Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 January	8 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Khan Tareen[edit]

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

clear WP:BLP1E. fails WP:POLITICIAN. not an elected legislature and no political career. Saqib (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - currently fails WP:NPOL. Störm (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited from his notable father, and he doesn't meet either general notability or notability for politicians. PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL. no political career, fails seat nomination as per [1]. CASSIOPEIA (talk)
Delete an unelected candidate for the national assembly. If he is elected he will be notable, until then he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 13 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) 16:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental and Left List in Tanum[edit]

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

Longstanding unsourced article. Nothing to say this political alliance was notable or has any lasting significance. Mattg82 (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search term:

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

Delete. Local municipal political alliance, I have linked to se:Miljö- och Vänsterlistan i Tanum and added a source. ~~At the last election in 2014, the list got 0.0% of the votes.~~ The list ceased to exist in 2014. The very few secondary sources found are local. Subject fails GNG, delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 09:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC) (Amended. Sam Sailor 11:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment, the 0.0% is result of the same feature as described earlier in the article, namely that the Swedish electoral authorities will put out ballots for parties registered in previous election regardless of whether they field candidates or not. --Soman (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the clarification, I have amended above and added slightly to the article; it's still not notable. Sam Sailor 11:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, temporary alliance with only routine coverage. Any valuable content could be moved to Left Party or Green Party articles. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:33, 14 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) 16:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bukowski: Autobiographer, Gender Critic, Iconoclast[edit]

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

An unsourced article on a self-published book which has been here since 2009, essentially unedited other than maintenance fixes. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK: I can't find any reviews or other coverage, awards, or anything to show it's other than a run-of-the-mill academic book. Lots of people get their doctoral thesis published, and neither thesis nor author is necessarily notable as a result. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced article about a person whose only claim to fame is a self-published book. Even the title of this article is unacceptable and should have attracted a delete nomination long ago. Thanks for catching up to it, Guy. --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With almost no exceptions no work self-published by a vanity press is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need for the book to have a separate article from Charles Bukowski. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:37, 14 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) 16:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wright Quadrangle[edit]

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

Longstanding unreferenced article about a dormitory at the Indiana University. I don't think this is independently notable of the uni. Mattg82 (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N and WP:GNG and only primary source found. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable building. I considered a redirect to Indiana University Bloomington, but it is not mentioned at that article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing indicates that this dormitory is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No need to redirect either, nothing notable about a dorm. I'm just surprised the college students didn't vandalize the shit out of this article.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per John Pack Lambert. This building is no more notable than my shed! Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:40, 14 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. MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mohler[edit]

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

I have found nothing in reliable secondary sources to indicate this person is notable as required by WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Mattg82 (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack pf substantial coverage in reliable ibdependent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:27, 11 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. Player meets WP:NFOOTY, has played in a senior international match. Fenix down (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Jaramillo[edit]

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

Contest dePROD, Joeykai removed PROD without any reason. The previous PROD was Player fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Discussion here failed to achieve consensus that the league was fully professional. With only a small handful of games played and no indication of international appearances at any level, it is doubtful that the player could satisfy GNG. The PROD was nominated by Fenix down. Although she played some friendly matches for national team, I do not see any evidence that those matches are approved by FIFA. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she passes WP:NFOOTBALL as she has played in a senior international match for the Mexico national team. Joeykai (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG (refs added to article). FPL only includes one league for women in its inclusion criteria - despite this league breaking worldwide attendance records, having major sponsors, broadcasting, and news coverage. It looks like this editor has gone on a tear attempting to delete articles about women's footballers in this league without doing the needed due diligence. Refs added to article to get started. See also:

Miriam García (revision history)
María Andrea Sánchez (revision history)
Karen Gómez (revision history)

Hmlarson (talk) 08:56, 8 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. Passes WP:NFOOTY, has played a senior international match. Fenix down (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rebeca Bernal[edit]

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

Contest dePROD, Joeykai removed PROD without any reason. The previous PROD was Player fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Discussion here failed to achieve consensus that the league was fully professional. With only a small handful of games played and no indication of international appearances at any level, it is doubtful that the player could satisfy GNG. The PROD was nominated by Fenix down. Although she played some friendly matches for national team, I do not see any evidence that those matches are approved by FIFA. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she passes WP:NFOOTBALL as she has played in a senior international match for the Mexico national team. Joeykai (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 8 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. Passes WP:NFOOTY, has played in a senior international match Fenix down (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yamilé Franco[edit]

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

Contest dePROD, Joeykai removed PROD without any reason. The previous PROD was Player fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Discussion here failed to achieve consensus that the league was fully professional. With only a small handful of games played and no indication of international appearances at any level, it is doubtful that the player could satisfy GNG. The PROD was nominated by Fenix down. Although she played some friendly matches for national team, I do not see any evidence that those matches are approved by FIFA. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she passes WP:NFOOTBALL as she has played in a senior international match for the Mexico national team. Joeykai (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 8 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. Player passes WP:NFOOTY has players a senior international match. Fenix down (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mariana Cadena[edit]

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

Contest dePROD, Joeykai removed PROD without any reason. The previous PROD was Player fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Discussion here failed to achieve consensus that the league was fully professional. With only a small handful of games played and no indication of international appearances at any level, it is doubtful that the player could satisfy GNG. The PROD was nominated by Fenix down. Although she played some friendly matches for national team, I do not see any evidence that those matches are approved by FIFA. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she passes WP:NFOOTBALL as she has played in a senior international match for the Mexico national team. Joeykai (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL having played for Mexico, it maybe a friendly but they are recognised by FIFA if between two FIFA-recognised nations, is my understanding. NZFC^(talk) 00:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This player has played senior international football. There is a citation in the article showing she played for Mexico against Venezuela, which is listed on FIFA.com as a Tier 1 international match. However, WP:NFOOTY requires participation at confederation level, and it doesn't look like confederation tournaments exist for women's soccer, leaving only the World Cup and Olympics as considered to confer notability. The list of fully professional leagues is very short for women, too: there is currently only the US league. Is this an example of systemic bias? It looks like Cadena could do almost anything in soccer, and she still would not be considered notable until and unless she plays in the 2019 World Cup. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confederation tournaments do exist for women's soccer, CONCACAF Women's Gold Cup or CONCACAF Women's Olympic Qualifying Tournament for example Joeykai (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA.com lists CONCACAF Women's Gold Cup as WWC preliminaries (e.g., "FIFA WWC 2015 Prel. Comp. CONCACAF"), so I was including that as part of World Cup. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 8 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. MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chesapeake Films[edit]

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

This organisation has very few mentions online. For many years this article was unreferenced but after a search online I was able to find just two worthy sources. However both are quite thin on the ground in terms of content on the company and, given I was unable to find other sources, this film company does not appear notable. This is especially obvious given the company appears to have only actually produced one film with the others failing due to financing issues Vasemmistolainen (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, with only one film made, The Poker Club (film), which has a very basic Wikipedia page that has only 1 reference, to a site of uncertain reliability. It might be possible to redirect it to one of the linked pages, but it's not clear where: co-founder Richard Chizmar is not well referenced (there is a Baltimore Sun article but most links are dead). Co-founder Johnathon Schaech may be slightly more notable, but his page needs a look too. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete abyss of coverage of the film comlany amd their projects. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:43, 10 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. MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viola Carofalo[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:NPOV. References are not in-depth or non-trivial. A number fail to mention article subject. reddogsix (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because Viola Carofalo is the National Spokesperson and the Political Leader of a coalition of parties, movements and associations (about a hundred among which: Communist Refoundation Party, Italian Communist Party (2016) and The Other Europe...) that will be present at the next Italian general election, 2018 (March 4, 2018). The coalition is Power to the People (Italy) and is one of the 5 formations that will compete electorally (Italian general election, 2018#Coalitions and parties. In the wiki-pages of Viola Carofalo and of the Power to the People (Italy) there are all the references. Thanks.--Delehaye (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this news search and meeting WP:POLITICIAN by being the leader of a major Italian political party as confirmed by multiple reliable sources, and it's only because my Italian extends only about as far as "una gelate per favore" that I haven't improved the article myself. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a search seems to indicate notability.104.163.153.162 (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the article has been written in a biased tone, it passes WP:GNG. The subject has significant coverage. However, the article requires a lot of clean-up. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This certainly needs improvement, but being a leader of a political party is a valid notability claim if it can be properly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 13 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. Sandstein 21:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Pogozheva[edit]

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

Not notable economist. Articles looks like resume and not encyclopedic entity Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The language barrier may be an issue, but I don't see evidence of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 8 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 by Cryptic per WP:CSD#A7. Given the repeated re-creation (three times without the middle initial before this one), I will also protect it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jatin S. Wahane[edit]

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

No claim of notability (nor a credible claim of importance, but A7 was contested) for this student. He does not come close to WP:NPROF, and the only secondary source is a brief mention of his participation in a school science project when he was a child, so WP:GNG is also not met. (Regarding the publication that is mentioned in the article, see this MfD discussion). Jatin Wahane which was rather identical has been speedily deleted three times. bonadea contributions talk 19:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 19:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recreation of a page for a non notable individual. Moved to Mainspace when AfC was declined. Have requested Speedy Deletion too. Hagennos (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The user keeps creating the page, though it's obviously about an individual who lacks notability. BytEfLUSh ^Talk 04:46, 8 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. MelanieN (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Friedman[edit]

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

This is basically an PR biography. It starts by saying he is the author of a book. the book is self-published. I checked the sources. They include some churnalism (e.g. the Guardian source) and others where he is not even namechecked. He is a director of a couple of think-tanks. They too are non-notable and we have no articles on them - unsurprising since he started both himself. Thus, all the cited works in the bibliography, specifically including the one for which he is supposedly known, are self-published. In the end, I think this fails the test of independent coverage per WP:GNG, and also fails the significance test for authors or academics. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's classic WP:VSCA. JzG is dead-on in spotting the Guardian article as just being churnalism. Sources 4 and 5 are dead for me, but they look unlikely to actually name this person, let alone discuss him in any detail. The article in Journal of Social Intervention: Theory and Practice is a little more, though it arguably tends more towards a finding of notability for the concept of results-based accountability. But we're not discussing that subject here, we're discussing Friedman, who would appear to fail all relevant notability guidelines. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
I just fix three bad incoming links, from

Danielle Reed ‎ [2]

List of Guggenheim Fellowships awarded in 2008 ‎ [3]

Turtle Power: The Definitive History of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles ‎[4]

all accidental wikilink errors intending someone with the same or similar name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 10 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. MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The National Medical Commission[edit]

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

Unsourced. Bill does not seem to have passed. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 19:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The bill has not passed or even placed in the Parliament so WP:TOOSOON. Also the article fails WP:NPOV as it written to promote a specific POV. Hagennos (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no notable sources. Glycomics123 (talk) 08:40, 12 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. This is a soft delete. Article may be restored by any administrator upon request. MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Volume Records[edit]

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

Longstanding unreferenced article about a defunct record label. No lasting significance given. Mattg82 (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 8 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. This is a soft delete. Article may be restored by any administrator upon request. MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neanderthal 1 (album)[edit]

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

Nothing to indicate this is a notable album per policy. Mattg82 (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 8 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. Content doesn't seem verifiable and is very short, so no point in keeping it as a draft. ansh 666 02:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zayyam[edit]

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

Seems plausible, but both of the sources (no removed) were to website home pages; nether site has content for this name.

Perhaps an Arabic speaker can comment? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:APONOTE. No articles about people with this name (or spelling variations of it), and too few ghits for the name in Arabic script, which indicates it's unlikely there will ever be any. – Uanfala (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to draft. Why would you submit a draft to AfC, accept it, and then nominate it for deletion in the space of six minutes? As the creator didn't even submit it for review and there are no pressing content issues, they deserve the chance to come back to the draft if they want. Any concerns about sourcing can be noted in a comment in the normal way. – Joe (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The draft was submitted for review by its creator, then declined by one reviewer, who's known for being deletionist. I see the this AfD as a sort of re-examination of their review. Moving back to the draft space is a valid option, though I personally don't see why we would want to encourage editors to work on articles that don't stand a chance of ever passing the notability threshold. – Uanfala (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not merely "known for being deletionist", but blocked for socking to cause improper deletions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Uanfala and Pigsonthewing: We give editors wider latitude in draftspace than we do in mainspace. There have been multiple discussions about whether notability applies to drafts that have failed to find a consensus, for example. I understand overturning ST's review, but accepting it only to immediately delete it is still confusing to me. Simply letting somebody else review it would be an adequate "re-examination". If the creator doesn't come back after six months, it will be G13'd, and if there is some other concern (I don't see how there could be in this case, but) the usual practice would be to take it to MfD. This accept-and-AfD is out of process and in my opinion pretty damn bitey. – Joe (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that accepting the draft and then immediately nominating it for deletion has the appearance of being out of process. And if we stick to the letter of the rules, it is indeed. But the underlying assumption here is that there is some proper process that this draft would have otherwise undergone. There is no such thing. What usually happens to declined drafts is that their creators abandon them and after six months they get quietly deleted per G13. This deletion is more or less an automatic process (never mind the efforts of some editors to try and save good content). The decision for deletion is more or less taken the moment the draft is declined: there's no discussion and no community oversight. As long as the AfC processes are as dysfunctional as they are, there's nothing out of process in trying to give declined drafts a second chance by passing them through the one wikipedia discussion process that specialises in notability and sourcing. And even a negative outcome like the one here ("no chance this will ever be notable") is more helpful to the drafts's creator that the vague and generic boilerplate text they received when their draft was declined. – Uanfala (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to draft as per above. PriceDL (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have notified WT:AFC of this discussion. – Joe (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did a search for it, the The Complete Book of Muslim and Parsi Names By Maneka Gandhi, Ozair Husain, doesn't list in, nor does a giant list of Muslim name sites. Aziz is the name for Respect in Arabic. But it is worth noting that there is soo many Arabic tribes, all with different customs. Worth keeping for the moment in draft. scope_creep (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete -- No verifiable information whatsoever. Moving back to draft will only increase amount of garbage, since the submitter failed to provide a single reference. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to draft as per above. scope_creep (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary, as it is, it is a dictionary definition -- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Enough process wankery about draft and such. The full content is "Zayyam ( Arabic: ضىام ) is an Arabic origin name used mostly by male Muslims." This is so obviously not worth keeping even in draft, if only for WP:V reasons, that only deletion makes sense. No prejudice to a sourced recreation establishing notability. Sandstein 18:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not even going to bother looking up the name for notability. This is so short, it's too easy for anyone to replicate with some meat if there is any out there. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:36, 15 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. MelanieN (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Pride House in Be'er Sheva[edit]

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

Reads like a tabloid release and an advert combined. In my opinion, the article contains too much trivial mentions to qualify for WP:GNG Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article may need to be reworked, but I don't have a doubt about notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A simple google search shows enough WP:RS writing articles specifically on this to fulfill WP:GNG. - Galatz ^Talk 14:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable LGBT organization - passes at least on Hebrew sources.Icewhiz (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a local branch of a larger organization with no clear claims to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment Well, as far as I understand from Haaretz and Ynet artciles, The Pride Houses around Israel are not actually branches of LGBTQ association, but working under it's umbrella. They all work independently and are financed independently. Also, Beersheba is considered one of 5 most important cities in Israel and is called capital of the South. I've added some sources from Haaretz, Ynet and Mako, which are leading national news sources in Israel, so from my POV it quite establishes the notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I share this understanding - this is like Jerusalem Open House which is also independent. Pride marches in Be'er Sheva are a "new thing" (the last major city to do so - after Jerusalem) and have met some resistance.Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article no longer a direct branch of the national organization since 2015. Looks clear enough to me! gidonb (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable organization. Sufficient sources. gidonb (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable and well sourced. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the new sources make clear. Though probably could stand an edit. Theredproject (talk) 05:08, 12 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 no consensus. Sandstein 21:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mumtaz Khan Akbar[edit]

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

His business ventures might be notable but notability is not inherited. No significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been exerted in the article e.g. he was the first governor of the first bank of Azad Kashmir etc. Found significant coverage on him here.¹ The article should not be deleted merely because it requires edits to conform to Wikipaedia standards. sami ^talk 08:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link you shared is interested in 'Asian community' so they will cover them and they are online only so we can say they are vanity. Second thing, we need multiple independent sources discussing him in detail that nothing remain WP:OR so this fails WP:GNG. Alternate is we can redirect. Störm (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sami. Mar4d (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep owner of multiple businesses and mentioned on few reliable sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 07:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The sourcing is atroucious, basically just press release quality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's a non-notable businessman who happened to catch a few business deals, it's nothing to start a parade about. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck the above sock !vote. Lepricavark (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very successful businessman and very wealthy. He is the Governor of the first bank to open in Azad Kashmir. He is charitable.desmay (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know they have such post [5]. Störm (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a "very successful businessman" and "Governor of the first bank to open in Azad Kashmir" are insufficient claims of significance, and there's nothing better. Insufficient sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV / WP:ANYBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 7 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. Notability is a matter of coverage in reliable sources. Unscintillating's opinion does not address sources and must be discounted, leading to a delete consensus. Sandstein 21:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Everett[edit]

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

Fails GNG and JOURNALIST, in terms of notability. He's an on-air journalist (as was I), and hosts a show on a TV station that does not have national reach or significance. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 23:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep host of a notable TV show for 11 years (Chronicle) and has reliable sources coverage. Atlantic306 (talk) 13:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Host of a show that is only notable and/or seen in a small, specific geographical area, with no national distribution. That speaks nothing as to this person's notability on a wider, geographic non-specific level. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 20:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Boston is not a small geographical area but is a major city Atlantic306 (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bare minimum biography of non notable journalist which lacks significant coverage to pass WP:GNG and doesn't have any special achievement to pass WP:JOURNALIST. Being host of notable show doesn't automatically make him notable because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Being there for 11 also cannot make him notable. Ammarpad | Talk 12:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Boston is a major city, hosting a show in a local market, even a very large one, just is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As defined in the WP:N nutshell, Wikipedia's notable topics are, "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". This is a career newscaster who moved from being TV anchor to anchor for a successful regional 60 Minutes knockoff. Local TV anchors in my experience are household names remembered for decades. In objective terms, TV stations have viewership. What this means in Wikipedia's notability is that TV anchors get a contribution to the overall measure of their notability by the direct attention to the topic by viewers. This is a topic that is a part of the history of Boston's TV viewers as a part of the history of WCVB-TV. The topic is covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia, which was not mentioned in the nomination although such analysis is directed in WP:BEFORE B5. Unscintillating (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment": You killed your own argument, Unscintillating, when you cited WP:N. Boston is not the world, and the world is not Boston. The rest of the world is not at Boston's beck and call, and this person's claim to fame only existed in Boston, and amongst a limited subset of Bostonians as well. It's quite a stretch to say he has gained significant attention by the world at large because of his work in Boston. He means absolutely nothing elsewhere. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable news anchor; no indications of notability or signifance. Sources are routine / in passing. Fails WP:SIGCOV / WP:ANYBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every local news anchor/TV presenter is notable, and the article shows no evidence that he is anything other than that. MelanieN (talk) 03:50, 14 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. MelanieN (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Mosley[edit]

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

PROD was removed under the assertion that Mosley meets WP:NARTIST; I disagree.

Although Mosley's work is apparently held in some German museums, NARTIST requires more than that. Specifically, NARTIST dictates that the museums themselves be "notable". I do not believe that the museums holding Mosley's art are notable enough to satisfy NARTIST.

Of the four museums noted in the article (Fritz-Winter-Haus, Forum Konkrete Kunst, Museum für Konkrete Kunst, and the Osten Museum of Drawing), only the Museum für Konkrete Kunst has an article - and only in the German Wikipedia (de:Museum für Konkrete Kunst). That museum has been closed since 2016, possibly to re-open in 2019. The rest merit little more than footnotes on de.wiki, and no mention on en.wiki, suggesting a lack of notability.

Per my PROD, I made extensive checks for any sources discussing Mosley: checks of Google, GBooks, GNews, JSTOR, Highbeam, and Newspapers.com found no reliable sources. I looked under "Tom Mosley", "Tom Mosley"+painter, "Tom Mosley"+artist, "Tom Mosley"+"Shadow Box" and came up empty. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find good refs to support the article. Does not meet GNG.104.163.153.162 (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete the artist notability criteria are very straightforward and this person does not meet any of them Burley22 (talk) 01:16, 14 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. MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo salazar[edit]

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

I can't find any third-party, reliable sources that significantly discuss this individual, per WP:GNG. ... discospinster _talk 18:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. This is a self promotional piece unsupported by references. Non-notable as a martial artist.PRehse (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of weasel words and unsupported claims. No significant independent coverage and no evidence of meeting any notability criteria. Being a friend of the Gracie family is not an indicator of notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:02, 9 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. MelanieN (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whale Song (novel)[edit]

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

This article makes no case for the notability of this book, I can't find any evidence it's been featured in the literary reviews or anything else. The article was created by the author. No consensus last time due to rumours of a movie deal. it does not appear to have happened. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only coverage I can find that's not from the author herself is a small review, which isn't enough to establish notability. Mortee (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of coverage to meet WP:NBOOK. Author Cheryl Kaye Tardif doesn't appear notable either, so merging there is inappropriate (especially in view of the lack of sources). Could redirect to Cheryl Kaye Tardif if enough sources are found to establish her notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:19, 8 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Save as Draft[edit]

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

Article fails WP:Notability (music)#Songs, which requires song articles to be covered in a fair amount of detail (not just a brief mention) in legitimate sources that aren't album reviews or based on artist/label/producer/songwriter commentary. Aside from one Idolator link already used, I can't find any good reference meeting all of the aforementioned criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know that as the writer, my comment is pretty unimportant, but I just wanted to give my opinion here as well. I think the page is notable, keeping in mind that it charted and was submitted to US radios on its own. Regarding sources, it also received modest coverage in other languages (e.g. German; do a little Google News search and you'll see it) and the reason I used so few sources reporting of "Save as Draft" specifically is because I wanted to use strong ones – like Idolator. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charts and radio release (or lack thereof) are irrelevant. If there are non-English sources outside of album reviews and comments from affiliated parties mentioned above that give more than a paragraph, then list them here for examination. Perhaps it's because I am a native English speaker who can't read much of other languages without a translator and have only been able to come up with English-language references, but the Idolator link was the only fitting source I could personally find. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While reviewing the resources, I found the following that appear to have some significant coverage/focus on the song aside from the Idolator source mentioned above: 1, 2, and 3. I am not sure if these sources are enough, but I just wanted to identify the sources that single out "Save As Draft" and are not album reviews. I would also suggest possibly looking through the album reviews to see how much space is devoted to this particular song as that could be helpful. I am not certain either way as I am pretty bad at figuring out notability (I always test notability by the amount of third party, independent coverage). Either way, hope you find these comments helpful, and I hope that both of you have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ET Canada and Huffington Post (first two links) are based on KP's commentary, so those on their own aren't enough. I'm not sure how credible Jezebel (third link) is, but that does offer the unaffiliated depth I was looking for. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean by the first two sources; they are helpful for expanding the article, but not as helpful when dealing with proving notability. I would say that Jezebel is credible as it has a page on its website (here) that shows it has editorial oversight over its content and I have seen the site cited (in both positive and negative ways) by other websites. Sorry for intruding on this discussion and I hope you find this helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS::

[6] Idolator
[7] Entertainment Tonight Canada
[8] Pure Charts (in French)
[9] Klatsch–Tratsch (in German)
[10] POPLine (in Portugese)
[11] POPLine (2) (in Portugese)
[12] Mix 104.1
[13] PopCrush Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Idolator and Entertainment Tonight Canada (ET Canada) were already analyzed above. Pure Charts also somewhat goes into other album tracks as well as album sales (though isn't an album review), so it's harder to really measure that for depth on this track. Klatsch–Tratsch is based on artist commentary too, so no good for establishing notability either. Both POPLine links only give it a sentence. Not sure what to say about Mix 104.1 (especially when it goes into speculation), but PopCrush is a dubious reference that shouldn't be used per WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to help with this discussion, here is another source about the song that are not present in the article: 1. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is informative and deleting it would be detrimental. I think, in aggregate, the following coverage is enough to establish notability: Idolator, Jezebel, ET Canada, ~~Bustle.com~~, MTV Australia. The chart performance is relevant too - not in itself enough, but WP:NSONGS does say that charting suggests a song may be notable. As an aside, I'm glad this has now come to AfD. Redirecting the page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 times first, after different editors created it, was, in my view, too many. Mortee (talk)

Bustle is an album review and MTV Australia is largely based on artist commentary (so those don't establish notability), see my previous comments for assessments of other links. If Jezebel is in fact a legitimate reference, then we'd have something to go with the Idolator link as a piece that goes beyond brief mentions and isn't just artist/label/producer/songwriter commentary (essentially self-promotion) or an album review. At this point, I guess it really comes down to how appropriate Wikipedians find that as a source to use in articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about Bustle; that was a brain fart. I'm over-tired and thought it was about quotes in the song, rather than quotes in the album. I agree that the other sources aren't without issues, but in aggregate I think they add up to enough attention for it to be worth having an article. Mortee (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per charting in multiple charts, and sources dedicated to the song from high level sources like MTV and Huffington Post. Some of the sources are a little on the short side, but it's an oversimplication to just brush them off as "first party accounts because there's a lot of Katy Perry quotes". They're still third party articles, written by a journalist from a third party publication, and its not just a direct quote interview situation. Sergecross73 msg me 18:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is well written, it would be foolish deleting it. — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 15:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this article is not that bad. 333 -blue 14:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The article appears to me to have enough coverage to support notability so I cast a keep vote for this as well. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 14 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) 16:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Champion Maker[edit]

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

Self-published book by a non-notable author. There should be a CSD category for this. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a non-notable book. OP's proposal has been discussed previously, FWIW. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tried doing this in 2016, but if you wanted to start up a new conversation that would be a good idea. Each time it's come up it seems to gain more traction. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced article about a self-published book. Nuke it. MelanieN (talk) 03:54, 14 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. MelanieN (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Umgeher[edit]

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

Non-notable skier. Does not meet notability standards. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though I myself created the article. I realized this is a case of WP:TOOSOON at best. The skieer intends to qualify for the 2018 Pyeongchang Olympics which would have granted him enough notability for an article though apparently he failed. He hasn't participated in the Alpine Ski World Cup yet too. I copied the contents to my sandbox just in case the subject gains sufficient notability.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:09, 8 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. MelanieN (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Family School (Phoenixville, Pennsylvania)[edit]

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

Non-notable elementary and middle school. No evidence of notability in secondary, reliable sources. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment- I went to research other schools around Wikipedia, and some did not seem to have that much significant coverage, similar to Holy Family's situation.

FighterMcKags 2.0 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind that I've cleared up your comment, FighterMcKags 2.0, but anyway, we like to say that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. When we do not work on precedent, how are those other articles relevant to the notability of this article? Dare I say, but it's whataboutery in this case. If those articles also do not meet WP:NSCHOOL, in your opinion, then you are welcome to nominate them for deletion. !dave 19:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Not notable. A Google search turns up half a page, which must be an AfD record. !dave 19:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing here to show notability. Tacyarg (talk) 18:29, 10 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. MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swapan Kumar Brahma[edit]

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

Sources are blogs, which are not reliable source and doesn't establish notability of subject. So fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. ─ 1997 kB 16:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here establishes notability. Hagennos (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability. -- BTW, I fear the author's contributions [14] merit going through with a fine notability comb (actually a rather coarse one would do). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:23, 11 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. Sandstein 21:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries and dependencies by domestic citizen population[edit]

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

Seems to consist of OR, assembling a mix of statistics to compile it. Unclear if the statistics used are comparable (national bodies might have different criteria for determining e.g. citizenship), woefully incomplete, data is variously out of date, even includes one non-country. There’s already a List of countries and dependencies by population – this has no hope of ever being a complete as that. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this does appear to be a case of WP:OR. Ajf773 (talk) 08:39, 10 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 Hot air ballooning in Luxor. MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Luxor hot air balloon crash[edit]

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

Tragic but this accident is no more notable than a bus accident. Not likely to have any lasting effect other than to those persons involved. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We don't know yet per WP:RAPID. Because tourists are involved so maybe? Störm (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My initial instinct would be to delete and redirect to List of ballooning accidents, if no grounds for further notability arise. Fatal balloon crashes are unusual, but not so unusual that such incidents are automatically notable. Robofish (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that 2013 Luxor hot air balloon crash exists. Also that 4 balloon operators and airport officials are being held in police custody pending an investigation. And this: [15] article in the Guardian says that "Luxor has a history of hot air balloon crashes." so we do need an article on Ballooning in Luxor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 1 person died in this incident; 19 died in the 2013 crash so why are noting the latters existence? Location? That is completely irrelevant. At this time, all we have is routine coverage and it was far too "rapid" (yes the second part of the policy) to create an article that falls under what Wikipedia is not. Create an article when notability isn't pending.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See 2013 Luxor hot air balloon crash#Background; there is material for a useful article on Hot air ballooning in Luxor. Inviting editors including User:Undescribed, who built out that section, would contribute to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now I'm not seeing evidence of lasting impact, and lasting coverage can't be established just days later. There's a possibility, as a fatal commercial air accident, it'll lead to regulatory changes or at least recommendations but until then, nah. 89.240.130.238 (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can be adequately covered in the Hot air ballooning in Luxor article. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hot air ballooning in Luxor, which includes a brief mention of this crash.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per E.M.Gregory. Lepricavark (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above.TheLongTone (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hot air ballooning in Luxor for potential expansion. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hot air ballooning in Luxor as per everyone above. –Davey2010^Talk 23:24, 13 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. MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arindaam Sarkar[edit]

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

Not notable public servant Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. FITINDIA 16:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN Hagennos (talk) 05:20, 9 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. MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Federation[edit]

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

A disambiguation that disambiguates no real articles. Better to delete and leave it up to the search function of Wikipedia then to let it become full of WP:OR fancruft. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term 'Galactic Federation' does appear in various well-known and significant sci-fi franchises and series, and therefore this page serves a purpose in directing readers to the appropriate page for their 'Galactic Federation' of interest. I don't see any substantial WP:OR concerns either at present, since this article operates as a pretty straightforward disambigution page; if any OR issues do appear, they can be removed where necessary. Eloquai (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Entries 1, 3 and 7 all meet MOS:DABMENTION, the rest should be removed. Boleyn (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 12 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. I will userfy the article if requested. MelanieN (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Gadjovich[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY, hasn't even played professionally. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - I suggest moving the article to a sub-page of Count3D so that he/she can work on it further and move it back to the main space when Gadjovich plays a professional game in the NHL or if he is selected for Canada's Olympic team. Toreightyone (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A signed draft pick who wins gold is not good enough for inclusion. Go ahead and make a sub-page. Deletion would be hilariously pointless. Count3D (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Any number of players are draft picks, sign contracts, or play on their world junior teams (the highest level at which the subject "won gold") who never make it to the professional ranks, let alone play in the NHL. This is why the bar at WP:NHOCKEY is set higher than "got drafted" or "signed a contract." Should Count3D or any other editor provide evidence that the subject can meet the GNG, beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from denoting notability, that would be another matter, but yes, under Wikipedia notability guidelines, the subject does not merit inclusion. Ravenswing 19:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear. The "bar" is that he needs to play one NHL game? Count3D (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - This not being your first hockey-related AfD discussion, or indeed the first hockey article you've created up at AfD, I presume your question's rhetorical. (Ironically enough, you were informed back then that playing in the WJC met no notability standard.) If you disagree with NHOCKEY or the GNG, you're free to seek to raise support to change them to your liking at the appropriate talk pages, but in the meantime, they are the guidelines governing notability for hockey players. If after all this time you haven't yet familiarized yourself with them, I strongly recommend you do so before creating any more hockey-related biographical articles. Ravenswing 05:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since you haven't denied it and are presumably more informed on this matter, I look forward to creating this page once he has played his first NHL game. Count3D (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes see WP:NHOCKEY for the requirements. -DJSasso (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable junior player who has as of yet failed to meet WP:NHOCKEY or otherwise meet WP:GNG. Can be recreated when/if he does or otherwise achieves notability. -DJSasso (talk) 15:42, 10 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 redirected by author to Evelyn Irons. ansh 666 02:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joy McSweeney[edit]

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

For the life of me, I can't figure out why this woman is notable, except for being the life companion of Evelyn Irons. Kleuske (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Evelyn_Irons#Personal_life. ~~As well as their relationship there's a Stanhope Gold Medal of the Royal Humane Society connection in a source, which I'll add there.~~ PamD 16:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, only one unreliable source identifies the woman Irons rescued as being McSweeney! PamD 16:08, 7 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. I will also salt the title. MelanieN (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Barrett[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that he has Not made an appearance in a Fully Professional League so does not pass WP:Footy nor does he meet WP:GNG. Article is also a close copy of [16] While the copyright concerns no longer apply, the notability concerns remain valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 16:54, 12 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 is clear consensus that the brief nom statement is incorrect. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Sadek[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOCCER Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks to me that he passes WP:NSOCCER because he plays in the Egyptian Premier League, which is on the list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football. Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 16:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL having played in a fully professional league. Kosack (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NFOOTBALL having played in a professional league. NZFC^(talk) 17:46, 7 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. MelanieN (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Brain (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Does not actually disambiguate between any articles. I am sure the search function can find any other mentioned "Mother Brains" on Wikipedia without the need of such a disambiguation page that links to nothing. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The entries look like they link to nothing, but that's not true, they link to something that is not easily seen. They are officially allowed by guideline WP:DABMENTION. All these listed articles have mention of character named "Mother Brain" that's why the DAB page is necessary, in case someone is looking for the "Mother Brain" which is mentioned in Phantasy Star II or in Chrono Trigger. If the DAB doesn't exist, every reader will be forced to visit Mother Brain article and it is not easy to direct someone who is looking for "Mother Brain" a character in I Wanna Be The Guy from there. So apart from being appropriate and within guideline, this DAB page is sort of necessity for reader-friendly navigation.–Ammarpad (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the whole point of a dab, to make it easy for readers when we have several different 'Mother Brains' in our encyclopaedia. All entries have articles or meet MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The character in I Wanna Be the Guy is really the same as the one in Metroid and therefore possibly doesn't belong on the DAB, but I guess the other 2 are separate characters, giving 3 in total which is enough for a DAB. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:27, 8 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. MelanieN (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hilda Clayton[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER. WP:BIO1E fail. Notable for taking a photograph of the mortar that killed her (which led to quite a bit of coverage, in May 2017, when this was released), but not for much else. Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She's just a non-notable soldier who died in a training accident; fails WP:SOLDIER.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My reading of WP:BIO1E is that it says we shouldn't normally have articles for both the person and the event if the person isn't independently notable. Something here pretty clearly passes the WP:GNG (I've added references from Time, The New York Times and the BBC for good measure) and we don't have an article for the event, which in any case would be difficult to give a title to. So, I think an article about the person makes perfect sense. Mortee (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph itself might be notable. It is a question whether there is WP:LASTING coverage of the photograph. The release of the photo definitely generate coverage (in a big spurt in May 2017 - some four years after her death) - however this is not WP:INHERITED by the bio.Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this passes WP:GNG, second the reasons User:Mortee stated (thanks for adding references). Shameran81 (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many RS picked up the story, and it received international attention. WP:SOLDIER is a red herring; nobody is saying she had high rank or significant command responsibility or won a medal for valor. That's the typical application of SOLDIER. However, even SOLDIER says, "If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article." Secondary sources tell us when and where she was born and her high school; other sources add that she majored in business studies and cosmetology at Augusta Technical College; she graduated from the Defense Information School and went to the 55th Signal Company. She may not be a scholar or an extraordinary tactian, but there details about her education and military career. We are told who she married; is that enough personal life? Mortee hits the problem with WP:BIO1E on the nose: if there is an article about the event, then BIO1E says there doesn't need to be an article about the person. The first paragraph of BIO1E suggests that in this (atypical) case, the article should be about the person rather than the event. The event is not the typical soldier was killed by an IED or a faulty mortar round. The event is not just about the photograph. We have a woman soldier who took a picture of the mortar accident that killed her. She is intertwined with the event. It's not often that a photograph captures the moment, and in this event the photographer captures her own death. It's also not clear that Clayton disappears from view after this one event. Army.mil states, "Combat Camera further honored Clayton by naming the award for the winner of its annual best combat camera competition after her." That means her name may be coming up every so often. On top of that, it is likely that books about the Afgan war and combat photography will include the photograph and its story. Glrx (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that "55th Signal Company named their annual competitive award for combat camera work "The Spc. Hilda I. Clayton Best Combat Camera (COMCAM) Competition" in her honor." (taken from the article) means that she is notable (though absolutely not vital at level 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), since it is unusual that a person's partial or full name is used in the name of a particular competition, and this fact can be verified using at least one reliable source.--RekishiEJ (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually quite ROUTINE for army units to name awards for fallen soldiers from the unit. A company level award being named for a person if far from notable, particularly a unit with few casulties such as the 55th signal company.Icewhiz (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SIGCOV is met. I agree with the rational of Mortee, Glrx, and RekishiEJ in regards to WP:BIO1E. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - This article does not violate WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. ROUTINE doesn't apply at all. I think BIO1E is fairly valid, but I think the event/image might be more notable and I don't know if there is a better title for an article with that subject. Further, does anyone know how many camera companies there are in the army? Looking online it seems that the "55th is the only active duty Combat Camera unit"[17], thus making a photography award named after her somewhat more significant. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smmurphy: Might make 55th Signal Company valid for an article - MILUNIT has exceptions, and army wide photography would be one of them. An article on the 55th would have more legs than a bio on a soldier killed while taking a photo and receiving coverage four years afterwards when the photo is released. No wiki article, but we do have a commons category.Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are about Clayton and the photo. They mostly don't mention the company, or do so only incidentally, so they don't help show notability for it. I've no objection to a new article about the company but it would be based on different sources so I don't think it helps us decide what to do with this AfD. Mortee (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The seeming-to-be-growing meme that "Fails WP:SOLDIER, everything else is irrelevant" needs to be nipped in the bud. WP:GNG is passed, and that answer is enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bushranger: That was not the deletion rationale - not passing SOLDIER was mentioned as she was primarily a soldier. The rationale itself was failing BIO1E (while noting that the single event itself (the release of the photograph 4 years after her death) received coverage). From experience, BIO1E is a hard argument to make, particularly when gender is involved and on recent events, but it is policy. In this case this is a relatively minor event (that was "interesting" and got wide coverage) in which Clayton played a posthumous major role (not a singular role - there are some attribution questions regarding which photos she took and which photos an afghan soldier took - as well as the mortar crew itself who were casualties). As an interesting aside, she was clearly not notable until 2017 - possible notability arising from coverage well after her death.Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was more addressed towards one of the !votes than the OP, basically as 'last straw'-ing after seeing this seeming misconception pop up increasingly (with various SNGs) at AfD lately. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article passes WP:SIGCOV, as well as WP:GNG. Lacypaperclip (talk) 03:15, 13 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. Nobody wants to keep this, and no consensus about whether and where to redirect. Editors can figure this out editorially. Sandstein 21:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kottinagar[edit]

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

There is no written source that says Kottinagar was the capital of Funan All the best Wikirictor 12:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Vietnamese wiki entry seems to be sourced and rather fleshed out.Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your help, the Cattigara story, now i remember. This was a western term for the supposed legendary capital of Serica, the easternmost land of Asia the Greeks and Romans had ever heard of. Marinus of Tyre mentions a sailor Alexander who, in the 1st cent. AD sailed to Cattigara... The central settlement of Funan was actually named Óc Eo (Khmer for Glass River). BTW Cattigara redirects to Óc Eo. All the best Wikirictor 14:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see little use of this variant spelling (around 100 google hits - mostly Wikipedia clones and uses based on Wikipedia - nothing "solid" or "heavy weight"). Cattigara is widely used. Seems this was created on the Vietnamese Wikipedia by one user (possibly copy&pasting from elsewhere?) and on the same day added as a stub here. If anyone is conversant in Vietnamese it would be worthwhile seeing if this is a POV fork worth deleting there.Icewhiz (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Óc_Eo#Kattigara_of_Ptolemy where the topic, including Sanskrit sources, is covered more fully. ("The name 'Kattigara' was probably derived from the Sanskrit Kirti-nagara कीर्ति- नगर 'Renowned City' or Kotti-nagara कोटि-नगर 'Strong City'." Reference at article.) 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect but Funan might be the target, as it expresses doubt as to where the capital was. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not see use of this English spelling variant - it all seems wiki driven and even that is very very sparse. If there is actual use that would be grounds for a redirect, but if it is all wiki spam...Icewhiz (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have a rough consensus to redirect here, but we need to come to a decision about where to redirect it to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 12:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if redirected it should be the same as Kattigara to Óc Eo - but I don't think it is necessary as Kottinagar seems to be used exclusively by Wikipedia and wiki-spam - seems to be a mistaken transliteration by a Wikipedia editor (maybe back from Vietnamese?) - prior to 2012, google hits - google search prior to 31.12.2012 - are limited to a few results in viwiki (4 total), and a contemporary search shows less than 100 hits - mostly wiki-spam/clones.Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 8 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. Sandstein 21:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olof Z. Cervin[edit]

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

Non notable architect Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the listed Notable Works are notable.--Rpclod (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This nomination seems pretty quick. This is about a turn-of-the-century (can we say that anymore?) architect that appears to have designed a variety of government buildings. Is there a chance that there is a lot of material about this person that isn't easily accessible on the Internet? --Closeapple (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notoriety is a matter of perspective. To the people of his small hometown he is notable. To his alma mater, Augustana College, he is notable and remembered. To the people of Nebraska he is notable. This article may give some perspective. https://www.augustana.edu/about-us/news/augustanas-olof-cervin-left-mark-architect

Delete no major achievements or significant influence on the field Cervin's practiced. Fails WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:20, 14 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. MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Solomon (Blake scholar)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not understand the reason for the deletion. Andrew Solomon is internationally recognized and notable author of at least of three excellent books on William Blake. --Dmitrismirnov (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmitrismirnov: Please offer independent reliable sources to support what you are saying. This would be things like independent reviews of this person's work in the field. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Andrew Solomon's biographical entry that supports my opinion on him in the Russian philological journal "Language. Philology. Culture" [18] . There are two very special articles of him published in the magazine in English as well as in Russian translation. They are also available online: [19] and [20] --Dmitrismirnov (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link is to Russian publishing house that prints books for profit, making authors to pay. It's hardly a reliable source. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to find an independent expert as well. --Dmitrismirnov (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Writing some books on Blake does not make a person notable.--Rpclod (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence is offered of the "international recognition" of this person's work. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete feel free to ping me to reconsider if I'm missing something. But, as far as I can see, Solomon is published several books about Blake with a small press Palamabron Press, but I can't find any mention of Solomon on JSTOR and, although he died in 2017, I can't find an obit. To be sure, there is a very notable Andrew Solomon who dominates searches, but searching with keyword: Blake failed to turn up sources. And even searches on his book To Build Jerusalem turned up only teh online journal of The Blake Society.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello to everybody. I am PhD in Philology, I'm from Russia and I'd like to tell that Andrew Solomon is worth the Wiki page as a Blake scholar. His book is interesting, and I discovered much new things translating his article to Russian, to publish it in our journal "Language. Literature. Culture" (Yazyk. Slovesnost'. Kui'tura). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rintra (talk • contribs) 16:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 14 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. Sandstein 21:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secret and special weapons in Shōwa Japan[edit]

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

Editorial article for an arbitrary time period, currently without any inline references. Any salvageable content could be moved to List of Japanese aircraft in use during the Second Sino-Japanese War, List of Japanese infantry weapons used in the Second-Sino Japanese War, List of Japanese military equipment of World War II, etc. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the time period chosen is far from arbitrary - many sources treat 1937-45 Japan - years in which Japan was in a state of warfare - as one period in terms of the Japanese military and weapons.Icewhiz (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be original research without authoritative references.--Rpclod (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well, vague terms like "editorial" don't indicate grounds for deletion: nor does having the references in a list of links at the end rather than inline, however weak and defective we may think that practice is. The topic of Secret Weapons in World War Two Japan has formed the subject of an "authoritative" book (Secret Weapons and World War II: Japan in the Shadow of Big Science. By Walter E. Grunden (Lawrence, University Press of Kansas, 2005) 335 pp.) (another review) so there is little question that the topic is notable. Other sources include Business Insider, Brian J. Ford Secret Weapons. The article is mainly lists, again not a matter for AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is whether "Secret and special weapons in Shōwa Japan" is a notable topic, not whether a book on a similar topic has been published. If you could show that multiple authoritative books have been written regarding "Secret and special weapons in Shōwa Japan", they should be referenced in the article and that would be a different story. Also some objective definitions of "secret" and "special" are needed so it is clear why items are included or not.--Rpclod (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why is the Zero listed as a secret weapon? This thing is a hodgepodge list of Japanese equipment with one reference that's gone dead.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it was used as a "Special Weapon", i.e. kamikaze. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't keep a wall of fame for "shining examples of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:NOT", and since that's what this is (substitute 'steaming pile' for 'shining example' to taste), there's no reason for this to be anything other than deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a collection of random stuff, based around the mistaken notion that because the development of military equipment during wartime isn't public it's somehow "secret". We have various articles on Japanese military equipment that cover the conventional weapons in a much more meaningful and comprehensive way, and the Japan and weapons of mass destruction covers the non-conventional weapons. From looking at the article's history, it's one of the last survivors from the mid-2000s when IP editors created a bunch of similar weird articles on the Japanese military during the World War II era (random lists of people, units, etc), so it's well past time for this one to also go. Nick-D (talk) 21:50, 12 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. MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Aldelfi[edit]

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

~~There's no reliable sources provided here. Fails WP:GNG , WP:BLP and WP:MUSICIAN also. Author provided here only songs sites links as references. -- HindWiki^Connect 10:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)~~ — HindWIKI (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Singer Jethu Sisodiya (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 15:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 10:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 10:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 10:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per nom.Winged Blades^Godric 10:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Winged Blades of Godric: I doubt nom speaks or reads a word of Arabic. Sam Sailor 16:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did my own search too but failed to get anything significant. Winged Blades^Godric 03:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails The GNG. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 17:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search terms:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see this Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mahdi_Al_Aboudi and then voted on this article.@Arthistorian1977:,@RingtailedFox:,@Abishe:,@Anarchyte:,@Narutolovehinata5:, @Operator873:, @Hebrides:, @Joe Roe:, @Onel5969:, @Derek R Bullamore:, @GrahamHardy:, @Rich Farmbrough: & @Cmr08: what is your comment? — IamIRAQI You didn't sign your above comment, so the pings didn't go through. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article makes no assertion of notability. Just being a singer does not make one notable, so as long as the article does not explain beyond the basic assertion there is no assertion of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 13 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. Passes WP:NFOOTY has played in a senior international match. Fenix down (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Antonio[edit]

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

Someone removed PROD without any reason. The previous PROD was Player fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Discussion here failed to achieve consensus that the league was fully professional. With only a small handful of games played and no indication of international appearances at any level, it is doubtful that the player could satisfy GNG. The PROD was nominated by Fenix down. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She passes WP:FOOTBALL as she has played in a senior international match. Joeykai (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has now been updated to say that she made a very brief appearance at the pan American games. Can anyone confirm if this was a Fifa or concacaf sanctioned match for NFOOTY purposes? Fenix down (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of that, she also played for Mexico in a friendly against Sweden. [21] Joeykai (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She passes NFOOTY as she has played for the Mexico national team. Joeykai (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC) I added some sources to the article. Joeykai (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Joeykai: Per Fenix down, are those friendly match approved by FIFA? Can you give me a source about those? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're FIFA approved, [22] Here's Mexico's results on FIFA.com Joeykai (talk) 22:53, 7 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. No consensus as concerns redirect, so one can be created and then contested. Sandstein 21:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luis F. Castro[edit]

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

This is a test case. One Distinguished Service Cross doesn't satisfy WP:SOLDIER, but he (and others like him) are already in the list of Puerto Rican recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross, so a redirect seems to be in order. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep. You seem to be advocating for a redirect and not outright deletion. You are able to make the page a redirect yourself if you wish. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (OK with redirect as well, do not think it is needed). Doesn't pass SOLDIER. My BEFORE doesn't show anything approaching SIGCOV. Article itself is sourced to his DSC citation.Icewhiz (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect. There's nothing except the DSC. I don't doubt the man was brave but this makes me think WP:MEMORIAL. Remove from the DSC page as well.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I often !vote on similar articles, I wanted to note that I do not find anything in newspapers.com or newspaperarchives.com about Castro. I do not know if being awarded the DSC should give one the presumption of notability. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think DSC does not meet SOLDEIR(1), but it does not really matter as SOLDIER judt creates a presumption that the subject is notable (as in sources should be out there...). Subject still has to meet GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that a subject has to "meet GNG", my interpretation of suitability for the encyclopedia is that there may be many reasons we presume an article is suitable without WP:GNG/WP:42 and the subject specific guides are a formalization of a number of these. Even now that things like newspapers.com are more widely available (check out WP:TWL if you are interested in free access, by the way), online newspaper archives have enormous gaps in their coverage; more articles are not indexed than are and the gaps are not random across time or space so not finding a result is not terribly informative unless you know that the likely newspapers are indexed and the subject is not covered there. Rather than throw out babys and bathwater, consensus developed in the past that we can in some cases presume an article is suitable and keep it on the encyclopedia, so long as it doesn't violate the core content policies. I respect that this argument is not likely new to you, but I felt it was appropriate to make a reply. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is in fact the entire point of SNGs, although reminding people of that seems to be like spitting in the wind, these days. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Private with a single second-level decoration. NN, I'm afraid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 10 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 soft delete. This is a soft delete. Article may be restored by any administrator upon request. MelanieN (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jinkela[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. fails significant coverage in WP:RSs. Adverts going viral (for a time) do not convey notability. None of the sources cited check out (404) Kleuske (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 8 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. (non-admin closure) Ajf773 (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of cinemas in Singapore[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and nothing special about any of the list entries to make this list pass WP:LISTN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajf773 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the user, Razerby96, looks after the articles (and trimmed down to necessary and sourced content), for major lifestyle areas in Singapore since 13 September 2014 (Shopping malls need to have "Anchor tenants" as general norms). The previous editor, Timothyhouse1 (now banned since November 2016) was well known to be adding unsourced content. Timothy H2 (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as standard navigational list of articles in standard grouping by country per WP:LISTPURP, complementary to Category:Cinemas in Singapore per WP:CLN. LISTN therefore has no contribution to the analysis here. postdlf (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So which entries on the list are in the category? And vice versa? Ajf773 (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of the category entries should be on the list. Any notable entries on the list should also be in the category. But whether the list currently achieves that is not relevant to AFD, as I'm sure you'll explain below. postdlf (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTDIRECTORY deals with non encyclopedic and simple listing without context or notability on their own, like all redlinks but not standard index like "List of something in a country" provided the list is not filled with unsourced or irrelevant items. This list is allowed and complements categories as already shown above per WP:CLN guideline –Ammarpad (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is basically what the list is now. Ajf773 (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is AFD. Please explain the significance of "now", in the context of WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, and WP:PRESERVE. postdlf (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to having a list but not like this one. In my opinion this is a WP:TNT job. Ajf773 (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question. And we've now accumulated more edits in this discussion than it would have taken to clear the list and replace it with just the bare entries in the category, if that's the appropriate outcome, which is part of why those policies exist. Don't bring nominations again that violate them. postdlf (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it myself then. Ajf773 (talk) 17:47, 7 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) samee ^talk 10:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnatus Fabian D'Abreo[edit]

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

Started by creator and obviously nothing to establish why he is notable. Nothing in Google Books. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are sufficient sources for a biography on a clearly notable figure. Wikipedia's well-known WP:BIAS against non-Anglophonic people should be understood. Deleting this article would be another example.--TM 13:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has a settlement named after him, was named one of the twelve leading figures in Sindh, two clear claims to notability. Warofdreams talk 16:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sources to pass the basic inclusion criteria, barely. There are most likely other non-English sources that could be used here as well. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still can't see why he is notable. Not a single reliable source discusses him. Notability is not inherited, if you have a locality by your name that does't makes you automatically notable. WP:BIAS is we have different standards for Catholics. Störm (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not Inherited is Not Policy. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 17:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - another source -- de Souza, C. Hubert (1973). "Cincinatus Fabian D'Abreu (An Administrator of Outstanding Ability of Sind)". Profiles of Eminent People of Saligao. Printwell Press. -- is mentioned here. Υπογράφω (talk) 18:32, 7 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. MelanieN (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BizHawk[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V. BizHawk does get passing mentions in some reliable sources, but there's no significant coverage of the emulator itself. Woodroar (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing similar on the notability front. Delete. --Izno (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This emulator is so huge (from my perspective as a gamer and fan of speedruns, TAS and corruptions) that I can't fathom it being non-notable, but.... I can't come up with any sources. :( Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Something might be the world's best Foo farming tool, but if no one besides Foo farmers know about it, then it's still not notable. It appears only relevant in a tiny niche._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:38, 8 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. One "keep" was struck and the other is very weakly argued. Sandstein 21:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PEARL Institute of Management and Information Technology[edit]

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

Does not meet any of the criteria set forth in WP:GNG, has been created by an account with WP:COI and should therefore be removed from wikipedia. Elektricity (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [was "Keep", explain below]. It is a secondary school or college/university. By longstanding practice, we keep such as long as their existence is not disputed, which it is not. --Doncram (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really the case any more, Doncram. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sheffield Private School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quaid School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace School System (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Shaheen School System (2nd nomination), which are all exceptions to "longstanding practice". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are many counter-counter-examples of recent AFDs where the longstanding practice is upheld. There was an RFC which was all messed up. --Doncram (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That precedent is no more valid. Every private institute at least has to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP because they are for-profit. No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This college/university is imparting educational services since 1999 for the masses of Balochistan in the region .... the page provides basic and general information. --Beds16 (talk) 19:30, 1 january 2018 (UTC) — Beds16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
According to this source, the subject is a "private virtual campus", which acts as a resource centre, rather than a university. Hmm. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry:They are affiliate of virtual university in Pakistan named Virtual University of Pakistan. You can check their website. Störm (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG, which is perhaps not surprising given that the subject is not a university but a private resource centre. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The institution is indeed an higher education school/college and an affiliated study center of University of Balochistan, Virtual University of Pakistan and Institute of Cost and Management Accountants of Pakistan. -- for-example see the website link ^[1] — UWL2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:21, 3 January 2018‎ (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

References

^ "ICMAP". Retrieved 3 January 2018.

Comment above struck - UWL2013 is a confirmed sock of Beds16. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I struck my "Keep" vote above on basis that indeed it is identified as a "resource center" rather than a secondary school offering secondary degrees. Also the sockpuppeting is annoying, making the article's creation and defense seem likely to be a case of paid commercial promotional editing. --Doncram (talk) 20:45, 14 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. Kept per improvements to the article. MelanieN (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Sokoloski[edit]

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

Nothing is really notable about him. There are very few news articles/possible references about him. I don't see how the article could improve to the Wikipedia article standards. TallGuysFree (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree he's not notable except for being huge, but if he's not notable why do you have a page and a huge stack of photos of him on your site?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass our notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Blofeld, This page is not a general chat page or forum. It's only for discussing deletion of specific pages. To answer your question, my site is not an encyclopedia (but is in the reference category), and has different notability guidelines than Wikipedia. Any guy Jerry's height can be added to my site. Someone's height alone does not make them notable to Wikipedia. Being an actor does not make them notable, either. Does that answer your question? TallGuysFree (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article passes our subject-specific inclusion criteria for either sportspeople or actors, and the sourcing is nowhere near solid enough to get him over WP:GNG — between the two footnotes and the two external links, one is an entirely unreliable and non-notability assisting source and the other three are all glancing namechecks of his existence in news articles that aren't about him. Nominator is entirely correct that there's a big difference between inclusion in a database of unusually tall guys because he's verifiably unusually tall, and inclusion in an encyclopedia because he's verifiably notable for something — but neither the substance nor the sourcing here suggest that he's earned the latter. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search did turn up these lengthy articles about him in the Chicago Tribune, the Tulsa World, the Toronto Sun and The London Free Press. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with thanks to Dammit steve for finding those sources and incorporating them in the article. Mortee (talk) 07:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough sources to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 15:52, 12 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. This is a soft delete. Article may be restored by any administrator upon request. MelanieN (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masharab-e-Naab[edit]

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

Article about non notable magazine which is unreferenced among series of non notable articles created by problematic editor who has since ceased editing. No independent sources coverage to pass WP:GNG, nothing in searching and no any claim of importance to meet any point of WP:NMEDIA –Ammarpad (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited an academic source in the article for a snippet of information. That source uses the Roman alphabet spelling "Mashrabe Naab", which is also used in English by this magazine's web site. That one source is clearly not enough on its own to show notability, but to perform a proper search for sources we would need to know the Urdu and/or Persian spelling of the title. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:47, 7 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. Killiondude (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Smajlagic[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, and doesn't appear to meet WP:NBASKETBALL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NBasketball. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the amazingly low hurdles of notability for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the hurdles are "amazingly low" I do believe he meets them. Rlendog (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the "amazingly low hurdles of notability for basketball players", per WP:NBASKETBALL, as he played in the EuroLeague in 2010-2011 as a member of KK Cibona, see here. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NBASKETBALL (which doesn't have amazingly-low hurdles relative to other sports). I'd also ask any closing admin to disregard the two !votes made under the mistaken idea that the subject doesn't meet NBASKETBALL. Rikster2 (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I agree that WP:NBASKETBALL doesn't have amazingly-low hurdles relative to other sports, they are still amazingly low hurdles. While he may technically meet NP:BASKET, because he played a whopping 2.5 minutes over the course of an entire season, missing his only attempt, while on a team that went winless that year, still doesn't pass WP:GNG, which is the over-riding guideline. The sport specific criteria are there as an indicator that a player is likely to pass GNG, but in this case, his meager playing time does not warrant the sport specific criteria to trump GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No, they actually aren’t amazingly-low. Players who have competed in a top league (and the EuroLeague consists of champions of domestic leagues and has a world following) usually have long careers with the news coverage to match. He’s had a Ten-year career and you have to achieve success in domestic leagues (getting notoriety all the way) to be offered a spot on a EuroLeague team. One of the benefits of the SSG is that for players like Smajlagac is that the majority of sources won’t be in English. The SSG helps editors undrestand that the sources probably exist. There is one already on the article that qualifies, I will look for some others but it’s slower going searching in Croatian. At any rate, it is lazy for editors to give a reason “doesn’t meet wp:NBASKETBALL” when that isn’t true. There is also no need for pot-shots at the editors who contribute to creating these standards in good faith (“amazingly-low”) in what is supposed to be a rational discussion. Rikster2 (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NBasketball since he played in the Euroleague. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NBASKETBALL. I have no problem with the SSG presumption that sources exist, especially when one is already in the article and most sources dealing with him are likely in a language that most English Wikipedia editors are unfamiliar with and would have difficulty searching effectively. Rlendog (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played in the 2010-11 Euroleague for KK Cibona,[23] i.e. meets WP:NBASKETBALL. GregorB (talk) 12:13, 14 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. MelanieN (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Jon Luke Dowgin[edit]

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

Remarkably like a BLP, at first glance, looking closer it is the ramblings of somebody who is differently sane. No notability - needs removing from the project. Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 05:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To closing Admin Perhaps look at this related discussion on my talk page. Thx. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Article has very little to due with the subject anyways. - Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article written by an SPA editor (possibly a vanity piece?) who seemingly doesn’t understand how wikipedia works. The cited references are not about this subject. This is entirely original research. If this subject is notable this article needs to be re-started from scratch using third party sources. Regarding that, the only coverage I can find are trivial, promotional, or self-generated. The subject is apparently a “colorful” local familiar, and writes/creates art about and conducts tours of Salem, Mass. Anything approaching third party is local tourism-type coverage. The works themselves likewise have only gotten promotional type attention, if any. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been trying to imagine what this article would look like if the 90-95% of it that is pure fluff would be removed, but even then I don't see an article that would sustain a claim of notability, nor do I see the sources in the article or available online being useful to support a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody did take a hatchet to it earlier today to produce this but it has been reverted. I would have chopped much more, but it isn't cricket during a deletion discussion I believe? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 22:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy the dog, the article trimmed down to the material about the subject looks even more tenuous than I had imagined. Edited down to the essentials, there's still no claim of notability and no sources to back it up. Alansohn (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete A very large piece of garbage. The sources are as weak as could be, and the only decent ones (NYT, WaPo) seem to refer to something only peripheral to the subject. Delete with prejudice, hast, abandon.104.163.153.162 (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even referring to these sources as being "peripheral" to the subject seems too generous. "Nothing" might be the better word! ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the fucking page already. After all the paring down that I did, it's clear that he posted this to impress his parents. They probably still have his grade school art on the refrigerator.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dating Hamlet[edit]

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

Non-notable novel, by author that also fails to meet general notability guidelines. A quick search netted just two references worth mentioning; and given the amount of coverage even the most obscure detail gets in Shakespeare studies, that's a pretty poor showing. Xover (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ as nominator. But I picked AfD instead of PROD for this because I'm somewhat on the fence and open to being persuaded otherwise. --Xover (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aside from the Kirkus review cited in the article, this was also reviewed in Publisher's Weekly and School Library Journal. There are also quite a few Google Scholar hits showing nontrivial discussion in substantive sources. Standard Google searches just aren't reliably reliable for assessing notability of relatively contemporary books. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, could you add the sources you found to the article's talk page, or in Further reading, to make it easier for future editors to expand the article if it is kept? --Xover (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a merge to Lisa Fiedler might be plausible if that page existed (or is created). This is a young adult fiction novel; Shakespeare isn't really relevant here. I have no idea how to assess notability here, I think something beyond "has a Kirkus review" is necessary but am not sure what. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article seems fine to me. A quick search revealed 3,810 relevant articles, many of them with glowing reviews. I feel that the genre that this author publishes in may be what is causing some people to balk, however juvenile fiction is an important genre as well. Jefstevens (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether the reviews were glowing or not isn't really relevant, and the number of hits on Google by itself tells us nothing. If you found substantial coverage anywhere then please note the specific sources so that they can be used to improve the article. --Xover (talk) 07:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well as a few journal reviews[24], there's coverage in various scholarly books and articles e.g.[25][26][27] plus other paywalled texts. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:37, 8 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 merge to William Easterly. czar 14:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Productivity world[edit]

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

Longstanding unsourced stub. I think WP:DICT WP:NEO applies here. Mattg82 (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - merge to William Easterly. The stub does nothing to indicate the term's notability wider than a concept proposed by Easterly. I've already merge the information to the Easterly article. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - merge to William Easterly. citations needed, and it seems that it could better fit on the Easterly page. Jefstevens (talk) 05:53, 7 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. MelanieN (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invest Next Door[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. Article cited passing mentions, blogs, WP:SPIP and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article supported by typical start-up coverage describing its proposition. My searches are finding nothing to indicate attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as per nom. --Rusf10 (talk) 03:29, 14 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 speedily deleted by Ad Orientem per CSD G11 and CSD A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uzair Farooq[edit]

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

clearly fails WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Head/founder of a non-notable company is not considered notable, unless the subject other significance. Searches show up nothing reliable to establish the notability, fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some lines copied liberally from the earlier existing page of Sandeep Maheshwari, this is a puff piece made by a same named author. Subject has no significant coverage in reliable sources that I could find to meet the minimum GNG/BIO threshold. Lourdes 04:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it per A7. Störm (talk) 06:40, 7 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 No consensus. This is fundamentally a judgement call: do we cover this person in a standalone article, or as part of the article on the entity he's closely associated with? This discussion doesn't show clear support for either option. Whether to redirect/merge articles like this one can also be discussed on article talk pages in addition to AfD. Hut 8.5 22:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Michael of Sealand[edit]

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

Seven years ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Bates (Sealand) closed as redirect to Principality of Sealand. The article has been recreated under a new name, but the same concerns still apply. The subject is still only notable for his connection with the micronation, and sources do not treat the subject independently of the micronation. Per WP:BLP1E, this redirect should be restored and any new content added to Principality of Sealand. Brad v 21:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject has received much more press since the 2010 AFD. Michael is the subject of individual press in the BBC, V3, The Independent, and others. He is also mentioned many times on WP, because articles surrounding Sealand and its associated articles are incomplete without him (HavenCo, Sealand national football team, etc.). --Kbabej (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seven years ago he wasn't then the ruler and thus he did not have the BBC coverage etc, thing do change in seven years and he passes the GNG now. GuzzyG (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No independent notability. Notability is derived solely from the Sealand claims. DrKay (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying Ray Kroc only has notability derived from him running McDonalds, or any other similar businessperson. Or the fact that any one is only notable because they had one career. GuzzyG (talk) 09:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Principality. The pirncipality is marginally notable, Bates is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but he's more notable than Travis McHenry in basically every way. Possibly rename back to Michael Bates, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets the GNG in my opinion as demonstrated by the sources given above by Kbabej. More importantly, I don't think the nomination's use of WP:BLP1E as a reason for deletion is in the spirit of the policy. The coverage of Mr Bates is in reference to his leadership of the purported nation of Sealand—this is not an "event" as required by the BLP1E policy, but a continuing activity. An event is inherently time-limited (the canonical examples we usually refer to in the context of this policy are crime victims or perpetrators)—Mr Bates's claim to notability is for a rather open-ended reason: he will presumably continue to claim to be leader—or indeed Prince—of Sealand until his death (or abdication/succession?). Notable or not, BLP1E is quite clearly inapplicable in this case. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep eccentricity does not ovrecome GNG Chetsford (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per JPL and DrKay. Not notable and doesn't merit a standalone article. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per reasons stated by DrKay. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For reasons mentioned by GuzzyG, only being notable for one achievement does not make somebody not noteworthy. It is more what that achievement is rather than how many. The King of Spain is only notable for being the King as is the Queen of England.. yet a child can win 10 medals in their sports day at school... which is more noteworthy? SamanthaFinmore (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The school sports day is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument.
Spanish/English monarchs are quite different to a guy who inherited a micro-nation that is not recognised by other countries.
I find the history of Sealand very interesting, but what we've seen of Michael's - and Joan's - involvement in it does not make them independently notable. 1292simon (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 03:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the arguments made by Tom Morris and Kbabej above. The subject has received independent coverage from reputable sources. Eloquai (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's debatable whether separate articles on him and Sealand are necessary, but I hope most people would agree that if found notable it should be moved back to the old title Michael Bates (Sealand) rather than this joke title. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Principality of Sealand. Take out the quotes and the history of Sealand and there's not much of encyclopedic value left - it can be covered adequately in the article on the micronation. --Michig (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge as above. Everything relates to the silly micronation, not the person outside this pursuit. Sandstein 21:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of the silliness of Sealand, Michael Bates has received enough coverage to pass GNG. The page should be renamed though. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:03, 15 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. WP:G11 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudberry (company)[edit]

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

no evidence for notability -- very small company with trivial funding; the references are entirely PR or notices. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11; promo 'cruft on a nn startup with miniscule funding. I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:01, 7 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 no consensus. Slightly leaning towards keep, but in any case it means there is not consensus to delete the article. Killiondude (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Thea Cenarosa[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP:Why does WP:NBASKETBALL apply? She doesn't play Basketball, she plays Netball, so none of the Notability criteria in NBASKETBALL apply. You might as well be applying WP:NBASKETBALL to a skier.Naraht (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Disqualified for Basketball notability guidelines.Safe My Edit (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As mentioned, netball and basketball are different, and just because the person once played basketball does not mean they must be judged under NBASKETBALL. Does she meet WP:SPORTBASIC?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this athlete captains the Philippines national netball team and competed at the SEA Games per WP:ATH: "An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." ref 1 | ref 2 | ref 3. Article could use expansion and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. National team sport captain. The arguments for deletion here are garbage. --Michig (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And where is that in policy? I have gone ahead and listed a WP that the bio has failed, so in reality your argument is garbage. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She's a netball player and her claim to notability comes from that sport. Both arguments referring to NBASKETBALL are irrelevant and completely missing the point. We don't have policies for everything, sometimes a little common sense is required. --Michig (talk) 16:59, 14 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 speedily deleted by Ben MacDui per CSD G5 (creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

H'Hen Nie[edit]

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

Non-notable model who fails WP:NMODEL. The article subject has yet to make the unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment required by NMODEL. SamHolt6 (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Her claim of notability isn't modeling, it's pageantry. She's a national titleholder who won Miss Universe Vietnam and will compete in Miss Universe 2018. That is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjj1238 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline, also called WP:ENTERTAINER, applies to entertainers of all types, and pageantry is a specialized form of modelling. That said, the guideline can also be met with significant roles in multiple notable shows/productions/films/etc. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This person is noteworthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefstevens (talk • contribs) 05:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Based on machine translations of the references provided, the article does not show significant coverage needed for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. However, a Google News search shows several Vietnamese-language hits that I haven't evaluated yet. I will check them out later. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She won Miss Vietnam and will participate in the biggest and most prestigeous pageant Miss Universe 2018. National ≤titleholder. References seems ok as well.BabbaQ (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is current Miss Vietnam. Alphama (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Similar articles are often creations by beauty pageant-related sock farms. I suspect this may be the case here; I opened an SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dyhp612. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPI results -- the creator of the article has been confirmed to the socks listed in the SPI investigation: link. The other socks created very similar articles most of which has been deleted. This page should be deleted as well, per WP:DENY. No value in this under-sourced BLP, so better of deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can the article be deleted without the AfD being completed or closed. BabbaQ (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was speedied as the creation of a blocked sockpuppet. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 13 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. MelanieN (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Transit bus fleet[edit]

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

WP:FANCRUFT, unencyclopedic and poorly sourced list

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - BUSCRUFT and fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources do not establish this as being an encyclopedic subject. Also, who cares?104.163.153.162 (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE--Rusf10 (talk) 03:18, 14 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 no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate election in New Mexico, 2020[edit]

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

TOOSOON. This will undoubtedly be notable later, but not now. We still have to deal with the 2018 elections, and nobody's even running against the current incumbent. Delete. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see above, I created this as a redirect to the general article on United States Senate elections, 2020, so the redirect could be recreated (it is one of 33 articles on 2020 Senate elections by state, and could have potential candidates added). PS. I have notified the creator of the article! Hugo999 (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect per WP:CRYSTAL -- if I understood correctly, these are not the earliest future elections. BTW the author of this expansion, Westroopnerd has recently similarly expanded a number of these redirects, he/she might want to chime in. Daß Wölf 01:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, ALL of these elections are the earliest elections of their type to take place. New Mexico (or at least this particular class of Senators) isn't seeing another election until 2020, as are the rest of these elections, so "dealing with the 2018 elections" is simply not a valid thing to say. Some of these elections indeed do have challengers to these incumbents. Some of these pages had already been created with listings for these challengers. The fact is, from everything that I understand, it is considered perfectly reasonable to create a page for an election two years out, when the events have notability and speculation surrounding them (which they do, I can provide testimony to that if needed) and there had already been articles created. Other than the fact that I put effort into expanding these redirects, I have no personal problem with restoring the redirect. The fact is, though, considering these election pages would absolutely and inevitably need to be created within a few months at most (as has been the case in the past) is restoring the redirect really a pressing issue in the slightest? Just my two cents, feel free to revert back to my already created template when y'all inevitably need to recreate these articles in barely any time at all. Westroopnerd (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't generally have next-but-one election articles. Can be easily restored after the 2018 elections. Number 5 7 11:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was under the belief that this is the next election for this class of senators- but if I've missed a discussion let me know. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Too soon for this, it can be recreated once someone officially announces their candidacy. A list of people who might run for office is not encyclopedic.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:17, 14 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 List of MBTA bus routes. Any merger can happen from history. Sandstein 21:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of MBTA bus routes in South Boston[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. No indication of notability of any of the routes, sources mostly appear to be just primary sources of the routes themselves

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similar in content and style:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sheer number of lines declared "defunct" suggests that these pages would really only be suitable as a travel guide if the reader possessed a TARDIS, at which point, why would you be taking the bus anyway? Be that as it may, it looks like most of the historical information in these articles is based on a single source. Perhaps a viable option would be to redirect all three pages to MBTA Bus, merging and summarizing as appropriate (e.g., "Several bus routes originated as Boston Elevated Railway lines"). I'm not entirely clear why these regions were split into different articles in the first place — maybe it was a page-size issue ten years ago, or it's a Boston thing that a non-resident like me wouldn't get. XOR'easter (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To make my !vote official: selectively merge and redirect all to MBTA Bus. XOR'easter (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of MBTA bus routes on the off chance that there's anything useful here. In general, Wikipedia is not a travel guide and information on the bus routes is best located on the org's web site, where it can be most up to date. Straight "Delete" would be okay with me. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per NOTTRAVELGUIDE - We're an encyclopedia but that doesn't mean we need articles on absolutely everything (I'm sure there's a policy on this somewhere!), Anyway this info belongs on the operators website where it's more up to date. –Davey2010^Talk 23:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as per NOTTRAVEL & WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There's really nothing here that belongs in an encyclopedia.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:13, 14 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sundae Club[edit]

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

Longstanding unsourced article about an amateur band. Points for the humorous write-up but they don't pass the requirements for WP. Mattg82 (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing notable about this entry other than one quote. No references to recordings or performances. Jefstevens (talk) 05:56, 7 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. MelanieN (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Azusa Itagaki[edit]

(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, the subject's blog, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:NACTOR. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per reasoning given Qaei ☎ 01:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Self published sources lack the required independence and fail verification that the subject is worthy of note per WP:NRV, WP:N, and ANYBIO. Trivial coverage in directory listings is insufficient for qualifying as notable. Fails BLP. Not a platform for promotion per WP:PROMO ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:PORNBIO or WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 18:15, 12 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. MelanieN (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St Mary's College, Negombo[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable educational institution or redirect to Maris Stella College. Quis separabit? 00:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Qaei ☎ 01:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 12:29, 8 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.

[1] "ICMAP". Retrieved 3 January 2018.

[1]