Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 27 January 29 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete. This AfD was created in 2018 and never transcluded to a logpage. However, the page was speedily deleted shortly afterwards, making a deletion discussion unnecessary. (non-admin closure) jp×g 03:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deconstruction and religion[edit]

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

I think the Wikipedia article entitled "Deconstruction and religion" should be deleted because it merely promotes a single idea within a particular philosopher's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 783445jjdf (talk • contribs)

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion A7. While her sister Annie LeBlanc (actress) has been written about in Tigerbeat, there is no such saving grace for this very young actress. —C.Fred (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley LeBlanc[edit]

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

Notability issues. I moved this page to a draft to allow the author to work on it, since it's wholly unfit for the main space, and the author moved it back. It fails notability, and only has one source (a YouTube video). Adotchar| reply here 23:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can I !vote delete per WP:SNOW? Because I !vote delete per WP:SNOW. If the subject is notable, a rewrite of the article would first consist of deleting everything except perhaps the infobox. Keeping the article around in its' current state is of zero value, in my eyes. -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 23:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TEC Edmonton[edit]

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

TEC Edmonton is a non-notable business accelerator. I've found routine coverage, brief mentions, (fail WP:CORPDEPTH) press releases, and CEO quotes (fail WP:CORPIND). — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surprising that you think one of the most influential and largest Canadian accelerators which is also run by a Top 5 Canadian university is non-notable. Apologies that it was not incorporated in the States, where it would rank ahead of many accelerators located there and some of which are notable enough to have their own wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahroze (talk • contribs) 00:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Shahroze (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. — Note to closing admin: Shahroze (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Shahroze - To put it a better way, Wikipedia does not rely on how large or influential a company is. What matters is what sources say about it. It could be the largest company in the world but without significant coverage in reliable sources - including in-depth coverage - the company would not meet notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Seemingly non-notable organization that fails WP:ORGDEPTH, as the article is entirely sourced with tribal mentions, sources close to the subject, or interviews with member of the organization. A speedy delete is possible given the article creator’s blanking of the page. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is coverage, but mainly routine mentions and nothing that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am the original author and request deletion for this page so that it can be rewritten at a future date with more coverage and accuracy to satisfy the notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahroze (talk • contribs) 20:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United News International[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. This article - heavily edited by a disclosed COI editor - is sourced entirely to the company's SEC filings, press releases, Facebook page, and a questionably reliable source (streamingmedia.com) that doesn't actually mention the company by name. My WP:BEFORE search was as follows:

Reading between the lines of the company's website, this appears to be less of a news agency and more an "investment" scheme of some type to market Off-Exchange securities. The purpose of the WP article is probably to generate a Knowledge Graph on the company to enhance an appearance of respectability.
(Note: This article should not be confused with the better known United Press International.)
Chetsford (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this operationnhas not recieved substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I searched the current name and "NewsBeat Social" but could not find anything to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 16:08, 2 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Cubis[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the GNG or WP:NACTOR. Actor has a couple of very minor roles in TV shows, and a number of roles in non-notable short films. Only coverage of him is trivial mentions in local media. Kb.au (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only trivial coverage. Bishonen | talk 11:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Fine article, well sourced, but I share concerns with the nominator regarding WP:ACTOR. I don't believe he, as an actor, is Wikipedia notable at this time, but he might be in the future.
It is worth noting that Wikipedia articles with the name "Alex Cubis" have been deleted twice: once each in 2013 and 2015. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Mungo Kitsch. However, the article was speedied per WP:A7 both times, which means there hasn't been a deletion discussion before. (If there had been, that would have been a speedy reason now.) Bishonen | talk 00:09, 5 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big Three (Oklahoma City Thunder)[edit]

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

Per comments made here, a discussion on the notability of this "Big Three" seems warranted. Some routine coverage obviously exists on the players but term "Big Three" has been exhausted and it is too soon to access the notability of this "Big Three", which may only exist for one season. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with The Slick wholeheartedly. Not enough coverage, just Okies shooting big. :) L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources As mentioned in the deprod, there were sources already listed at Talk:Big Three (Oklahoma City Thunder). I'm relisting those here for convenience, as well as some additional ones. These are not routine game recaps.
    1. "NEW-LOOK THUNDER STILL ADJUSTING". Sports On Earth. November 15, 2017.
    2. "OKLAHOMA CITY'S BIG THREE SHOOTING FOR THEIR 1ST NBA TITLE". Associated Press. October 12, 2017.
    3. "Behind its big three, Thunder riding an offensive hot streak". The Oklahoman. January 5, 2018.
    4. "Is time running out on Oklahoma City's Big Three experiment?". ESPN.com. December 13, 2017.
    5. "NBA Preview: Will Thunder's 'Big Three' challenge Warriors?". Sportsnet.ca. October 14, 2017.
    6. "Shooting struggles continue for Thunder's big three". The Oklahoman. December 14, 2017.
    7. "The Key to Making OKC's Big Three Work". The Ringer. September 24, 2017.
—Bagumba (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hype for the sports pages/websites of no lasting importance or encyclopedic value. Legacypac (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hasn't really caught on. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The trio have not lasted long enough, nor acquired enough winning impact together, to warrant their own page. If George, Anthony, and Westbrook are together for several more seasons of significant success, then maybe. In essence, the article is too premature at best. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2017–18 Oklahoma City Thunder season. The topic arguably meets WP:GNG based on sources identified above. The trio has received good coverage, and they have often been referred to as the "Big Three". However, having played together half a season with little other accomplishments to date, this is too early when it can be WP:PRESERVEd at the season article. This is consistent with WP:N, which states that GNG "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." No prejudice to reconsider a standalone article if the grouping is still covered next season, when it would not fit into one season's article anymore.—Bagumba (talk) 13:04, 4 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwani Mahajan[edit]

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

Not a notable person, lacks WP:SIGCOV, and fails WP:GNG. Probably WP:COI. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - many reliable and noteworthy sources available with quick web-search. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
but not WP:SIGCOV in those reliable sources. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/we-want-a-white-paper-on-costs-and-benefits-of-fdi/293538
http://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/government-needed-to-be-alert-to-bitcoin-demand-spike-post-demo-says-ashwani-mahajan-of-sjm/1032645/
Jonpatterns (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found the same kind of sources when I checked. I'm not sure what the point of this AfD is. even though some of the other sources are of less depth, he is mentioned a LOT in reliable publications. Sometimes these mentions are of significant depth , as above, so he clearly meets GNG.104.163.148.25 (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note Harsha Vardhan Pasumarthi has no contributions beyond article of Ashwani Mahajan. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage appears to be of adequate depth and reliability. Every reference I checked was OK. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Schwarzkopf[edit]

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

Fails WP:Soldier, can't find any sources about him either Emk9 (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There seems to be consensus that the subject has sufficient coverage to pass WP:BASIC. Issues concerning potential promotionalism remain, but presumably can be handled via normal editing. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bailey-Gates[edit]

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

There are a handful of "interviews" in a few magazines, amounting to three or four sentences, about 50 to 75 words. No coverage in depth of Michael Bailey-Gates. Lots of passing mention and trivial covrage, such as having his photos of more notable people appear in notable publications, or articles about other subjects mentioning Bailey-Gates in passing. No major awards or significant body of work, so can't find any way for this to pas WP:ANYBIO, WP:ARTIST, or WP:GNG Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I missed that Vice article. Thanks for pointing it out. I can't say it's enough to change my mind but it makes a good case. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:18, 4 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Radha Krishna Kumar film[edit]

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

Delete as WP:TOOSOON Hagennos (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Really, "untitled film" as an article name should be speedy grounds, given that if it goes anywhere it's going to have a different name. Mangoe (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjipuzha Thampran[edit]

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

Nothing here which denotes notability. Fails WP:GNG Hagennos (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlikely to gain notability anytime soon. Orientls (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually write and reliably source quite a bit more than just one single sentence of content about this. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Kline[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, industry PR materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO; the awards are scene related. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails both the guidelines for pornographic actros and the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as does not pass WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO as the awards are excuded for being scene-related. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO with only scene-related award wins. Fails WP:GNG without significant coverage by independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 2 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elize Ryd[edit]

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

Nominating per a discussion in #wikipedia-en-help on IRC.

Subject may not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, WP:RS may apply.

Also nominating Olof Mörck for the same reasons. -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 18:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per my comments on IRC. Lack of reliable sources to demonstate the subject's notability outside of their band Amaranthe -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 18:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per participation in Melodifestivalen which is the biggest music event in Sweden. Per charting, per sources overall. Article needs clean up but AfD is no clean up service. Basic WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Easily notable. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to Amaranthe (or other suitable target). --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - due to #6 at WP:SINGER; it is notable that she is in multiple notable bands. Also the article's existing sources establish notability beyond the primary band (Amaranthe). I recommend an edit tag at the top of the article calling for more reliable sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Zawl 08:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel construction[edit]

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

The article talks about constructing a wheel. Not a notable subject and it fails WP:GNG and also delete as per WP:NOTHOWTO Hagennos (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a spin-off from Wheel#Construction and seems quite valid. The topic is obviously notable as such wheels are a significant form of technology. Andrew D. (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cartwheel construction was a significant art. (though is it in the scope of the article)? Topic is certainly notable regardless. Railway wheels also come to think of it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Athaenara, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xpress Money[edit]

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

A money transfer company without any specific notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH Hagennos (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. There's nothing in the article that's not promotional. In addition, fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 3 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed Church of Highland Park[edit]

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

Church has been in the news recently after a visit by New Jersey's new governor. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Outside of the very recent coverage, this does not pass WP:GNG as the coverage is not sustained. Rusf10 (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Keep" Nominaor's WP:NOTNEWS claim is a false one and does not address article as written. 19th century church buildings are notable in themselves, this in particular because of local famous architect. Minister was candidate for NJ gubernatorial election. Has functioned a religious sanctuary since the millennium. Is well referenced.Djflem (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The age of the building alone does not give it notability. Even if the architect was extremely well-known (which he's not), it does not give every building he built notability. I don't see the church listed as a historic site anywhere. Even if the minister was a notable person, it still doesn't transfer to the church. However, it doesn't matter because I am 100% sure the minister fails WP:POLITICIAN.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the church and the congregation and the staff and clearly no search was done by the nominator. --RAN (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears notable in reliable media for its architecture, its pastors, as well as the politics of its current congregation. --RAN (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources here about the church going back more than 100 years establish notability and back it up. Instead of a trout slap here, maybe we should use both loaves and fishes. Alansohn (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly not a run-of-the-mill church. StAnselm (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW Keep. Well-sourced article on notable church. Puzzled to understand why Nom brought this to AfD, since sourcing was already strong when it was nominated. Now, thanks to WP:HEYMANN by RAN, it is SNOWING.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to need input from someone outside of the usual "let's keep everything" cabal before you can declare snow keep.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Rusf10, please return and strike that comment. There is no cabal; the editors I see on this page iVote k or d depending on sourcing; and, most importantly, Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and most of us try to keep it that way by attempting to WP:AGF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory:Perhaps, you should strike your comment. Reread the Keep votes above yours and tell me how those editors assumed good faith. Given your history at AfD, you're hardly in a position to lecture others about their behavior.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, thanks to RAN. Nice when Wikipedia works this way: Article is introduced, generates interest/research, and expands comprehensively, all within a couple days.Djflem (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It was a joy to work on. I love making the lists. Newspapers.com was great, I gave up my subscription to Genealogy Bank that has different NJ papers scanned. Does anyone have newspapersarchive.com subscription, I am supposed to have one according to Wikipedia but I cannot seem to login with what they sent me. Also great was Familysearch for finding missing middle names and birth and death dates of pastors. --RAN (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryne Dora Brown[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress. Cannot derive notability from parents, Georg Stanford Brown and Tyne Daly. Quis separabit? 18:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. As the nominator stated, notability is not inherited. Meatsgains(talk) 19:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough significant roles to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found and added a source but agree she is not notable. Tacyarg (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical anarchism[edit]

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

Currently one-item dab. Not an independently notable concept or prominent neologism—just a combination of adjective and noun. The places where the phrase is used on Wikipedia are not adequate targets for a redirect, as they only use the phrase incidentally. Targets were the phrase was redirected in 2007 are not independently notable. czar 17:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 17:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see a few discussions about it in various publications,[1][2][3] but that's not what this page is, so delete this useless (what is the sound of one dab dabbing, grasshopper?) page and maybe somebody will write a proper article some day. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Clarityfiend. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:G6. It's actually disambiguating zero pages since Postmodern philosophy doesn't mention "Ethical anarchism". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:40, 2 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. Apparently my BEFORE sucks; will add some of the sources provided to article. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T. Berry Bruce[edit]

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

Appears not ot be notable on his own account; salient sources appear to come down to one "holder of official position changed"-type of communique (the Advocate piece), and several list/incidental mentions. I couldn't find any more in-depth coverage. - If "official executioner" confers automatic notability, like being an elected official, that's another matter, but I doubt it? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...well strike me dead. The UPI and CBC articles are actually really good. I think DuckDuckGo is not dishing up the goods for me... if others agree that these constitute sufficient sourcing, I might just withdraw this thing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems that being "At the time, Bruce was Mississippi's executioner, in fact the only state executioner in the United States whose identity was a matter of public record."[4] - garners SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Abdul Mussavir[edit]

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

Non-notable blogger. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent. — Zawl 16:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 17:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 17:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Zawl 14:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lightpath[edit]

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

There is no more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. — Zawl 16:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the latest edits content edit the page was a valid redirect page. Therefore I contest speedy deletion is appropriate whilst reversion to the previous version is possible. There may be other content improvement options.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 17:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't optical path the primary topic here? – Uanfala (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No ... optical path is something a little sort of different. To start with the primary issue here is we should not delete the article because Lightpath is a valid name and pre-existing redirect for the Nelson Street Cycleway and it would seem more appropriate to role back to that rather than delete the page and lose that redirect. My best understanding is 'Lightpath' is specifically used in fibre optic communications to indicate two nodes do not have any intervening Optoelectronics .. which would slow the signal. It you search for articles on wikipedia containing 'lightpath(s)' you'll wind quite a few and there is a some of minimal definition on Wikitionary. My best understanding is we shouldn't we relating lightpath to optical path, though a lightpath is sort of optical path.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • A wikipedia search comes up with plenty of articles about microscopy topics where optical path is clearly the intended meaning. Maybe the dab page should delineate the generic from the fibre optics meanings? – Uanfala (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @User:Uanfala Hmmm ... you may have a valid point. It may or may not be that in microscopy the term should have a space, light path. In optical network use it is one word lightpath. Wikitionary goes with the optical network defintion: wikt:lightpath. It may be a Lightpath (optical network) article is possible however it might simply end up on Afd or a merge request. I think wikipedia should and will likely end up up some form of dab here rather than a redirect onto the cycleway.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a dab page, as I've scraped together two more entries (and there's an album by a band of questionable notability). Whether there's a primary topic is a separate matter. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a dab page, I've redone the primary topic which might have been contentious as an entry to a (newly created) appropriate article to help smooth any issues.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Valid dab page. PamD 09:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the now better page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:33, 2 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tarrawanna Blueys FC[edit]

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

Fails football notability. Not a fully professional club, has not played in the national cup or the national level of the league structure. — Zawl 16:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Comments @GiantSnowman: I thought I read the FFA Cup here, but now I realised I read it wrong, is level 6 in the pyramid not non-league? Do clubs not qualify like they do for English non-league articles anymore? Govvy (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pyramid system is different for every country - so a level 6 team might be notable in England, but unlikely to be in Ethiopia or Estonia. I don't know enough about the Australian system, but I can't see any evidence this club is notable. GiantSnowman 08:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fontgombault Abbey. Redirects are cheap and in this case very reasonable. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Pateau[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Fails WP:GNG. — Zawl 15:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. I checked out the French version of the article to see if any of the sources could be used here to prove notability but unfortunately they are very short reports about his appointment and not in depth. Domdeparis (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • REDIRECT: to Fontgombault Abbey. Quis separabit? 18:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Zawl 18:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheran Medical Center[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Partially disambiguated page names — Zawl 15:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Proposal is a nonstarter; I don't see the relevance of that essay. Note that NYU Lutheran Medical Center was the primary topic until April 2017, when‎ C16sh moved page Lutheran Medical Center to NYU Lutheran Medical Center: new name for the hospital (which now has an even newer name). There were still links to disambiguate when this AfD was submitted. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Useful dab page, all institutions which could well be known as plain "Lutheran Medical Center". PamD 09:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful dab page-Thank you-RFD (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unattributed split of existing article NeilN talk to me 20:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flag russia[edit]

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

Proposing to merge with List of Russian flags CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as G6: unnecessary disambiguation. Write the article first and then we can potentially have a dab. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newstopia (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The other page doesn't exist. – 333-blue, 12:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roseanne Magan[edit]

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

While she did have a significant role in a short-run tv series, that's it. No other significant roles, so she doesn't pass WP:NACTOR, and searches did not turn up nearly enough in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to show that she meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 11:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 11:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 11:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 11:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notability is an actress talent girl. Oripaypaykim (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poorly sourced, stubby article. Actress is not proven to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability at this time. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 23:57, 4 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. Michig (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WrestleCrap[edit]

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

This article has been around a long time, and has survived previous deletion debates on the basis of popularity and assertions of notability, but those assertions are not and never have been, backed up by coverage in reliable independent sources. "Well known", "insanely popular" and so on, are not actually valid arguments to keep in the absence of WP:RS coverage.

Most of the article as written, is self-sourced. The only substantive claim to notability appears to be by inheritance from R D Reynolds. I have checked the Google search results for Wrestlecrap and found one or two namechecks in articles about Reynolds, and... nothing else. I cannot find a single non-trivial independent reliable source that is actually about this website, so I think it fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. It used to be that we'd have articles on websites just because they ranked above a certain number in Alexa or whatever, but these days we always require reliable independent sources at least some of which are actually about the subject - this article has none, never has had any, and, according to Google, probably none exist. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice links. How about some in reliable sources? Guy (Help!) 00:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They all meet the criteria for reliable sources, and the Canadian Online Explorer (slam.canoe.com) links are from a mainstream (i.e. not wrestling-specific) source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Noooo, they really don't. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being sarcastic doesn't effect the fact that these are reliable sources. Especially the PW Insider and PW Torch articles, which are clearly named on RS list for WP:PW Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That requires references in reliable independent sources. As I pointed out, they are in short supply, with zero currently in the article. Focus on reliable, as in, meeting Wikipedia's standard of reliability. Mainstream newspapers, for example. Guy (Help!) 00:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per coverage in reliable sources, including mainstream sources. Also the focus of two books released by ECW Press. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones, and why are they not cited int he article after all this time? Guy (Help!) 11:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Why are they not cited int he article after all this time?" You know, I just took a closer look at this article. How is it that you're all over this AFD, hounding everyone for expressing opinions that you evidently don't like, yet you haven't made a single contribution to the article, either positive or negative? In the real world, when someone expects me to do something because they can't be bothered, usually it's because they're my boss and there's a paycheck involved. It's perfectly okay for Wikipedia to have editors who do absolutely nothing whatsoever on here but make hundreds of thousands of meaningless and at times even counterproductive AWB-fueled edits and similar, rationalizing this behavior by saying that they're volunteers and as volunteers they're entitled to do exactly what they feel like and only exactly what they feel like. OTOH, those of us who have been fighting a losing battle in contributing substance to the encyclopedia and are constantly attacked for doing so are being held to a different standard. I get the strong impression from all this hounding that you haven't bothered to read any of the sources presented in this discussion, that you have no intention of doing so, and all that really matters is that someone else go and stick those sources into the article for you so that the article looks pretty enough to you. Go take a look at WP:PW/RS, because your arguments come across as yet another case of misguided forum-shopping when you're really challenging the project's view of reliable sources instead of just this one piece of content. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dashkin (video game)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable game; while the games' creator is notable, it does not appear that this notability extends to his game. Most of what I could find are wikis or forum posts. There doesn't really seem to be much, if any coverage in reliable sources, and of those that I could find, they were more about the game's creator than the game itself. Would not be opposed to a redirect to Adam Phillips, but considering he's not the only one working on the game, I'm not sure if that's possible. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of a mobygames or metacritic page says an awful lot. No real press release regarding the game. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NVG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FK Podunavac Ritopek[edit]

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

Ifnord nominated PROD: The nomination says: No claims to notability. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. But WP:NFOOTBALL is only for players. Not sure this article whether passes WP:FOOTYN or not, so let' s discuss it on AfD, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thank-you for correct criteria. This club plays at a inter-municipal level, WP:FOOTYN criteria requires they have played for the national cup. No assertion that they have done so in the article. Ifnord (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 20:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis Fowl (film)[edit]

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

Help fixing AfD: Original reason is: Crystal balling, pure and simple. Original nominator: Slatersteven. Originally nominated at 11:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Original nomination text: [12]Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no 'sure thing' production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available." If filming does begin as planned, then we can have an article for the ages. If there is a delay, then the subject-material article can host content for the time being (or perhaps forever if nothing ever happens). See Shantaram (film) as an example where important players are attached but nothing has happened to result in an actual film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has received very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no non-keep viewpoints). (non-admin closure) -- LWG talk 14:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omicron Delta Kappa[edit]

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

This article seems to be an advertisement for Omnicron Delta Kappa. I was going to make improvements, but as I searched I have thus far found zero references to this organization anywhere online except self-published promotional material and forum discussions. Thus I'd like to have a conversation and consider:

  • WP:ORGSIG, 'No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it.'
  • WP:INHERITORG 'An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it.'
  • WP:ORGIND 'A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.'

In its current state, the article does not appear to contain any information that is not available in the organization's own marketing materials. As these materials are specifically excluded by WP:ORGIND, it needs to be shown that the organization has been the subject of "non-trivial, non-routine works" by independent sources. If such sources can be found, I will gladly take on the task of bringing the article into compliance with them myself. -- LWG talk 16:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notwithstanding the fact the nominator thinks there are no sources available. I say that there are almost certainly sources available for an important American honour society such as this one. I somehow doubt this article was created from thin air, and since the organisation does exist it meets the WP:V policy. In fact I can see many primary sources from a search: Omicron Delta Kappa. It stands to reason that there are books and newspaper articles about it, and I am not convinced that searching on Google is enough effort to prove there is not. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the lack of independent sources seems surprising given how the organization describes itself, and would love to see non-primary sources found, however, these sources need to actually be found. See WP:ENN and WP:ORGSIG. If this organization is in fact "an important American honour society", then we should be able to find someone other than the organization itself to tell us so. -- LWG talk 17:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In spite of how long the article has been tagged, I'm reluctant to say that the sources aren't out there. I do agree that they need to be found and brought into the article, but I think improvement is the better course here than deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After filtering search results for the organization's own web site and the pages of its various chapters and affiliates, I have found only a few campus news articles that all read "so-and-so, a student/alumni of this university, was inducted into ODK this week. ODK is [copy/paste of the organization's presskit description]". These sources do not meet WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:ORGIND. Does anyone have suggestions as to another direction of search for sources? -- LWG talk 17:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I note that even using exact parameters Google books returns 270,000 results, exact quotes on web with 163,000. Where then to start? So I filtered the search via various parameters and arrived at the conclusion we need an expert to identify something that is actually useful in the three hundred thousand articles about them and their members. But really, this is an article improvement job, not a deletion reason. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input: I looked through the first 10 pages of the Google books results for "Omicron Delta Kappa". The overwhelming majority of instances are just part of a list of Greek affiliations after someone's name. Those that remain seem to consist of lists of of organizations that exist at a particular university, or entirely unrelated works. I found nothing giving more than 2-3 sentences describing the organization itself. -- LWG talk 20:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC is a notability guideline for people, not organizations. Thus far no sources have been presented that meet WP:GNG. The specific concern is the lack of nontrivial coverage of the subject in independent sources. -- LWG talk 11:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. This is a widespread and well-known organization. See, e.g., William Raimond Baird, Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities (1977), p. 580:

Membership in Omicron Delta Kappa is awarded to undergraduate junior and senior men, and occasionally to students of graduate and professional schools and colleges of the institution, and to faculty members and alumni. Election to membership is on the basis of character and specified eligibility as to scholarship, distinguished attainments in college and community life, and consecration to democratic ideals. Omicron Delta Kappa, or "ODK," as it is popularly known, functioned in a most admirable way from the very outset. At first there was no thought of immediate extension to other institutions, but it was apparent that Omicron Delta Kappa, if properly conducted, would prove beneficial to any college campus where it might be established. Almost spontaneously requests for charters were received from local groups at The Johns Hopkins University, the University of Pittsburgh and Davidson College. By 1917, there were four Circles of Omicron Delta Kappa. These groups, impressed with The ODK Idea, formed the national organization and thus began the first college honor society of national scope to accord recognition and honor for exemplary character, meritorious leadership and service in extra-curricular activities, for superior scholarship and for the encouragement of general campus citizenship. Today more than 100 Circles have been established in fully accredited institutions in the United States.

For full disclosure, I was actively involved in ODK from 1994 to 1996, but have not had anything to do with them since. bd2412 T 19:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the kind of source I was looking for and failing to find, thanks! In light of that this discussion should be closed as Speedy Keep. -- LWG talk 14:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks for clarifying the double voting and canvassing Bishonen - that makes concensus much clearer. Spartaz Humbug! 12:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A’shanti Gholar[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are brief mentions or primary support. Lacks significant secondary support. reddogsix (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the problems stated. This is a notable person who regular appears on behalf of a national organization in places like Rolling Stone, NBC News, etc., and should have their own page. Plantlady223 (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is hardly in-depth coverage. reddogsix (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Unfortunately, the items you indicated are far from in-depth, non-trivial support. (e.g., politico = a birthday listing and the text, "A’shanti Gholar, DNC alum now political director for Emerge America..." BTW - I could not find a the CBS reference you made reference to. reddogsix (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your help. When I wrote CBS, I meant CBC.[1] This is what the entry is proposed to say: "A’shanti Fayshel Gholar is a Democratic American activist serving as the Political Director of Emerge America, a national non-profit organization that trains female candidates to run for political offices, and regularly appears and speaks on its behalf. Gholar was a director of outreach at the Democratic National Committee until 2016." Gholar has received press coverage from a significant number of notable websites regarding these aspects of her political work. According to Wikipedia:[2] "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." She certainly has been published in multiple reliable secondary sources that have been cited and support the content of the article. It goes on to say, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." That's definitely been accomplished here. These are just some the sources that have interviewed, mentioned, quoted or otherwise noted her and in regards to her political work: Rolling Stone, NBC News, MSN.com, CBC News, The Sydney Morning Herald, Politico, Buzzfeed, and Detroit News. No primary sources are being used to prove notability. According to that same article on Wikipedia: "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable." Lonehexagon (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's been well-established on this page that Gholar is notable enough for the article that was created about her. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is for the closing admin to decide. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's my first time going through this process. I appreciate your help. Lonehexagon (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. I would suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability (people), and try to bring policy based reasons from there to support keeping this article if you can find any. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support keeping article Gholar has received press coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that have been cited and support the content of the article. There have been concerns that the coverage on each page is not substantial. According to Wikipedia:[3] "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." That's been accomplished here. These are some the cited sources that have interviewed, mentioned, quoted or otherwise noted Gholar in regards to the topics covered in the article: Rolling Stone, NBC News, MSN.com, CBC News, The Sydney Morning Herald, Politico, Buzzfeed, and Detroit News, among others. According to that same article on Wikipedia: "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable." Lonehexagon (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable according to our criteria, as there is no in-depth nor truly independent sourcing. I note that Lonehexagon is the creator of the article, and that they canvassed Madhu Gopal to come here.[13] Of course there is nothing wrong with the creator commenting, but calling others here to support is improper, as it skews the discussion. Also, Plantlady223, above, is the former username of Lonehexagon. Lonehexagon, I understand you used the Plantlady name on January 20, just before your namechange, and that you had no bad intent in using both in the same discussion. However, it made your support look like it came from two people. Please be careful to avoid that. Also, please read Wikipedia:Canvassing. Bishonen | talk 11:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. I should have stated the name change clearly on here, or updated all the instances on this page to be the new one. I didn't realize I had been both on the same page. I also didn't realize what canvassing was, and I am glad you pointed me to that article. I only recently started editing on Wikipedia, and I've learned a lot in the last several weeks about being a good editor. I take the rules very seriously and I appreciate the education. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Sources

  1. ^ http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-loss-good-for-women-politics-1.3910591
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Maria Dias[edit]

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

Minor mentions but not enough for an encyclopedic entry. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: We have a number of sources in English documenting her importance to Pakistan's nursing community. There must be many more in Urdu.--Ipigott (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every Pakistani Urdu-language paper has its paper in English. Like Jang has The News, Express has The Express Tribune, Waqt has The Nation are few examples. Try to verify these. Störm (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not at all clear that the sources document her importance to Pakistan's nursing community. They're all trivial quotes/mentions and several are for the same quote: In my opinion nursing is going through an unprecedented change in Pakistan. Introduction of Care of the Elderly ensures that students have knowledge and skills that are aligned to meet the nation’s requirements, which seems to have come on the occasion of receiving an award from her institution. Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep holds a named chair which is just one of the criteria of PROF #5.[14] Though not independent, the Award of Excellence in Education from her university states that,[15] "she led the team that produced the revised national curriculum for nursing" and assisted the nursing board to insure that the curriculum met the standards of international nursing. It also states that she helped establish the bachelor's in nursing for Al Baath University in Syria and advised on nursing curriculum in Afghanistan. These are pretty clear indicators of #1, and show her impact has been beyond Pakistan. SusunW (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Dias' article easily passes our core content policies (V, NPOV, and NOR). There is plenty of in depth coverage of her work and roles and she has had a broad enough career that it wouldn't make sense to merge her into pages on those other positions, which seems to me to pass GNG. Also, she has been the director of a research center (CIME), holds a named chair (Nurudin Jivraj Professorship of Nursing), and has been involved at the national level in curriculum development and nursing education programming, passing PROF 1, 4, 5, and 7. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the discussion below I want to note that I still stand behind my !vote. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:PROF. Andrew D. (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure which way I'm going on this yet, but I see a few things that I think are worth pointing out. Her named professorship came in 2004, nine years before she even enrolled in a doctoral program. According to sources in the article, she was still an assistant professor as late as 2015 - and she appears to still only be an associate professor. (See the notes following WP:PROF#C5 about named chairs and non-tenured faculty.) In addition, the Italian university that granted her Ph.D. has described itself online as a non-accredited institution. I'm on the fence about her work with the national curriculum (but I notice some close paraphrasing in that part of the entry that needs to be addressed if the article is retained). EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that outside of the US, it is relatively common for senior academics not to hold a PhD. This is especially the case in art, medical, and legal fields, but extends to other fields as well. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement is very misleading. First, it is uncommon for anyone in art, since MFA is generally considered the terminal degree. Even in the US, the medical professoriat does not have PhDs, but rather mostly MDs, and legal professoriat often has JDs. These are all "terminal degrees". I think the fact that her PhD is from an unaccredited institution is again something that is inconsistent with holding an endowed professorship. That title in this particular case does not have the conventional meaning we understand by the wording of PROF c5. Agricola44 (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I did not mean to mislead. Smmurphy(Talk) 01:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--Trying to scrape sources.Wait.Winged BladesGodric 12:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Several commentators above have cited the "Nurudin Jivraj Professorship" as demonstrating notability per PROF c5, but this claim is not as clear as it would seem. First, the title does not have the same meaning as at an established western, particularly American university, where a named chair is one of the highest forms of merit-based recognition for a scholar. As pointed out by EricEnfermero, she was appointed this professorship in 2004, a full 12 years before even earning a PhD, i.e. the entry-level credential for academia qualifying one to apply for a junior position. Also, although our WP article on her employer, Aga Khan University, is very flattering, the fact is that it is a relatively young institution whose designation as a "university" is debatable by western standards. For example, it lacks the entire Arts and Sciences infrastructure, among other schools (this page says they will be setting up A&S as the intitution grows into a comprehensive university) and, in the departments that the institution does actually have, most faculty members are not doctoral or terminal degree holders (browse e.g. the nursing faculty). Finally, the institution is something of a sanctuary for individuals who have washed-out of the western academic system. So, I would submit that PROF c5 does not actually apply in this case because the spirit of that guideline, scholarly distinction, is not actually met according to our conventional standards. Agricola44 (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am a bit baffled by the comment above, are you saying that if she doesn't meet the "western academic standard" of notability, then regardless of the system in her own country she is not notable? Pakastan's literacy rate is abysmal and no where near a western standard.[16], [17]. The great majority of professors at any university are not PhD holders, one study found that of 7000 professors nationwide only 1700 held a PhD.[18] So, we hold academics there or any other developing country which is not on par with the arbitrary "western standard" to a level that is impossible for them to attain? While a named chair in Pakastan may not meet the criteria of western named chairs, the fact that she has one, and it is repeatedly noted, is of significance there. SusunW (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are not representing the whole story on several accounts. First, western, especially American universities are well-populated by folks from all over this region of the world. Second, there are people at universities in that part of the world, indeed some at that particular university, that are highly cited. Just check Aga Khan GS listings. That means there are many Pakistanis, both in Pakistan and abroad, who are notable. The notability test should not be biased by bringing one's ethnicity into the argument (or sex, or gender, or any other identity attributes). So, to inject strawmen, like the Pakistani literacy rate, in order to justify a special plea to lower the standards in this particular case is unconvincing. There are notable scholars at her very institution. She just isn't one of them. Your argument is the kind of slippery slope that will eventually make WP a directory of all of humanity. Agricola44 (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not bring any identifying attributes in to the discussion, nor did I make a special plea to save the article on some basis other than what is stated in the guidelines. Highly cited is only one standard and at that only applicable in limited fields. We disagree that western standards apply, so be it. Your doomsday statement about slippery slope was unwarranted. SusunW (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You most certainly did introduce personal attributes! What in the world do you think an argument is that says we should not hold this person to conventional standards because the Pakistani literacy rate is abysmal? You are, in fact, making a special plea to lower the standard by claiming that this "Nurudin Jivraj Professorship" satisfies PROF. All of us can easily ascertain the validity of this claim by simply asking whether this was bestowed for scholarly accomplishment. The answer is clearly no, per all the observations that have been verbosely discussed above. But, under your logic, this doesn't really matter. We should all just throw considered judgement to the wind, disregarding all the problematic indicators, and robotically accept the notability claim because of this professorship that was clearly awarded for reasons other than scholarly accomplishment. I don't think anyone here should buy such an anti-intellectual argument, although they and the closing admin might ultimately do so. As for the slippery slope, editathons and all these other campaigns that are pushing the boosterism of everyone's favorite under-represented groups have led to a vast uptick of articles that we are all spending increasing amounts of time cleaning up. This is certainly one of them. Agricola44 (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a huge difference in arguing for personal attributes of an individual and notability standards that take into consideration the real-world variances which apply to any given field. As none of the sourcing states why she was awarded the chair, any claim regarding why it was bestowed is at this point unclear and unsubstantiated. SusunW (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again. All assertion. Do you mean to honestly say that, with all the information that has now been found, that you still believe this professorship may have been bestowed for scholarly accomplishment? In 2004, when this was awarded, she had no papers, no citations, no book chapters, no terminal degree, in fact no academic accomplishment outside teaching whatsoever. Yeah, I can totally see your point on how the complete absence of scholarly accomplishment gives us no right to conclude that this professorship was not bestowed for scholarly accomplishment. I have to retire from this discussion with an aperitif. There just isn't any way to address such "postmodern logic". Agricola44 (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it meets WP:NPROF. No clear arguments have been presented against this despite debates about where she got her PhD and the literacy rate of Pakistan. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps have another look above. There is a clear argument against: the named professorship was not conferred for scholarly accomplishment (because there was no scholarly accomplishment at the time it was bestowed). Therefore, it does not meet the conventional bar of PROF. Conversely, your argument seems to consist of the unsupported claim that you think it meets PROF. I would say that the correct interpretation is that no clear argument has been presented for. Agricola44 (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I am saying there is no clear argument above, since WP:NPROF says any named chair is acceptable. WP:NPROF 5.The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. Also the named chair was not randomly bestowed for no reason, so there is clearly something you have not seen in your research. It's not that I really know why either, I am simply following the policy rather than making unsubstantiated assumptions based on my original research as to why she was granted the Nurudin Jivraj named chair at Aga Khan University. Regards. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have to observe that you're just pushing another CHEESE argument. Nobody has said it was "randomly bestowed for no reason" and we are not even trying to find out why it was bestowed. That is an obvious strawman. The argument here is an argument of exclusion of the reason it was bestowed. Specifically, it was not bestowed for scholarly accomplishment, according to the detailed observations of EricEnfermero and myself. That is all that matters because it invalidates PROF. Here, "any" does not really mean any. Considered judgement would require, for example, that we reject notability on these grounds if a diploma mill confers some distinguished professorship title on one of their faculty, or even bestows the label of "eminent" on all of their faculty, as they do at University of NorthWest. Moreover, there are many legitimate reasons to question Aga Khan's status as a "major institution" (above). So, "keep" is still unconvincing. Sorry, Agricola44 (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Agricola44: - My argument is not made of green cheese. I maintain that words mean what they mean, the WP:PROF page does not say anything like what you say it says. And that you are mistaken or being false in your statements. The Aga Khan University is a medical school, and as such is ranked in the top 300 world universities and top 200 in Asia, the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan ranks the university as the top medical school in Pakistan, and it is the only one in Pakistan to be accredited by the College of American Pathologists. It also produces 75% of all biomedical research in Pakistan. And very few of their professor's have named chairs (this person appears to be the only one who does in her entire department, including the director above her). Your argument makes no sense to me. (you may want to verify this and read [19] [20] also). Have a nice day, but know that I disagree with you most thoroughly and find your comments are annoying and discriminatory. Regards. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you are taking a strictly literal interpretation of the words, rather than applying considered judgement. Which of the two applies in this case is indeed the crux. You have conspicuously avoided the issue I raised regarding diploma mills, so I suspect you concede that there might be, at least hypothetically, cases where the literal wording of PROF fails. The observation that Dias had no scholarly accomplishment when this professorship was conferred is not in dispute. It is debatable (see above) whether Aga Khan is a major institution and I see you've been reading our own flattering article on that institution (ranked top 300 in the world, etc), but US News puts its rank at more than double. I'm sorry my argument doesn't make sense to you, but I'm more sorry you've resorted to ad hominems in calling my arguments annoying and discriminatory. Indeed, we disagree. Best to you. Agricola44 (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was referring to the Wikipedia article which quotes this yes, which is a ranking for medical schools which I said, and therefore correct and not comparable to a ranking of all universities (where it still ranks), but it's not in contention that Aga Khan is Pakistan's most major medical school, and is only #2 of all universities in Pakistan according to your ranking. You (it seems?) are calling it a diploma mill which I don't think is accurate. Your statement that Dias had no scholarly accomplishment when this professorship was conferred is in dispute, since as I already said, it was not randomly bestowed for no reason. And finally I don't do hypothetical rules, this is a considered judgement, and I don't see what I have conceded or even how that comes into it. And regarding the (ad hominems?) personal comments made by you to me and vice versa, it would be perhaps best if I stepped back form this debate, which I will, I have said my piece anyway, sorry if I caused any offence. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summation. There has been much debate here, with some emotions, all of which I think is very healthy. I would like to come at this from a slightly different direction, because I suspect that some of the commentators here are not familiar with academic process to a degree needed to see the subtleties involved here. The issue revolves primarily around what seems to be strongest argument of the "keeps", namely the Jivraj professorship. First, professorships are bestowed for lots of different reasons in academia, only one being as a distinguished form of recognition for scholarly accomplishment. That one reason is the only reason of concern in PROF c5. Several editors have based their "keeps" on the literal interpretation of wording in PROF c5, basically arguing that the fact that Dias has this title is all that we need be concerned about. However, several others (including myself) have observed that Dias had little scholarly accomplishment, so it is reasonable to conclude that there must be some other reason for her to have received this title. That reason is not important for our purposes. BLPs like this have come up here at AfD in the past and some of the PROF "fine print" addresses precisely this particular type of case. As far as PROF pertaining to "named professors", the c5 notes say: Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments. This statement tacitly recognizes dynamics I have been trying to explain here. It is not clear what Dias' rank was in 2004 when the Jivraj title was bestowed, but presently Dias is still listed as an assistant professor, the Jivraj assistant professor to be exact. I maintain that this disqualifies "keep" arguments that are based on PROF c5. Second, though less clear, is the status of Aga Khan University, which the c5 notes state would have to be considered as an institution having a reputation for excellence or selectivity. There are a variety of reasons mentioned above that I think contradict Khan's reputation in this regard, including narrowness, widespread lack of terminal degrees in the faculty, low general research output, and reputation as a haven for failed western academics. I'm sorry to be persistent, but that's what were supposed to do these days. Best to everyone. Agricola44 (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Starting your comment with "summation" lends it with a sense of authority that isn't very accurate. It is fine for you to have your opinion, but it seems some people (myself included) disagree with you and that is fine too. Smmurphy(Talk) 01:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment I would appeal to the editors here that we please stop arguing about whether AKU is a major institution for WP purposes. Could everyone just please read WP:PROF#C5 and note that even if we could agree on AKU's status, these specific criteria notes indicate that C5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level? It looks like some editors may be seeing the list of criteria at WP:PROF, which seems straightforward enough, but they might be missing the specific criteria notes by not scrolling down far enough. Since her AKU page is clear that she is even now only an associate professor (and other sources indicate that she was once an assistant professor with that same appointment), I don't think we should be arguing over C5. If there is a path to notability for this subject, C5 isn't it. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tough decision, but Keep - Good arguments on both sides, but for me the giving of keynote lectures at conferences that get covered by the general press is enough to argue for a keep on both PROF and GNG principles. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Her field is nursing, where graduate degrees have only recently become usual. It does matter where her doctoral degree is from, and it indicates the common practice in the US and elsewhere of people in professional fields where higher degrees are a recent innovation getting them from wherever; it's a dismaying development but its not actually shameful in context. The WP:PROF standard for researchers is interpreted as international stature, but for teaching and professional service we usually judge country by country. Holding an endowed chair in the highest level university in the country is sufficient indication of notability DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG and DGG. Montanabw(talk) 22:33, 3 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable metal band with no viable third-party sources, with any recent coverage resulting from the death of founder Alfred Morris on 1/10. For having being signed at one point to a supposedly notable label (Hellhound), their albums disappeared commercially and have no separate articles. A search on Billboard turned up no chart history, while AllMusic content is clearly user-submitted. Article itself is badly cited (three of its five links are dead) while consisting mainly of unsourced puffery, and has remained in that state for the past decade despite a "keep" vote back in 2008. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources by Michig and the fact that this nomination is deeply flawed. Dead link is not bad citation, when it was added it was working and is retrievable via archive mechanisms. Article bad shape is also not reason for deletion. Apart from that they clearly pass WP:MUSIC#C5 which requires releasing album on major record label. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhye's and Fall of Civilization[edit]

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

Article contains primary sources. There is potential for an article about Mods in the Civilization series in general, but as it stands, this particular mod doesn't appear to be notable in and of itself. Coin945 (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if it was mentioned in reviews, the mentions don't appear to be significant. Not sure how this passed AfD before.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Would it be possible to merge this article with Civilisation IV?Vorbee (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This was a major expansion of the Civilization IV franchise, almost qualifying as an independent game unto itself. Recipient of numerous computer software awards and also inspired a sequel with the new Civilization VI. Also heavily referenced and a long standing article for several years. -O.R.Comms 03:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only to note, there's nothing I have seen that confirms Civ VI's "Rise and Fall" inspired by this. The name might seem familiar, but "rise and fall of civilizations" pre-dates "Rhys" easily. Let's not assume that's a reason to keep this. --Masem (t) 23:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't really see how an article can be listed twice, especially with one of them ending with WP:SNOW, and simply be listed again, without anything changing. It's clearly been at least mentioned in a lot of publications, and a few are paper, which we have to take as read, as good faith. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It meets all the criteria for inclusion. Nomination is bordering on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -O.R.Comms 22:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing has changed since the last AfD, and the nominator doesn't introduce any new arguments. It received non-trivial coverage in a large number of reviews of the base game, as well as a few dedicated reviews of the mod, see this page. – Joe (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per before; however there is a decent argument to merge to a wider page on Civ4 mods. There's clearly link-rot on reviews, but I'm convinced some do exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Civilization IV#Mods. I can only find RS that mention the mod once or twice but in a very trivial way that they aren't really talking about the mods. The only one that gives more depth is the IGN preview, which talks about Civ 4 mods instead of this specific mod. The "papers" or the links provided above are focused on Beyond the Sword instead, and not all are reliable. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AdrianGamer: Have you looked at the sources listed here, namely the full-page reviews of the mod (not Beyond the Sword) in Giochi per il mio computer and Cyberstratège [fr]? – Joe (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this has more than enough coverage to warrant its own article. Also merging it back into the main Civ IV article, under the "mods" section, would make that article excessively long. That in fact was why this article was originally created, to provide a stand alone space for the material about this expansion. -O.R.Comms 19:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, there is like, 2 reliable sources covering the game and having trivial mentions by some others. That is far from sufficient. It definitely does not meet the requirement that a subject must receive "significant coverage" by RS per WP:GNG. WP:GNG also talks about that if there is a lack of multiple sources, then maybe the parent article is the better place to mention all these information. Given that the entire article was based on primary sources, there was nothing valuable to merge. (PS: The 2 magazines have not been discussed by the WP:VG community regarding their reliability as well) AdrianGamer (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think that two full length reviews plus lesser coverage in a dozen plus other reliable is more than enough significant coverage, but that's a judgement call. It's simply factually inaccurate to say there no significant coverage, though. The article could use some trimming, but there's nothing ipso facto wrong with using primary sources, and it's not a reason for deletion. Also, sources don't have to be vetted by a WikiProject before we consider them reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough reviews to justify a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARITH Symposium on Computer Arithmetic[edit]

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

Non-notable event on it's own, much like the dozen other IEEE symposiums. In fact, the only links to it are because it was added to a template. Affiliation/being a branch of IEEE simply doesn't satisfy our notability criteria and I can find no evidence that this is notable. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no notability guideline for symposiums, I just use a GNews search to try and determine coverage. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 18:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that when searching, search just for "Symposium on Computer Arithmetic" (no "ARITH" before) or for "ARITH conference". Note also that 7 of the 22 references of the well-known IEEE 754-2008 standard are articles from this conference. Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's reasonable consensus that between this and 2002 Idara Amn-o-Insaf attack, a single article will suffice, so we want some sort of merge. The question is, in which direction? That's less clear, but I think the nod goes to merging the other article into this one. If somebody really feels strongly that the merge should be done in the other direction, who am I to say they can't do that?

I really should be calling this merge, but the otherwise wonderful XFDcloser automation doesn't seem to have a way to express do a backwards merge :-( -- RoySmith (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Idara-e-Amn-o-Insaf[edit]

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

Promotional with WP:COI. Nothing in WP:RS. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable Christian organisation in Pakistan that has been active since 1974 according to this source. More mentions are found in news sources such as [22], [23] etc. and book references. Mar4d (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your last two are not reliable with The News has no editor where CT has WP:COI and your first one comes under WP:1EVENT so nothing contributes to the notability. WP needs enduring notability which it clearly fails. Störm (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think that The News International has no editor? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The News not having an editorial board is not true. It is a newspaper. And again, I would suggest merging the 2002 attack info into this main article. Given the organisation's long history, the main article should supersede any sub-articles. Mar4d (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Most of the coverage in RS revolve around a 2002 attack on the personnel of this charity. And Since Storm created an article on 2002 Idara-e-Amn-o-Insaf attack, we no longer need a standalone article on this charity, thus redirect it to 2002 Idara-e-Amn-o-Insaf attack. --Saqib (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Redirect would be fine as I've started new article which adequately cover the topic. Störm (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If @Mar4d: have no objection, this could be done on speedy basis minimize the backlog.--Saqib (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That meets criteria of WP:NEVENT. Question is whether we have to redirect or merge this page. This AfD should remain open so we can get right outcome. Störm (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most of the references are dead links. None of them provided any reference to the subject. Nothing supports WP:ORG criteria for notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are plenty of mentions of the organization unrelated to the 2002 attack. See for example "Idara-e-Amn-o-Insaf. Karachi, an ecumenical commission for justice and peace, has always sought the cooperation of liberal Muslims of the workers and intellectual communities in addressing minority issues. Be it the protest campaign against the government's sinister move in 1992 to introduce a religious column in the National Identity Card, or redefining a better mode of minorities representation, eminent journalists, advocates, human rights activists are invited to speak or preside." (https://books.google.com/books?id=JOPZAAAAMAAJ), "The programme, partially funded by the World Bank, consisted of widening the existing open drains to 260 ft to increase the volume of sewage. The open drains pass through a number of low-income areas. The widening of the drains were to affect about 2,000 families living along the drains, forcing them to be relocated to far off sites. No compensation was planned for these families who had lived here for over twenty years. Community organisers from the Idara-e-Amn-o-Insaf, an NGO as well as groups in the nine settlements along the drain, came together to resist eviction." (https://books.google.com/books?id=3JqbAAAAMAAJ) "Idara-i- Amn-o-Insaf, and others, have been fighting against these Ordinances. The injustice meted" (https://books.google.com/books?id=YxTsAAAAMAAJ) "As Muzaffar Fazal-ud-Din, a Christian, executive secretary of the Idara-e-Amn-o-Insaf says, “When our organisation talks about giving handloom workers their rights, about improving the conditions of brick-kiln workers or even farmers, what difference does it make whether the worker is a Muslim or from the Scheduled Castes?" * Mr Muzzaffar's remarks encapsulate the real problems that lies behind the suffering of the minority religious - communities in" (https://books.google.com/books?id=9WZGKF9JGO8C), "The Idara-e-Amn-o-Insaf was set up in 1974 as a joint initiative by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Karachi and the Church of Pakistan. It was a vibrant civil society organisation working for labour rights, social awareness and the rights of non-Muslim communities. For social activists, the organisation was important for various reasons." (https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/232532-Idara-e-Amn-o-Insaf-never-recovered-from-the-attack-that-left-seven-staffers-dead) --Soman (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge seems the obvious solution--there's no point in having both articles. I suggest this be the title -- its more general. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 4 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. sufficient consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fiesta hotels[edit]

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

Delete No indication of notability. Wikipedia is not a business directory. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND, topic fails GNG. HighKing++ 19:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Two deletes and one weak keep is not the most ringing consensus I've seen but these days that's often what we get. Additionally I am reluctant to keep relisting discussions, so this is where I am landing. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cirkus Miramar[edit]

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

Even after a Swedish specific search this was the best thing I found. I couldn't find anything else that could be described as significant coverage, lots of name dropping but nothing that stood out as being as useful source to satisfy lack of notability. I don't think they past WP:NBAND. Mattg82 (talk) 22:40, 20 January 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) 02:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - per google search which came up with plenty of results. Plus Swedish Wiki article which indicates Swedish notability. discography exist and are legitBabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not seeing sources for WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV Seraphim System (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Weather Channel internationally[edit]

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

This appears to be a cross between WP:OR and WP:ESSAY. I would suggest merge or redirect, however, there's really no sourced content here that isn't already replicated in the main article for the Weather Channel. And it seems unlikely anyone would search for the phrase "The Weather Channel internationally" so a redirect seems a waste of time. There have been unresolved citation tags (originally placed by Qwfp) on the article for exactly two years this month. Chetsford (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two concepts each lasted less than a year, the third example is 'theory thrown out at random' by someone who doesn't know how websites work, fourth is 'they owned a part of The Weather Network' and the fifth is 'um, I guess Fox copied this in Australia, probably?'. This is a bunch of fancruft badly disguised as an article (honestly this should have been PRODDED as being ill-formed; not an attack on the splitter who had good intentions, but it's up to others to bring this up to snuff after the split from the main article. Nate • (chatter) 01:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- unsourced original research on a non-encyclopedic topic: "... internationally"? No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mamoon Manzil fire[edit]

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

I think over three weeks is a fair amount of time in order to access notability. I found routine sources the day of the incident but coverage flickers off rapidly afterwards; Wikipedia is not news and there isn't an exception when it is tragic. The historical significance just simply isn't there. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Penny & Her Pals[edit]

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

Not a notable TV show. The only online coverage appears to be in obituaries for Lamoyne Hreha and a few books that mention it in a TV Guide-like list of programs. There are likely offline newspaper sources per [24], but local coverage of a TV show generally is not enough for notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Fischer (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Not linked from either article that is disambiguated. There is a primary topic in the WP:2DABS situation here. G6 previously declined. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Rositano[edit]

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

Article is about non-notable athlete that doesn't meet WP:NSPORT. Also doesn't pass GNG as there is no significant coverage of her in independent sources,. There are no stories in Australian media sources which mention her name. All the references included in the article are closely connected with the subject. Kb.au (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National champion. Member of the national canoe team. World record holder. Plays football for Italy. AIS scholarship recipient. Plenty of independent coverage.[25][26][27][28] Easily passes WP:GNG. None of the sources in the article are published by the subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- if I'm reading this right https://canoe.org.au/2016/10/05/isabella-rositano/, she placed 1st in the national champrionship in 2016; this meets WP:NSPORT. Article is reasonably well cited at this point with appropriate amount of bio content; does not violate other guidelines. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just being a national champion does not always meet WP:NSPORT, especially for low profile or obscure sports. In Canoes case there is nothing in NSPORT that gives that a pass so we go with the standard "for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." ICF was only juniors. Since no pass there it comes back to GNG. There is a lack of Independent coverage for GNG. Looking at the four sources Haweye7 highlights, 1, UniSA, not independant, "where UniSA student Isabella Rositano". 2, The governing body of the sport she competed in is not independent. 3, Only her name on a list, lacks any depth of coverage about her. 4, she works as an ambassador for Black Dog Institute are not an independent. None help with GNG. The same issues occur with the other sources in the article, a lack of independence or a lack of coverage. Other claims of notabilty. National team does not pass NSPORT. World record is one of those silly gimmicky ones and is team thing and lacks independent coverage. Football for Italy, does not pass WP:NAFL. Scholarship holder, nothing that special there, lacks independent coverage. A Factiva search got zero hits for her unless she was also a student film director or actress (which she might be). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Rubbish. Of course the governing body of a sport is independent of the athletes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No athletes, no sport, no sporting body. No sporting body, no national championships, no organized competitions. Each dependent on the other. Sporting bodies are to varying degrees employers who are clearly not independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's all a conspiracy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NSPORT. Article could use clean up, expansion and improved referencing per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Once more I will defer to David E. Overall , I still think non-notable , but this might be borderline enough. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ayorkor Korsah[edit]

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

not notable. Only significantly cited paper; not enough to show her an authority in her field according to WP:PROF. The awards are almost every one of them routine undergraduate and graduate student scholarships. PhiBetaKappa and Tau Beta Phi are not societies whose membership implies notability . May be notable some day, but not yet. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment: {{U}David Eppstein}}, Pam D, do you think the awards section for undergraduate and graduate scholarship should be retained? Do you think we should add such sections for all academics, because anyone vaguely notable will have certainly received such routine awards?
comment: David Eppstein, Pam D, do you think the awards section for undergraduate and graduate scholarship should be retained? If you do, do you think we should add such sections for all academics, because anyone vaguely notable will have certainly received such routine awards, & it can generally be documented? DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. I removed most of that section. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. North America1000 07:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Lottermoser[edit]

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

Subject of article fails GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Chetsford (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His publications include five with over 100 citations each [30], enough for WP:PROF#C1. And the article indicates that he holds a personal chair, probably also passing WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Withdraw as nom Thanks, David Eppstein, I forgot to check his impact factor. Withdraw as nom in favor of prod. Chetsford (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. creation by blocked or banned user Beeblebrox (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cancao[edit]

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

Article was PRODed by an IP user and contested by the creator. The rationale the IP gave was:

"Creator is blocked on commons (by a CU) and on Vietnamese wikipedia as a long term abuse going back to 2011.

Some reasons to delete this page.

1. A google search does not indicate existence of the place. 2. Thai and Chinese names indicate other places. 3. Vietnamese sources don't indicate it, but more of a collection of people living together instead of a political state.

Thus, please delete."

I have no knowledge of Vietnamese history, so I can't verify the claims of either party. But the issue seems serious enough to warrant further discussion. From a brief Google search, I gather that Cancao is a name found in historical Chinese documents, and which is largely agreed to have referred to Hà Tiên. So probably the History section of the Hà Tiên article should be expanded instead? Paul_012 (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minori Aoi[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable source coverage, significant or otherwise. No strong claim of passing WP:PORNBIO. Ranking 81st on a vendor's poll of its customers falls way short of winning a well-known industry award. What doesn't come from primary or vendor sources is mainly a puffed-up filmography. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as does not pass WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO. Most of the references are adult film directorys. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lovetreats[edit]

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

The company which is the subject of this profile has several paragraphs of robust treatment in the India Times, however, beyond that I don't see any RS in the article, or in a BEFORE search. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a talk by the founder. Does that help? These guys are leading a sexual revolution in india and I thought it would be relevant given the work that they're doing. They're also getting people to open up about sexuality on a youtube channel. Would that help? I'm a first time wiki contributor. Any suggestions on making this better helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallidude (talk • contribs)
Typically, revolutions are widely covered in WP:RS. Chetsford (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essentially an advertisement for a non-notable company. Interviews with the founder of a company are PRefforts, and are in essence primary sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleting and salting per G4. MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon (B.A.M.) Hodge[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate significant secondary biographical sources to support notability. Sources cited in article make only trivial mention. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW keep. Nominator is invited to acquaint themselves with notability guidelines before nominating an article or, in case of doubt, asking the advice of an expert. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Abbis[edit]

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

Artice does not have enough souces to justify an article.Kevin Dewitt Always ping 01:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The source provided (although requiring subscription) supports that he passes WP:NFOOTBALL having played in a fully professional league. In any case, I've added more sources that don't require subscription to support that. Kosack (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Passes WP:NFOOTY. Number 57 11:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to pass NFooty, might be hard to find more sources, but I am sure more could be found. Govvy (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Eddie891 Talk Work 17:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. --IndyNotes (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY having played in a fully professional league. The sources 'Hugman' and 'A - Z Database' are regarded as reliable by the Wiki football project. Eagleash (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_January_28&oldid=1142224166"