Retrieved 2018-03-08.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]