Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 March	19 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Reed[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable artist, I can only find the one mention, in Newsarama. The characters he alleges to have worked on were created by someone else. Seems to be more of a CV than anything else, Wikipedia isn't a directory of comic book artists. Sionk (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable author. It would also free up the namespace to be redirected to S-Town, which was created by another man named Brian Reed (or indeed his own article if he ever qualifies for notability for multiple pieces of media). Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have found a number of interviews of him with a number of comic news and video game websites. I have added these references to the page. A search on Comicbase finds that he is given credit for writing over 300 comic issues.tomburbine (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Those articles seem to be discussing things he's written, not the man himself. They would be useful sources on any notable specific comics or games he wrote for, but don't feel like significant, in depth coverage of himself as a person. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found some interviews with him from notable sources (Comic Book Resources, Newsarama), but they're about his comic work instead of him. Most of his work has been second tier at best in terms of prestige, reception, and sales. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reed was the lead writer for the Halo 5: Guardians video game, which sold approximately 4 million copies.^[1]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources on page, all within comic book world but none bluelinked, do include some interviews with Reed. What I am not seeing is any notice being taken in bluelinked or general audience publications. A gNews search on "Brian Reed" + Marvel turned up nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anjunabeats Worldwide 07[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NALBUM; only reviews available are crowdsourced (Amazon). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article counts as a album stub with "Start-class", as it was released quite recently and can be further edited and added on to. Websites commenting on its release can be written in the near future, which will provide a suitable benchmark for album reviews. aNode (discuss) 11:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's strange to know that this was the only article for deletion which was brought up. When I wrote this article, I formulated it to be exactly the same to previous album pages for the Anjunabeats Worldwide series, which are as seen here: Anjunabeats Worldwide 03 and Anjunabeats Worldwide 04. (The one I wrote might have even more information than these two pages, as I mentioned about the tour which came with the album's release!) Yet mine was the only one AFDed and these articles still stand. Thus if this article was to be deleted, the other ones mentioned too should be AFDed. I don't believe for album music stubs to be deleted, as its format was mentioned here on the Wikiproject Album page and there are methods stated to help expand the article in the table. (Editors should place a stub template at the bottom of the article, just above the categories. Focus should be on expanding the lead section, adding an infobox, and fleshing out the basic details of the album.) aNode (discuss) 11:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; following policy, I would suggest that the above articles should go to AfD as well, and based on the outcome of this discussion, I may nominate them.

b) None of the above absolves the article subject from the requirement of demonstrating notability in the form of charting or reviews; that holds for stubs as much as for more developed articles. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I guess your point makes sense for (a). But my main point still stands for (b), where notability may not be demonstrated right now, but in the future there may be significant coverage for the topic subject. aNode (discuss) 13:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't really pitch on that count - for the reason that it would more or less obviate any notability criteria if you could say "but this might become notable in the future". We decide on current notability, and current notability only. There's nothing stopping you from keeping this article (or those articles) in draft space, pending future sufficient coverage, but until that is shown, it should not be in article space. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails N - at first glance the article looks like an directory listing - no encyclopedic content, more like an ad for the album. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Schools Debate Championship[edit]

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

I'm not sure there's much notability in this specific tournament (minuscule number of hits based on a cursory search, and very brief mentions at that) - the article as it stands now is largely rubbish anyway, with nary a citation save links to websites of schools that serve no real function. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By that I mean the citations serve no real function - the schools are great, I'd bet. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The debate does have an extensive article on it in the Toronto Star (which is a major newspaper) as can be seen by this article Speaking Their Way To Victory. And it is reasonable to guess that it has coverage of non-english press newspapers is there too given that is bound to happen when a country wins the debate. In addition, the East is getting more Westernized given the internet and other global communication so the popularity of debates will probably increase (and the West is bound to get more Easternized due to globalization too).Knox490 (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Busker, you mean the debate competition, not the debate. Also, the so-called 'extensive' news link you cited is firstly NOT from Toronto Star, but The Star (Malaysia). Anyway it's far from extensive, more of a 'by the way' thing while trumpeting the success of so-and-so MY team. Even if it were extensive, one source simply does not suffice. The rest of your argument can be discredited for being hinged on conjecture - pray dig up some of these "non-english" coverage? A poor defence of a poorly-written article. Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's no significant coverage of the event. Non-notable. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--No evidence of passage of GNG.~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McKenna (Entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are quotes or examples of articles written by subject. reddogsix (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support came from citing Inc Magazine which called his company the 17th fastest growing company in United States. Seems notable to me, though the page needs more in depth coverage I think I did a decent start. Also left comments on talk page and the edit history - just trying to add relevant pages but feels like someone doesn't want this page added for some motive of their own perhaps. Patrick is no doubt a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stravensky (talk • contribs) 03:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even if appearance on a fastest-growing-company list was evidence of a company's notability (which usually isn't so in AfDs on companies), it would be WP:NOTINHERITED for biographical notability of anyone associated with the company. The references here are generally routine coverage about the company; I am not finding specific in-depth coverage about the subject. Fails WP:BASIC. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A social media entrepreneur, refs aren't strong enough. Szzuk (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - maybe redirect to Strike Social where he's mentioned as a cofounder. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beatriz Sofía Rosado Cedeño[edit]

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

Rejected PROD. Nominator of prod stated "I don't believe this meets the notability requirement, upon further investigation; it has been deleted multiple times from the Spanish Wikipedia as non-notable." I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder. Though I will admit, I can be convinced otherwise...if someone who speaks Spanish is able to find enough sources to establish notability I'm willing to change my vote. Having said that: a cursory search over on the Spanish Wikipedia finds evidence that this article was created eight times under various names, deleted each time, and salted twice. See here, here, and here for more details. Therefore I'd like to further suggest that if this is deleted, it be salted here as well, even though this is the first time it's been created here. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as above. Just publicity puff. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability.--Ipigott (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That singer is the only young soprano from Ecuador, besides being a multiple artist (pianist, harpist, Ballet dancer and Salsa, composer of Pasillo ), the page was blocked in Spanish because the article was written by a novice who broke the Wikipedia rules
Comment: the three sources in the article are all reliable ones, from well-established Ecuadorean newspapers. The trouble is, the second one doesn't mention Ms Rosado at all in the text, it just shows a group photo which includes her. And I can't find anything more than the two other sources already mentioned in the article. So it really comes down to whether those two sources are enough to keep the article or not. Richard3120 (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Richard3120: Therein lies the rub. Running the articles through Google translate, it seems to me that they both tread over pretty much the same ground (please let me know if that's not the case). I'm a bit concerned about the fact that no other references turned up. Given how recent both sources are, I'm inclined to say that they aren't enough. They suggest that this might be a person who is notable in four or five years, but who hasn't hit the threshhold yet. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a minimum number of sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medallon (talk • contribs) 01:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC) — Medallon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - fails minimum notability requirments. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justin McElroy (journalist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Subject describes page as being created as a "birthday prank" by his friends. Madg2011 (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was created as a genuine factual article, not a "prank," has been sourced, and does not slander or mischaracterize the subject. Sourcing confirms subject is notable. Tweet from subject is clearly a request for removal of spam, which has been cleaned up. Audiovideodiscoo (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing/mischaracterization of subject aren't issues at hand - notability is. The article makes two claims to notability:

that McElroy has "received multiple national and provincial journalism awards"
that McElroy has received praise from columnists Heather Mallick and Colby Cosh.

Neither of these is significant enough to demonstrate the notability of the subject. If you feel the awards make him notable, said awards should be discussed in the article, not just glossed over. Madg2011 (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on his work having been discussed at length in national media. Multiple independent, reliable sources supporting this case for notability, beyond the two columns you mentioned are cited on the page, including international media and book sources. National awards, which have been cited, strengthen the case for notability, but journalism awards (outside of Pulitzers) do not usually generate public discussion; the works which receive the awards should be disucssed in the page instead. I encourage you to review other well-accepted Wikipedia journalist biographies, none of them focus on discussing industry awards. WP:JOURNALIST is a redirect to the "Creative professionals" criteria, which are not exhaustive, but include "widely cited by peers," which is clearly demonstrated here. I believe you may be citing Wikipedia:Notability (journalists), which is a failed proposal not to be used. Wikipedia consensus has been to review journalist biographies based on the subject's overall public profile, not on the highly specific list of criteria you appear to be referencing.Audiovideodiscoo (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cited WP:JOURNALIST intentionally. Madg2011 (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not fail WP:JOURNALIST. "Prank" can mean an obviously facetious article or one created to libel a subject, so I clarified that was not the case here. For further discussion on notability, see discussion on independent sources below.Audiovideodiscoo (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total reference bomb, but none of the references deal with him or convey notability: the articles with his name are simply feeds of articles he's written. Not notable. SportingFlyer talk 22:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SportingFlyer. 24.80.119.18 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2018
Keep -- Re: SportingFlyer: the following references are significant discussion of the subject and his work in independent, reliable media or coverage of significant awards, none are "feeds of the articles he's written," all are independently written by different people who are not the subject. Your comment is factually incorrect, please review the following and revise: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. This more than meets WP:GNG. Yes, there are links within the article to the subject's own work, but these make up the minority of references and per WP:NNC references to a subject's own work in their biography are encouraged. Per WP:NRVE, a Wikipedia article's main purpose is not to bureaucratically argue for a subject's notability; notability is a characteristic of a subject, not an article. The majority of the deletion argument seems to be WP:JNN without actually reading any of the reasoning to the contrary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Audiovideodiscoo (talk • contribs)

Would argue that the anon supporting SportingFlyer should not be counted as they can't be pinged to review documentation and they based their opinion entirely on SportingFlyer's incorrect summary. WP:PERX Audiovideodiscoo (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you just referenced bombed the AfD, so I had to go through all of the references again. He created a twitter contest, which doesn't actually make him notable per Wikipedia. 5-17 are all about those, with the exception of 9, which is a podcast he wrote. 1 appears to be a large book about student life at UBC which I doubt gets him to WP:GNG. 2-4 are about a minor award he won - other people on the staff also won the award. The remainder are a mishmash of rankings he's done, podcasts, and talks he's given. There's nothing here that's actually about him other than a twitter contest he ran once, which on its own would fail WP:BLP1E. There's really nothing of substance here at all. Non-notable journalist per WP:JOURNALIST. SportingFlyertalk 05:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you've also now voted twice, it appears from the history. SportingFlyer talk 05:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your first comment appears to have been written without even a cursory check of the references in the article, so I copied a list of references not written by the article subject (your original contention) for convenience. I'm not sure why you keep using the word "bomb." Per WP:NOPE, notability is not a judgement of the merit of someone's work, it's determined by level of coverage by reliable independent sources. You may think someone's work is silly or dislike that it was also discussed on Twitter, but the level of in-depth coverage from a wide cross-section of Canadian media this subject has received, which is clearly demonstrated in the above sources, meets WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. (I would also like to argue that creating a Canada-specific project which received engagement from 400,000 people, more than 1% of Canada's entire population, speaks to notability, though this does not directly address a journalist-specific criterion.) There are also citations for four different significant awards, two of which were awarded solely to the article subject. The remainder of the references I posted were additional independent articles from reliable, independent Canadian media about the article subject and other works he authored. (To point out another inaccuracy in your summary, 9 was not a podcast written by the article subject, but a prominent Canadian radio program produced by other, independent sources). (It's really disingenuous to first dismiss some of the media coverage of the subject surrounding one particularly prominent project as WP:BLP1E, and then go on to dismiss other media coverage about the subject's other actions as "a mishmash." By your logic, every article on Wikipedia is either WP:BLP1E or "a mishmash" and therefore not notable.) I would also urge you to remember WP:POLL, AfD is not a vote and "tallying" is not constructive. Finally, please remember that nearly all precedent for deletion under WP:JOURNALIST is for journalist puff pages where there is no sourcing available outside the article subject's own work, which is obviously not the case here.Audiovideodiscoo (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to familiarise yourself with WP:BOMBARD. If I've miscategorized any, I apologize, but I really do not see anything which makes him independently notable. I'll also need to see evidence of your precedent regarding journalist notability as I've seen a few journalist AfDs with delete outcomes recently. SportingFlyer talk 02:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can do much better than this. There are potentially valid notability claims here, but they're not being reliably sourced: the reference pool here depends far too strongly on pieces of his own writing (a person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of sources written by other people, not the bylined author of reliable source coverage of other things), primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things. And Audiovideodiscoo's pile of additional sources above are not an improvement: most of them represent the exact same kinds of bad sources, and the ones that don't are still press releases from organizations he's directly affiliated with, WorldCat directory entries which do not count as evidence of notability, and blogs or podcasts. None of them represent "substantive coverage about him in reliable sources that are independent of him", which is what WP:GNG requires — referencing an article to Wikipedia's satisfaction is not just a matter of finding any web page that happens to support the content you want to find a reference for. Only certain specific types of sources (namely media coverage about him) count as support for notability, and there's a specific minimum number of such sources that have to be shown before he's got enough, and there's a specific minimum depth of about-him-ness that a source has to surpass before it's about him enough to count toward that number. And none of the sources, either in the article or in the pile of additional sources shown above, are meeting all of the required standards. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the nom's link to a tweet by the BLP is very telling. He also realizes he doesn't meet WP's notability requirements. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A1 -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Play center characters[edit]

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

Some kind of info about comic book charactors I believe. Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A1 as previously tagged. No Context as to what these characters are. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kudkudaale[edit]

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

Another Somali locality with nothing on the map to show for it. It gets more GHits than usual, but nothing significant showed up after a number of pages. Mangoe (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOTTHERE L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete satellite imagery shows a particularly featureless area of desert and the one database entry cited doesn't even claim it's a populated place. It does appear as a dot on a few maps but that hasn't proven to be very reliable in the past. Hut 8.5 17:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is not even stub quality, and not geo notable. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Brew[edit]

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

A non-notable short film, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no sign of passing WP:NFILM. It also appears that the article was created by the director of the film. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The main contributor and creator is absolutely the director of the film. StewdioMACK (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG, got honorable mention for a short film which is the fringe of fringe. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verizon Connect[edit]

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

This entity is not notable on it's own however the redirect has been removed several times by an apparent SPA, so now we'er only left with the choice of AfD. So rather than an outright deletion, I'd like to propose that this is deleted in it's current state and then recreated as a redirect to the appropriate article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable. -Mar11 (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable. Editing for a company as 'we' but also undisclosed paid editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails N ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaxdabajeelaad[edit]

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

The next Somali locality (acto geonames), which yet again marks a blank spot, and which calls up the usual mirrors and geo-clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also unable to find any evidence the subject exists. There is something labelled "Bajeelo" close by, which I suppose might be related, but I'm not even sure it's artificial. Hut 8.5 22:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax? L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy S. Woodruff[edit]

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

WP:SPAM fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. BEFORE fails to find WP:RS. Chetsford (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 4 refs - 1 youtube, 1 blog, 1 primary, 1 amazon. Szzuk (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jevin Hodge[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLOUTCOMES. The deputy chair of a province/state-level political party is not inherently notable. There is no other claim to notability advanced in the article. Chetsford (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edited article to reflect historic significance of election as a party official.--davidmjaf — Preceding unsigned comment added by davidmjaf (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the youngest person (or the youngest African American person) to hold an otherwise non-notable office is not in and of itself an inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to clear our regular notability standards. But being deputy chair of a political party is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and the sourcing here isn't strong enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu: it's heavily dependent on primary sources rather than reliable ones, all but one of the reliable ones represent local coverage that would merely be expected to exist, and the only one that's more than local isn't covering him in a noteworthy context. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do much better than this, but if I were to actually strip all the ineligible sources that can't actually be used as support for notability, there wouldn't be enough left to make the article keepable. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting that he claims (no one else seems to care) things about his being super young, but we never even learn his age.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tik Tok short video[edit]

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

WP:NOTAD, WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG and WP:N. The creator has been indef blocked before. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:35A9:1579:6BFD:67FF (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Completing for IP. ~ GB fan 18:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a video, its a video company and they bought a US company for $1 billion. That passes my notability bar. OK it needs copyeditting. That will happen. Victuallers (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and is therefore notable per Wikipedia:Notability. It needs to be improved, not be deleted.--Neo-Jay (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catalina Cruz (politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person whose main claim of encyclopedic notability is being an as yet unelected candidate in a forthcoming election. As always, this is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before standing as an election candidate, then she has to win the seat, not just run for it, to become notable as a politician. But this does not properly demonstrate that she has preexisting notability for other reasons: apart from the campaign-related coverage itself, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources (e.g. the self-published websites and press releases of organizations she's been directly involved with, pieces of her own writing, etc.) and glancing namechecks of her existence as a provider of soundbite in articles about other things, not to coverage about her. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day if she wins, but nothing here entitles her to keep a campaign brochure on Wikipedia in the meantime. Update: I'm also comfortable with the userfy alternative proposed below, if consensus leans that way. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the above reasons. I have checked the impressive array of references and agree with Bearcat's assessment: There's some coverage of her candidacy, usually in local news, several sources that don't meet our standards of reliability and independence, and a few name-drops. Unelected candidates are generally not notable, and there's no indication that Cruz is. If we had an article on the New York State Assembly election we could redirect thereto, but we don't. Huon (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the above reasons. At first glance this article looks like it might meet GNG because there are so many sources. However, upon closer examination, these sources do not establish notability because none of them are independent reliable sources that give her significant coverage (and I couldn't find any). The majority of the sources contain the same trivial, passing information regarding her candidacy. The article has been recently tweaked to focus on activism but there's nothing out there aside from local articles mentioning her in passing. Ca2james (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN along with the reasons addressed by nom. SportingFlyer talk 22:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Userfy per nom as well as: "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls." (from WP:POLOUTCOMES). ~~There are notable reliable sources on this topic, so I'd support condensing it into the article about the election she is running in.~~ Support userfying until election results. _{Vermont | reply here} 01:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This AfD is a retaliatory action made by Huon. He has been clear about that but it doesn't make it any less of a retaliatory action. This is not acceptable behavior no matter how much he tries to justify it on the Talk page.

I went to the #Wikipedia-en-help IRC channel for assistance on some disambiguation questions. Beyond the fact that only half of my questions were answered, with me repeating the questions more than once, Huon did not focus on the question. Instead he took it upon himself to over-step and fixate on notability. This precedence of "dinging" editors (newbie or experienced editors like myself) by not answering their questions but instead attacking the article is unacceptable. It inhibits people from asking questions. I know I will NEVER use the IRC channel. Huon by his actions has proven it is a place of retaliation. It is not a safe space to learn and ask questions. I used to always recommend the IRC channel to new editors. I think it's clear that it is absolutely the WORST place for both new editors and experienced editors alike. So that is the background of this action here. And it is pretty clear that most of the commenters here are friends with Huon. So that is another issue that is also not okay. Beyond the fact that when I did not agree with Huon's edits on the entry's Talk page, Huon threatened to AfD the article. Which he did. MORE retaliatory behavior. All of these unethical decisions, it is why contributing editors such as myself who actually add content versus deleting and admin-ing have such a hard time. And editor retention is low. So great job of fulfilling that remit. You have succeeded.

As far as this article, specifically, it seems that no one has evaluated the article accurately. I reworked the article significantly this afternoon, which I think made it even better at establishing notability. Cruz has established a very long-term focus on immigration rights at a very visible high level. She has worked with Cuomo and has developed an expertise in immigration reform that comes from her also notable experience as a DREAMer who is unique because she has had this successful career (and is only 35) but also because she is a DREAMer running for public office this fall.

As far as the citations go, 20 citations have survived Ca2james typical nitpicking and unconstructive uncollaborative approach to editing. All he does is delete versus adding and improving content. In the process he deleted 10 citations. 10! 10 carefully curated citations that supported notability of the subject. I build this page carefully and there were 30 citations, now only 20. He took one third of the citations off the page. How on earth is that improving Wikipedia?!? He is a menace. So thanks for that.

But really the assessment that the citations are not about Cruz are the problem. The assessment reflects a bias against Spanish-language sources. El Diario is not notable? El Espectador, the largest newspaper in Colombia, is not notable? NY1 is not notable, when it is at the forefront of state and local politics. For that matter, the local Queens newspaper sources are all notable, but then again if you don't take the time to do due diligence on this you wouldn't know that. You are all wrong here, and haven't watched the video interviews and read the cover story because they are in Spanish. This is a multi-lingual area of Queens, one of the most diverse boroughs, especially in the region where Cruz lives. It would be incorrect to not include both English and Spanish sources. This is clear. The statements above reflect clear bias against a multi-lingual set of citations. I live in NYC. I know these sources are the local news sources that cover both state and local politics. So it's clear that editors here lack that ability to see this.

I have no expectation this article will survive AfD but the subject is notable and I have done my job. She will win the election -- an 'actual election not the jive district no election current situation -- and in the fall I will be restoring this entry.

Also, Ca2james needs to stop stalking my edits and harassing me. It is unacceptable behavior and he refuses to stop. It is personal and the free digital labor I am contributing at great time and effort is being attacked out of bounds to acceptable behavior. It causes me great stress and the end result is he weakens articles and doesn't make any attempt to collaborate or work with anyone except himself. I have asked him to stop and he won't. It needs to stop. He needs to work on other pages and stop fixating on the work I am doing. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the nominator of the AfD is someone I am confident had nothing to do with the editing dispute you had with the page, as they frequently AfD articles about politicians who do not pass WP:NPOL, or who do not appear to pass WP:NPOL. No one is arguing for not including Spanish-language sources: simply, Wikipedia only includes politicians who have won an election or politicians who otherwise pass WP:GNG. Cruz does not pass WP:GNG yet by my estimation, and she has not won her seat yet; therefore, this article is WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer talk 05:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huon was not the nominator here; I was. And yes, of course the article can be recreated if and when she wins — if that happens, then her notability claim will obviously have changed. Wikipedia deletion discussions are not so much a matter of never, as of not yet: a person whose article was previously deleted can absolutely be recreated in the future if and when they have a stronger notability claim than they did the first time, such as a candidate who goes on to actually win the election in the end. But we don't keep an article about a not yet elected candidate just because somebody predicts that she'll win — per WP:CRYSTAL, we keep or delete articles on the basis of what's already true today, not on the basis of predictions about what might become true in the future. If she doesn't already satisfy a notability standard today, then we delete the article today and then permit recreation if and when things change. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As there is a good chance of this subject winning election in the fall, if this closes a Delete I would favor the content being userfied to the creator so that they may continue to work on the piece. Carrite (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did an advanced search for this article name on all namespaces (excluding File and File Talk) and there are two other versions of this article: one in Draft space that was twice rejected and one in User space. It's unclear whether the mainspace article was based on the Draft article, but it appears that the user space version was copied and pasted from a version of the mainspace article (which will create an attribution/history/copyright problem if that article is later moved to mainspace). I'm not sure what should happen with the other versions of the mainspace article but thought I should bring it up for the closer to deal with. I do support userification if the outcome here is Delete. Ca2james (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if closed as delete, which is a very reasonable thing to do. talk to !dave 18:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support _{Vermont | reply here} 21:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On behalf User Group Wikimedians of Colombia, and the Chapter-to-be Wikimedia Colombia, we support keeping the article. We are very worry about the deletion of this well documented article of a relevant woman. Measuring relevance of underrepresented people, as woman, DREAMers or Latinos is not easy, because their voices has being invisibilized; What Catalina Cruz represent is very important, and that's why she notably appeared in some of the most widespread newspapers in Colombia, so reliable sources. As an example of what a DREAMer, a woman and a latina can do in politics, this article should be keeped. Do not invisiblize Catalina. --Sahaquiel9102 (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not keep inadequately sourced articles about people who haven't passed a notability standard just because they happen to be members of underrepresented groups — whether people deserve more coverage than they're getting or not, it is not our role to help them rectify that by creating special carve-outs from our inclusion standards just because of a person's gender or sexuality or ethnic background. Our notability standards for politicians require the holding of office, not mere candidacy for it, and nothing else here would have gotten her a Wikipedia article before becoming a candidate — and the Colombian media coverage still has to clear the same standards as the New Yorkian media coverage: one of them is just candidacy-related coverage that doesn't help get a candidate over GNG in and of itself, and in the other one she's merely quoted as a giver of soundbite in an article about something other than her, so those aren't notability-boosting sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you stopped displaying your cultural bias here, Bearcat. The article is very adequately sourced. She meets notability. The Colombian newspaper is the largest paper in Colombia, and was a cover story. The other Spanish-only language articles support notability, as does the extensive and long NY1 Spanish language TV interview. Cruz has an established history as an immigration activist, which is supported by citations. She worked for Cuomo multiple times, was the person who implemented the identification card system in New York City. If anything the article is over-sourced. This is an obvious vendetta against articles about people who are seeking election. It is fine if that is what this is, but the cultural bias represented here -- with possible shades of being against the article because she is a woman too -- is wrong. And the false accusation this article is not properly sourced is patently inaccurate. It is obvious that this collective in concert effort will delete the page but let's not be inaccurate or disingenuous about what is happening here. This article meets notability. It has 30 good citations. More than most starting articles. I won't sit here and let this mischaracterization of the creation of this article stand. And yes, this is a hostile approach to editing. If I was a new editor I wouldn't continue editing. Hide behind your WIKI:Rulez all you want but this so-called work all of you are doing is not helping the editing community and it is definitely not helping to improve diversity on Wikipedia. Don't hide behind that here. It's inaccurate. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am displaying no cultural bias whatsoever, and neither do I hold women to a different notability standard than I hold men. Nowhere did I say that the language of a source is relevant to whether it supports notability or not. For one thing, I use other-language sources all the damn time myself when I can find appropriate ones that properly support notability — I've used Spanish and French and German language sources myself on numerous occasions, in fact. What makes the Colombian sources a problem is not that they're in Spanish, it's that one of them is directly candidacy-related while the other one just namechecks her existence in an article that isn't about her. And no, a man wouldn't get an article just for being a candidate in an election either. There is no bias here on my part — I performed a good faith evaluation of the sources, and found them lacking. They are not demonstrating her preexisting notability as an immigration activist, because all of the sources for that content are either primary sources or glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things — the sources here that are both reliable and substantively about her exist exclusively in the context of an election campaign she hasn't won yet, which is a context where the routine coverage that is merely expected to exist for all candidates does not aid passage of GNG. That is not how you demonstrate a candidate as notable enough, regardless of the candidate's gender or ethnic background. There is no bias involved, because a white man who was sourced the same way wouldn't get a keep vote from me either. Bearcat (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cruz is far below the threshold for notability. I would also point out that the article can be highly questioned on use of language that is hardly NPOV. Lastly, the role of Wikipedia is not to right great wrongs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is consistent with other candidates for office who did not previously have a claim to notability. It is disturbing that claims of notability are being made based on gender, race, ethnicity, and country of origin. None of these are things that should be even considered when assessing notability. It also does not matter that she worked with Governor Cuomo, since notability is WP:NOTINHERETED--Rusf10 (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Every point made in this argument above is factually inaccurate. — BrillLyle (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Unity of Command (video game)#Sequel. And obviously merge sourced material Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unity of Command 2[edit]

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

Delete or move to draft. Game has not yet been released, and thus WP:TOOSOON has to be considered. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator, I'd request to have it moved to draft, as per your suggestion. (if WP:TOOSOON is justified) Wargamer and Rock, Paper, Shotgun are reliable sources which talk about the game's development to a larger extent, although might not be quite enough at this time.Kiksam (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest merge and redirect to Unity of Command (video game)#Sequel. Deletion is certainly not the right call and neither is draftifying. Information about an upcoming sequel can and should be included in the first game's article. Regards So Why 18:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per SoWhy. --Izno (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Not everything that isn't released is WP:TOOSOON. In this case, there are four references cited, and they seem pretty ok to me. Maybe a bit forced? Possibly. This informatoin could go into the previously stated article, but as there is media on the sequel, it's not really a cut and dry delete for me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if not a WP:TOOSOON deletion, the WP:GNG requires sustained detailed coverage of a topic (in multiple works), which we don't have here. A merge and redirect to its preceding game makes a lot of sense. --Izno (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per SoWhy. Nomader (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Too soon. Szzuk (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Priveekollektie[edit]

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

I can't see how this comes anywhere near passing WP:CORP. It deals in art and limited-edition design, and takes its wares to various art fairs; it's had some coverage for that. Article created by an WP:SPA – presumably a COI and possibly undisclosed paid editing. In any case, this appears to be native advertising or deceptive advertising, and thus probably illegal under US law. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a small gallery, I googled and looked in news, there was one article in news mentioning when they open an exhibition next month. The Refs in the article aren't up to much and most of the article is talking about the house in which the gallery is located (which doesn't look big). Szzuk (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Balamurugan and Balaganapathi Temple[edit]

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

Notability issues. No reliable sources mention this place. MT Train^Talk 17:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I too could find nothing WP:RS. We don't have an article even on the village, Ayyampalayam, that it's in (10°49′30″N 77°36′50″E / 10.825°N 77.614°E / 10.825; 77.614). (DAB page Ayyampalayam for comparison.) Narky Blert (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Googled and can't find much, I found a youtube vid of a celebration at the temple and it appears I was the first view. Szzuk (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chapel (band)[edit]

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

Minimally sourced article about a band whose only claim of notability is that they released their debut EP a few months ago. As always, every band is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article the moment they've put out an EP -- WP:NMUSIC requires two full-length albums, not just one EP, before the existence of their music becomes a notability claim in and of itself. The article doesn't state or source anything that would pass any of NMUSIC points #2-12, so the only one in play here is #1 -- but with just two short blurbs, one of which is on a user-generated "anybody can submit anything about anyone" blog platform, there aren't enough quality sources being shown to pass NMUSIC #1. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way WP:TOOSOON. Very little coverage - not surprising as they've hardly done anything yet. --Michig (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese Historical Review[edit]

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

WP:DEL8: Not notable, does not meet WP:NJOURNALS or WP:GNG. This publication should not be confused with Chinese Historical Review, which is a notable journal. DferDaisy (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources (apart from two non-linked sources in Chinese that I cannot read), not indexed anywhere. Also rather promotional, borderline G11. --Randykitty (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article makes no claim of significance, promotional. Szzuk (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Marshall[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG and could not find reference sources that are primarily about this person. Executive of non-notable companies. Article's existence appears to depend on relationships with other more notable people, and a peripheral connection to a well-publicized inheritance dispute, rather than the subject's personal notability. Risker (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is some coverage of Anna Nicole Smith and inheritance related lawsuits as well as a trade secrets suit involving the family business. Also some recent coverage of allegations of spousal abuse. But I don't think it's enough and I don't see notability to merit inclusion for anything he's done. delete.
Delete. NN. Article creator is indef blocked, couldn't easily see why. Szzuk (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wealth Geography[edit]

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

No indication that this term is in common use - ghits tend to be accidentally adjacent words, not this term. No sources provided. Was PRODded as "No sources, no context. This just lists information that would fall under the umbrella of wealth geography, but does nothing to explain the field." dePRODded on the basis that " All issues raised can be addressed by expert editors." Until such an "expert editor" comes along to create this article with sources and useful content, this article is not an asset to the encyclopedia. PamD 15:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments from nominator

It might be that this topic is part of some existing "xxx geography" discipline, and needs to be redirected there with mention of this new term. With luck someone from the Geography Wikiproject will be able to sort this out, if appropriate.
If this article is not deleted, it should be moved to "Wealth geography", small "g".

PamD 15:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Geography and wealth, or delete. SportingFlyer talk 22:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While redirecting as per The Might Glen would also suffice, this is completely WP:OR and should be deleted as per WP:GNG, WP:ISNOT and WP:NEO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nom and for the same reasons I PRODed this article ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Ravidas Mandir Kartarpur[edit]

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

Lack of coverage in sources to denote notability. MT Train^Talk 15:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dera Baba Gurmukh Dass Ji[edit]

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

A non-notable temple that fails GNG. ToThAc (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So why Wikipedia is removing this article?.This is Template in Kartarpur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Mani Raj Paul18 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Im happy to restore if another reliable source emerges. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turpentine (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND, no sources cited, and the only link in the article is to their website (which is a broken link) and their bandcamp page. Searches show little coverage at all, and no coverage by reputable sources. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Ways Back to Chaos and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honey Births, a Salt Troupe. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found a profile on them in Spanish from Rolling Stone. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link available? Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Kolbert: I would imagine the Rolling Stone link is the same as the one already cited in the band's article. It's certainly a valid one, but I think we'd need more than just one source on the band. Richard3120 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: Ah, I did not see the addition to the article (it was added after the AfD was made). I agree that we need more than one source to establish notability to meet the first criterion of WP:MUSICBIO. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The conversation seems to be heading to delete and I agree. One ref in the article which is OK but it is just a couple of hundred words. Szzuk (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 15:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wurzel Mediengruppe[edit]

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

No indication subject meets General Notability Guidelines or notability guidelines for organizations. All of the sources both here and on the German article are press releases or derived from press releases.

The article is also extremely promotional in tone - to the extent that if it is somehow notable the article should be stubbed and re-written. Jbh ^Talk 21:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my findings concur with nom's. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam. Wikipedia is not a replacement for a company's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It appears the content has been copied from Wikipedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Art Honor Society[edit]

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

Directly copies content from https://www.lths.org/domain/124 Chase tanner00 (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G11 and G12. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have just encounted this on today's AfD so did a quick check on the copyvio claim. The article dates back to 2006 and much of the core prose is largely unchanged in that time. Looking on waybackmachine for the supposed copied site here, it only has records from 2014 onwards, with the first versions of the page being nothing like the article. Only in latter versions from 2016 onwards does the correlation between the two become apparent, and thus it's reasonable to assume based on this that it may be been copied from wikipedia, as opposed to wikipedia. A site that matches a suspected copyvio can't and should not always been assumed to be one way. If the AfD is weighted in this argument alone, it may be void unless further evidence to the contrary can be found. It can't be ruled out that it may have been copied from elsewhere at some point in time, but there is nothing to suggest that has been the case either. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After Bungle's edit, I see that I may have been incorrect. I was under the assumption that it was copied because a page of my own was going to be speedily deleted for copying from that website, even though I was just using and attributing some content from National Art Honor Society. I believe this AfD is now void. Chase tanner00 (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Far to many problems to keep this around - especially if there are copyvios or close paraphrasing to deal with. I suggest a start over in draft space and an independent review before even thinking of trying this again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Axe[edit]

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

This starts by telling us that "Joshua Lee Axe (born August 18 1981) is an American physician." His own website makes no such claim. He "also founded one of the most visited natural health website in the world at dr.axe.com [sic], which has over 15 million monthly visitors" -- a claim that's sourced to [can you guess?] draxe.com. This website isn't so notable that Wikipedia has any article about it.

Axe is a businessman in the "detoxing" and related industries. Dribs and drabs about him suggest that he's making a good living at this. But the sources don't seem to add up to notability. -- Hoary (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I did not intent to praise Josh Axe nor to create a biased article. Also i can't call him in lines like: (Josh Axe is a pseudoscientific imbecile) Otherwise it will be a personal attack. I disagree. since it will be a clear violation of WP:BLP. Yes i know that some of them is not notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newroderick895 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. You are very welcome to create an article listing his achievements as long as you provide independent, reliable sources for those achievements. -- Hoary (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a naturopath. Article needs work but the news link above returns quite a bit of coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep I'll try to remain neutral as I'm his adopter but the article is in a mess, probably the same length as a incomplete stub from Namma Metro green line station articles (example). Notability is questionable, but I think it should be kept. (the example above is still here and not at afd). 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 07:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, references are exceedingly weak. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: It's also overly promotional, even after trimming. WP:FRINGEy, too. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note. An article about this individual was previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Axe. Deli nk (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, this is displayed in a box at the top of the nomination, but I'm not sure how to put it there. If someone knows how to do it, that would be helpful. Deli nk (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, Deli nk. I've added the link to that earlier discussion (which led to deletion). -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the Entrepreneur (magazine) article shows some promise (but it's just a blog-like article from a contributor to the website), the references currently in the article don't establish that there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources as required by WP:BIO. Searching for additional references, I see a lot of low quality sources only. Deli nk (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I have improved the article and i have created additional sources. If you agree with me. go head reply to me, same goes for people who disagrees. Newroderick895 (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: you have unnecessarily moved the page, Newroderick895; and your additions include He's a co-founder of BurstFit training program alongside with his wife, Chelsea. Dr. Axe is the visionary behind several cutting-edge and premium nutraceutical brands, including Ancient Nutrition, Axe Organics, NUMA Essentials and ProBiome Rx: What are his visions? Which edges are being cut? (The edge of ancientness, perhaps?) How are these "premium"? -- Hoary (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was moved to Josh Axe (doctor), which is not only an unnecessary redirect -- since there is no other article "Josh Axe ()" to be disambiguated from -- but is also an attempt to create greater notability for the individual. I have therefore moved it back to the original title Josh Axe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response- I have deleted sentences that is possibly not neutral. Unfortunately the article is not done yet and i am here to add text on the article. Newroderick895 (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, you removed a number of changes I made to the article which improved its accuracy, removed unsourced statements, Wikilinked terms, and improved the writing. DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN. You may have created the page, and written most of it, but YOU DO NOT WP:OWN IT, and do not have approval of edits to the article. If you disagree with a change that is made by another editor, do not revert it, discuss it on the article talk page. You also replaced a CN tag with a blog. Blogs are not considered to be reliable sources - see WP:SPS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COPYVIO - Portions of this article appear to be a copyright violation from this web page. I have marked it with a copyvio tag and will no longer work to improve it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per Beyond My Ken and Deli nk. He does gets some mentions in articles in the press, although those that I looked at were mainly lifestyle articles that appeared to be using his name as a means of backing up claims that were sometimes straying into WP:FRINGE territory. Some coverage exists of his involvement in a company selling nutritional supplements. Copyright issues have plagued this article from the start. The bulk of the article at present is taken from promotional descriptions published by himself or organisations he has been associated with. Notability has not been established when judged against WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: promotionalism only for an unremarkable individual. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO / WP:AUTHOR. Delete: non-notable, spam, copyvio - take your pick. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sriramulu Vallabhajosyula[edit]

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

@Dchavali: Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to meet the criteria for WP:ATH. Masters championships are not prestigious enough. Ajf773 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Udit Kulshrestha[edit]

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

References only have his work listed. However, no significant coverage on the person himself is found in reliable secondary sources. Dial911 (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

type Answer: https://vimeo.com/204847180 here is the link on the coverage of the person. The coverage was broadcasted on Times now, India's biggest news channel owned by the Times Group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.137.216.224 (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps too soon. I'm not seeing an assertion of notability or substantial coverage in reliable independemt sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: For Photojournalists, where does publication of their work come in? It seems like the many individual photos are Just Doing Your Job. The BBC Photo Essay [1] might rise to the level. But we are typically looking for awards, right? Theredproject (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete title was on my watch list already so it's been deleted before. I recall the photo. Legacypac (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question He has been awarded a honourable mention in media foundation awards in 2012. there are screenshots available on his facebook page and his website. he has been interviewed by leading indian publications. the clipping are available on his website - https://www.uditkulshrestha.com/contact-udit-kulshrestha/in-the-news1 and he has even given a talk on a major news channel in 2016 - available on youtube. He has also been published in almost all leading publications like soutch china morning post, bloomberg, Zeit with photo essays on various subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.77.108.6 (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

some ref linkscheck this - https://fountainink.in/qna/all-we-want-is-dignity-and-honour and https://www.uditkulshrestha.com/contact-udit-kulshrestha/in-the-news1/2332975-5831-photo-0 and https://www.uditkulshrestha.com/contact-udit-kulshrestha/in-the-news1/758363-5831-photo-3 and https://www.uditkulshrestha.com/contact-udit-kulshrestha/in-the-news1/758364-5831-photo-4 and https://www.facebook.com/UditKulshrestha/photos/a.10150122257299745.319445.172289389744/10152198453234745/?type=3&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.77.108.6 (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the photographer has done some commendable research and coverage on a tribe on the verge of extinction and geography based conflict, both of which remained uncovered by the Indian or international media. I believe, these stories which remained untouched, would help the victims and the dwindling tribe reach out to larger audiences, hence, this listing on wiki would contribute in a significant manner and shouldn't be considered for deletion.
Delete--Zero assertion of notability.Self-promo-spam.~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sina Doering[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Failing WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. There are some entries, which appear to be forums/blogs, but lacking wider media coverage. Music seems self-published, i.e. no major label signed. Specific local media searches (i.e. newspapers in locations indicated on her website/bio) do not give results. Also, there is no article in German WP, which one might assume is the first to pass notability. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am sure this has already been deleted once in the past 24 hours.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are correct Slatersteven, deleted along with Chi Might, an album by the same artiste which has also been recreated. Eagleash (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Salt may also be warranted.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK to Delete Speaking of one who previously created this page, only to have it deleted, then to have someone else re-create it -- well just block it permanently so no one else wastes their time. Dwight666 (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly fails WP:GNG.TheLongTone (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. Arthistorian1977, please don’t nominate articles for deletion within minutes of them being started! Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Minor[edit]

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

I don't think she has enough notability to have an article of her own Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have just started this page 10 minutes ago I will update further. She has become very noteable please give me a few days to gather info. The fact she was written out of history by being the only person who was not mentioned in the photo - that her own boss took is quite notable and has really stirred the public interest by the number of news articles flying around. Nejaby (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor is notable as a scientist and as part of the "Hidden Figures" phenomenon that was widespread in the US in the 60s and 70s. Contributions from people like her are a missing history; removing this article while information on her is still being surfaced would contribute to the problem. krobin (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the article is that it stakes a claim to her notability as being unknown and unrecognized. What is she notable for apart from being unidentified in a photo? FloridaArmy (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Krobin's reasoning and because the current media coverage is increasing the amount of material as we speak. WP:NORUSH means that we can let this be for a few months until the situation stabilizes . -- William Pietri (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and give time to develop. WP is not paper. – SJ + 16:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is anyone on Wikipedia famous for apart from one thing? What is Mr Kipling famous for, apart from making cakes? People are talking about this, and I've seen a couple of discussions in the past few days. Clearly people are interested in her - look at the article references. I think she is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. FlowerFaerie087 (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is international coverage in several reliable sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Early days for this article, lots of potential sources to build the article. A noteworthy scientist. Risker (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Megalibrarygirl and Risker. Ckoerner (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even the New York Times is on the case today. [2]. Fiachra10003 (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Photograph / Twitter story makes her notable and would benefit for some more time to be expanded (Wikipedia has similar articles for other 'mystery' people - e.g. Andreas_Grassl) and with more time I'm sure we can uncover further info about her scientific career. Ammienoot (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On top of all the other sources cited in the article, Minor and the photograph were the subject of a news article that ran in the roll-bar on the right side of the New York Times website yesterday and is likely to run for the next several days. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Records related to Sheila Minor are in the Smithsonian Institution Archives collections. Minor is notable as there were few African American women participating in science at the time as there were still significant barriers to entry. --Digitaleffie (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone in the thread so far. Sources are abundant. Gamaliel (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing about Huff makes her notable per se. However the above mentioned article from the New York Times and the coverage she has received over the last few days clearly show her to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage and references in the article to establish notability. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 4 minutes? Seriously? We're nominating an article for deletion 4 minutes after creation without giving the creator a chance to develop it? Clearly notable given just the sources now in the article. -- KTC (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Ramazanova[edit]

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

There are no enough evidence she is notable. The claim of being "People of Artist of Dagestan" is not supported by any source. Russian language article was removed twice on ground of not being notable as well. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any coverage or even mention of her. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She has some mentions at Russian websites that I cannot read but they seem to be lists of links to streaming sites and the like. I can find nothing that appears to be a review or profile by reliable media sources. As found by the nominator, the fact that her Russian article was deleted twice is very telling. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dax Norman[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any awards or enough independent RS coverage to justify. All I could find was this Dazed Digital: [3]. Nothing in scholarly sources. Theredproject (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find any references showing that he passes WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

José-Maria David[edit]

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

I could find very little RS about the artist. The best I could find was this short obituary, in a regional french paper. Unclear if it was commissioned, or editorial. [4] Theredproject (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep not a lot of coverage but his work was in a Sotheby's auction catalogue, we know he died in a car crash, he made animal sculptures. There is some coverage on Google Books although most is only snippet view. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find enough independent reviews and information about collections and exhibitions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller Plate Study[edit]

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

This was proposed for speedy deletion as purely promotional (G11). This was the nominator's (Jytdog) note:

"yet more promotion by the Cornell Food and Brand Lab; see also Smarter Lunchroom Movement and Consumer Education Foundation. See also what happened in 2017 with six retracted papers and 14 corrections issued after lab was found to be rampantly p-hacking and then hyping their papers, with stuff exactly like this page, in retraction watch here and this buzzfeed story. Wikipedia has been thoroughly abused."

I don't disagree that the article merits scrutiny, but I suspect it would be better to get a little more input than (in effect) the opinion of the speedy nominator and the deciding admin, so I'm putting it up for discussion.

It's true that Wansink and his lab are very much up for playing the promo game, apparently even including compromising the results (appropriately they've been having a hot 18 months of it; see the above links). But it should be noted that this study in particular has, to my knowledge, not been called into question yet. Hence I don't think one could go after the article from a bad/fraudulent science angle. Is the study notable? For what it's worth, I believe it has received enough demonstrable secondary coverage to qualify for an article. Is the article too promotional? Hard to say; I would lean No, seeing as various comments and criticisms are dealt with in the "Effectiveness" section. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete. This page is an unambiguous piece of advertising filth dumped into WP. This is what academics marketing their research looks like. There is not a single MEDRS source in this whole stinking thing, but it makes tons of health claims. Even cites the Daily Mail for pete's sake. Not to mention press releases and successfully-provoked hyping mainstream media. Most of this garbage was dumped into WP by Roxydog13, Thurston312, Jen4noble and Jychao each of which is a SPA account that has done nothing but dump exactly this kind of academic spam promoting Wansink into WP. Jytdog (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's an article on an academic paper which received some fluff articles and per Jytdog is written to promote the article by SPA's. SportingFlyer talk 22:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while some individual studies are indeed notable, my searches do not indicate that this is the case here. Considering the COI issues, as well, this is a definite delete. SmartSE (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. I think we your say out loud the names of the articles related to this one, at Coin, they sound slighly Dysopian, all to control eating. Weird. scope_creep (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps this could be summarized in a small sentence on the discredited researcher's article. Natureium (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendojo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find video game sources: "Nintendojo" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Nintendo fan website, lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful coverage specific to their operations in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets (was an affiliate of IGN, but not even mentioned there so not worth the redirect). If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 05:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 05:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar 05:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems good here. --Izno (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shriving[edit]

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

Per "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Probably redirecting to Wiktionary is the best option here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it should be moved to Shrive. Clearly a notable subject. Should note shriving pew. As well as shriving-clerk, shriving-hand, shriving-mark, and shriving-sign. Plenty of coverage including in existing encyclopedias as "Shriving"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_7cj6rfbZAhUCQKwKHYu6A8IQ6AEISTAG#v=onepage&q="Shriving"&f=false here. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article titles are generally nouns or noun phrases. Per WP:GERUND, the title Shriving is preferred to Shrive. (I have no argument one way or the other as regards deletion.) Cnilep (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a dictionary definition at best; not suitable for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not an article, nor is it even a stub for an article. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 22:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Cannon (sculptor)[edit]

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

I couldn't find anything WP:RS to establish notability, and the artists own website has expired. I looked in journal sources as well. Theredproject (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He has a credible claim of notability as a sculptor. This source is already in the article and this archived link provides in-depth coverage about Cannon. Searches in both Google and Google News turn up additional sources to support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show us some examples of the good sources? I saw only very poor quality sources. The source given, an archive of pmfineliving.com, is a profile in a defunct lifestyle magazine that does little to support notability.104.163.147.121 (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search for "Robert Cannon sculpture" finds nothing in google books or news. The web does return a few items, but they are mostly in the genre of "gee whiz" Pinterest-style articles, to do with home decorating. There is zero professional art world recognition of his work. Let's see some reliable sources, as I can find none.104.163.147.121 (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources I found are blogs and pinterest level links. Though his art is quite interesting, I agree with 104.163.147.121 that nothing coming from professional art world, that may show passing WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Keller[edit]

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

non-notable BLP— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maineartists (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Bio and 9 album reviews at Allmusic, other coverage (snippets visible) via GBooks in Cadence, The Sonneck Society Bulletin, Blues Revue. --Michig (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. She is a recognised authority on and curator of ragtime music and resources. She has performed internationally, and has been involved in many significant ragtime events. She is definitely a significant figure in this type of music.http://www.westcoastragtime.com/bios/bio.keller.sue.03.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everlong Day (talk • contribs) 10:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This may be true; however the link that you provided to back your claims is a self-promotional bio. It is not a reliable source removed from the subject. Anyone can state what you are claiming (and there are many who can); but does that make them notable at WP? No. Maineartists (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't put it in the article. It is there to be looked at and verified, wherever it comes from. Whatever the source, it throws some things into the mix, certainly enough to suggest that the article be kept.--Everlong Day (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it were verifiable, you would have been able to easily find sources to back the claims for your "strong keep" vote; rather than merely place a promotional bio directly linked to the subject themselves. I cannot find them; and obviously, neither can you. I'm sure there are many exactly like Ms. Keller in this similar field; but are not considered notable because of WP guidelines and requirements needed to be met under: WP:MUSICBIO. Resumes and bios need to be veried by reliable sources. Plain and simple. Maineartists (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources identified by Michig such as 9 album reviews and book coverage, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Francis Bacon Opera[edit]

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

As a result of my attempt at cleanup of Stephen Crowe (composer) where I discovered a fair amount of bad faith autobiography, I looked into this article, and realized there also wasn't much of anything here. I can't find any evidence of the Hilton Edwards Award (either they plays award, or the award itself). I don't think that Exeunt Magazine,[1] This is Tomorrow,[2] What's on Stage[3] and Opera Magazine establish notability. The Independent is a passing mention. Very little WP:RS. Theredproject (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Per the other AfD, the HE Award is real and was given. This AfD ignores the Scotsman review "a tiresomely patience-testing show". Taking the basket of other reviews & mentions - those you note, and others such as Broadway Baby [5] I conclude there's sufficient notability to retain this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reviews in reliable sources such as The Scotsman and The Spectator (having highbram access this is sig cov) Atlantic306 (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Crowe (composer)[edit]

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

I went in planning on cleaning up the puffery, resume, and promo cruft from this autobiography, but in my effort to verify claims, I realized there wasn't much of anything here. I can't find any evidence of the Hilton Edwards Award (either his award, or the award itself). I don't think that Exeunt Magazine,[1] This is Tomorrow,[2] What's on Stage[3] and Opera Magazine establish notability. The Independent is a passing mention, and to claim it says *he* is the future of opera is misleading at best. The full quote is "The future of new opera looked healthier at Camden Arts Centre on Wednesday, where Stephen Crowe's Francis Bacon Opera previewed to a crammed house." I am also going to nominate The Francis Bacon Opera article as well, for the same reasons. Very little WP:RS. And a lot of bad faith promo. Theredproject (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Hilton Edwards Award is given out at the International Dublin Gay Theatre Festival. The online archives of the festival are indeed patchy, and skip several years of the awards (http://www.gaytheatre.ie/?s=hilton+edwards). The opera in fact won when it was performed at the James Joyce Centre in 2013.

The article in The Independent is more than a passing mention, as it reviews The Francis Bacon Opera positively alongside Ravel's established masterpiece 'L'enfant et les sortilèges', and is included in the headline of that article. The wiki entry does not claim that Crowe is, himself, the "Future of new opera", but mentions that his work has been referred to as part of that.

'OPERA' magazine was described by the Daily Telegraph as ‘the bible of the industry', so a positive review there is notable- particularly among living composers. The other Art (This is Tomorrow) and Theatre (Exeunt) publications, while perhaps not of the same standing as OPERA, do reflect a broader recognition of Crowe's work.Stiggler (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't find the article to have 'a fair amount of bad faith autobiography' (from the opera afd) nor puffery, resume, and promo cruft. Per u:Stiggler, I'm persuaded that there is broad recognition of Crowe as a composer; I'm content he's notable. Had I read about him elsewhere, I'd expect to be able to find a biog for him on wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are quite enough references to justify passing WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:Creative criteria 3c as his works have received signifiant critical attention with reliable sources reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2018 London "army of children" plot. Redirect to article about the crime that should be created from scratch. I left the history under the redirect to save time but this shouldn't be a cut and past job./ Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umar haque[edit]

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

Not sure he is really all that notable, in essence he is known for the one thing. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frc Rdl 12:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — Frc Rdl 12:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frc Rdl 12:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every major UK newspaper and the BBC have covered him today! the Guardian gave a full page coverage. How much more notable do you need?CanterburyUK (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generally it needs to be for more then one incident (or in this case crime) WP:CRIME.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven Sure 'generally' that is true. But what about this specific case do you think is not noteworthy? It's not a run-of-the-mill crime. Its hard to believe that convictions for terrorism in the Old Bailey are so commonplace that they are now not notable? On top of that, does not his role in training jihadi children make his case very unique. If you can to so many similar cases on Wiki that 'yet one more' has no value - please feel free.

Anyway, as I already said: it seems clear that the view of all the main media in the UK is that this case is noteworthy.CanterburyUK (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. News. A new article with refs all relating to his terrorist crimes. Nothing enduring i can see. Szzuk (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See comment below. Szzuk (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Szzuk On that basis the Wiki article on Anders Behring Breivik would have been deleted -but that article in fact has evolved over time and is still being edited in the last month: and spun off other pages like Trial_of_Anders_Behring_Breivik.

So it seems ill advised to delete a page so early - sure if in 6 months there is only tumble-weed here - then delete it. But until then, doesn't hurt Wiki to not come up empty if people reading about Haque want to look.CanterburyUK (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that can hurt--frequently initial coverage is wrong, incomplete, misguided. Correctness may not be your concern, but it is our concern. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should keep a draft of the article and return it to mainspace at a later time when the enduring nature of the subject has been proven. Szzuk (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good option. See, what happens is someone writes something up too soon, and then they say "ah well it may become more widely covered and it would be a shame to delete it." It makes sense, of course, from their perspective. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of coverage but so far nothing to prove that NOTNEWS doesn't apply. That's the problem with people reading the newspaper and writing something up immediately. NOTNEWS should be an attitude shared by all writers. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies See as above -that logic would have applied, and been wrong, for Anders Behring Breivik.CanterburyUK (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And again you manage to totally miss the point. It is more important that we do things correctly than that we jump on every court case, every criminal, every event. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies Please don't personalise this. Reading 'Wikipedia:News coverage does not decrease notability' suggests that your black-white view of NOTNEWS is not the only view here?CanterburyUK (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what my view is. You may have missed the part where I didn't actually say "delete", for instance: you think this is all black and white? We can't think and discuss? I'm not talking about a "logic"--I'm talking about an attitude. And pardon me if I don't have all that much faith in your knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines, given your proclivity to basing content on primary sources and opinion pieces. So "don't personalise this"--I'm going by what I know of your edits. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition - it seems highly likely that there is more news if nothing else then about what happened in the schools and Mosque where he taught children. there are investigations by the Charity Commission and Ofsted in progress: so there will be more to add in coming weeks as those are made public. CanterburyUK (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect per E.M.Gregory's proposal below. WP:TOOSOON/BLP1E at best. Terrorist plots are a dime a dozen. This one was unique and sensational in that it targeted young children in a very direct way but I do not see it, based on current reporting, as 'one for the textbooks'. If there is reporting beyond the initial sensationalism or if later investigation shows it to be a new ISIS strategy, then it would merit an article. As it stands it is a horrific story but not of encyclopedic notability. Jbh ^Talk 19:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Delete as a BLP on this article's subject but support a redirect of the article to a stub about the event ie not focusing exclusively or primarily on the biography of a single person. Last edited: 23:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jbh 'Dime a dozen' you say? 'One unique thing' you say? Looking at List of people convicted under Terrorism Acts in the United Kingdom, suggests by it's shortness that dime a dozen is not accurate, wouldn't you say?CanterburyUK (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am just jaded. I have, literally, two books filled with people convicted and suspected of terrorism - and that just goes up to 2008. The revised version is five volumes. (See: Edward F. Mickolus, Susan L. Simmons: The Terrorist List [5 volumes] (Praeger Security International) Abc-clio, 2011, ISBN ISBN 978-0313374715)

As to 'one-unique thing' most of these self-radicalized plots follow a similar trajectory and from my reading this one was no different until you get to the kids. There was a long term attempt to spread the radicalization (and possibly the conspiracy) to young children. That has not, to my knowledge, been seen in the West. If the case is going to be studied for anything it will be that but until more information comes out we will not know. Maybe they will find ISIS documents suggesting this - like the call to use cars. Then again it might simply be a case of child abuse ie he had access to the kids and roped them into his perversion because he had access ie it was opportunistic rather than strategic. If it was strategic then the case will be covered beyond the 'Oh my God! The children!' burst of press coverage.

I can see how this could come to justify an article, more on the plot than the person, but the coverage is just not there right now. Jbh ^Talk 22:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE from May 2017 [6][7] - with extremely wide international coverage on trial proceedings and conviction in February-March 2018. WP:BLPCRIME not an issue as PERP was convicted. The crimes themselves are clearly notable per WP:NCRIME given the level of coverage. A rename is perhaps possible, though in this case the name of the perp is the most likely search term (unless this is a wider ring in the schools - in which case a case name would be more appropriate for the group).Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or rename+repurpose to 2018 London "army of children" plot (some of the content should be moved). If there is support for a rename - I'll switch my keep/rename to rename/keep. I am not averse to keeping the current article, but I think a plot-focused article is more appropriate.Icewhiz (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<Delete - Say it after me: continued coverage is not routine coverage. Coverage on charges and convictions are not unique; every single crime such as this will receive brief bursts of reports in the media, but we are not the news, and nothing points to historical significance. Counting refs is not enough when you delve into AFDs on recent events and deserve an actual review of relevant policies. And, on a side note, the article is terribly organized and written. Sure, deletion is not cleanup, but, when crap is the standard for inclusion, crap is all we will get.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, Isis follower tried to create jihadist child army in east London (Guardian, 2 March 2018), Umar Haque, teacher who groomed boys for Isis-inspired terror, searched for transgender prostitutes, The Times (5 March 2018) is far from ROUTINE. WP:RAPID, per the copious coverage coming out in the wake of details of the plot emerging, is also at play.Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~Keep~~ as per my proposal below.(changing iVote) an article about a conspicuously notable criminal, meets WP:NCRIME, WP:BASIC and WP:SIGCOV due to the depth, breadth and ongoing nature of the remarkable nature of the crime of which he has been convicted. Coverage is far from routine, see, for example: The Times: Religious teacher at London mosque 'lured boys to join death squad'; The Guardian: Isis follower tried to create jihadist child army in east London. Article certainly needs improvement, but Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that press continues to be all over this story, which looks worse as reporters dig: The Times Umar Haque, teacher who groomed boys for Isis-inspired terror, searched for transgender prostitutes , Toronto Sun: Meanwhile, a Fagin-like ISIS operative who planned a bloody blitz targeting gay nightclubs in London has a secret. Terror teacher Umar Haque, 25, was a frequent flier looking for transgender prostitutes... an avalanche of coverage. Let WP:RAPID be a lesson to both article creator and Nom, taking time to create a better article would have saved time and effort for editors at this AfD, and AfD during which the arguments for delete have rapidly become obsolete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To satisfy notnews coverage needs to be ongoing, with crime that typically means coverage outside the usual reporting times of arrest and trial. Szzuk (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ER.... no. Wikipedia routinely creates and keeps articles on WP:NCRIMEs that have just occurred or that have just gone to trail; it is ultimately a matter of meeting WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that many many crimes get coverage at trial time but few are notable. I've never looked closely at NCRIME so what criteria do you think applies? Szzuk (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DIVERSE & WP:INDEPTH.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at NCRIME and it says we need a 'historic' crime with enduring coverage (notnews), so he fails NCRIME in my opinion. He could still be included according to GNG but the whole article is about his crime from what I can tell so there are no sources to support GNG. You've linked to wp:diverse and wp:indepth which are in the 'Notability Events' guidelines so i'm not sure how they are connected? Szzuk (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is for really routine stuff (sports announcement and the weather) - not attempting to raise an army of children in London.WP:NCRIME actually does not state "historic" crime with enduring coverage - however WP:EVENTCRIT (which NCRIME is part of) - does. Per WP:RAPID - we are unable at this time to assess future coverage to assess historicity. We do however have wide, international, multi-lingual coverage of this crime - and no reason to assume such coverage will cease, therefore we should err on the side of retaining the article (on the assumption coverage will continue).Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NCRIME says and I quote The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. I think that is a definite fail there. I think you want to keep on the basis of WP:RAPID that more information may come to light. It isn't impossible there are more crimes from him to come that may tip this into 'Historic' event crime, but I'm doubtful. (I will update my usage of notnews). Szzuk (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Szzuk, with regard to Wikipedia:Notability (events), under which WP:NCRIME falls, it is routine to KEEP NOTABLE events quickly, sometimes even the day they occur. Editors routinely start articles on notable crimes soon after they happen, take a look at Category:2018 crimes by month. It is only necessary that the crime pass WP:GNG. Guidelines like WP:NCRIME are subsidiary to WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:RAPID.Meets WP:DIVERSE and WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply as there nothing routine in that.--Shrike (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-WP:NCRIME, WP:BASIC and WP:SIGCOV covers this.BabbaQ (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of course the article covers WP:RAPID as well. Clearly should be kept.BabbaQ (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The coverage is following a typical 'flash' cycle - some initial coverage "Umar%20haque" around Jan 17 when the case was heard, followed by lots of coverage a huge burst of coverage right around March 3 when the verdict come out. That is pretty much the typical "relatively short news cycle" referred to by PERSISTENCE and unless we see some significant coverage outside those time frames it fails that criteria. RAPID anticipates that PERSISTENCE will be met but, even a mere couple of weeks on, it is apparent that it has not. Therefore keeping the article under RAPID is not appropriate although I have no objection to is being saved as a draft which is a recommended alternative to deletion. Jbh ^Talk 19:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the Delete rationales are quite weak so Keep is the better option.BabbaQ (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All you did in your !vote was list three guidelines without explaining how they are relevant to this subject. But yeah, the arguments for deletion are somehow "weaker" because you, an editor who is correct just 54% of the time, said so.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? You, who are using pointy I don't like it rationale. Please.BabbaQ (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage continues with Sara Kahn, Britain's Lead Commissioner For Countering Extremism, discussing the case Help me find the antidote to fight extremists in our own communities in today's news.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That can hardly be termed 'continuing coverage' it is a brief mention with no new information or analysis. It is, literally, three sentences which, along with three sentences about the prior terrorist-of-the-month, serves as an intro to a story which goes on to discuss neither. Jbh ^Talk 14:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That can be called continued coverage. Because it is continued coverage. Even if that might not suit your agenda.BabbaQ (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On top of what Jbh already said, the source is an opinion piece--not the kind of thing we are looking for in an encyclopedic article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content, and not users please.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to expand article, as coverage continues and impact emerges.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I first saw your changes this morning, particularly the Independent quote. I thought to myself 'OK, now I can change to Keep'. Then I read the articles and saw they were just one line mentions. What I, personally, would like to see to show this has 'continuing coverage' is at least one source from outside the 'flash converge' time that would be considered significant coverage per GNG ie several paragraphs addressing him and the plot and providing analysis and/or contextualization of the plot. That last part is, for me, very important. Above, I mentioned that the lasting impact of this plot will likely hinge on whether it was opportunistic or strategic. Expanding on that we might see lasting impact if it changes government policies towards Islamic schools beyond the immediate rhetorical cries for 'something to be done'. We could also see lasting impact if this is the genesis of similar attacks or for calls by AQ et.al. or ISIS et.al. to target children in a similar manner. Jbh ^Talk 14:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAPID applies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are outside of the time frame where RAPID would apply. RAPID envisions "…a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge"^{(emp mine)} not weeks. It also applied to hasty nominations and is not an argument for keeping an article in and of itself. Even with the dozens of articles published we have, really, only a few bare facts about him and the crime. Once the Charity Commission's report comes out there likely be more information.

In any case, I could support an article/stub on the plot/crime itself, under NCRIME, easier than I could support an article on the individual, under CRIME. (The requirement for sustained coverage in CRIME is baked in but NCRIME allows for 'media frenzy' to confer notability on the event. This would also be a textbook case of NEVENT#3.4.) In the case of focusing on the event rather than the person there is not really any meat to the coverage and, in my opinion, it would be most appropriate for it to be a simple stub. Jbh ^Talk 20:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 20:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing Redirect to 2018 London "army of children" plot, or similar. User:Jbhunley's suggestion makes a good deal of sense. There were two other individuals involved. This story from The Times is typical of the round of coverage that ran at the time of the trial [Mosque teacher Umar Haque groomed ‘army of children’ for Isis death squad].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can support that and have changed my !vote above. Jbh ^Talk 23:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have similarly changed my iVote above. (Golly, a discussion were we are actually working things out, How'd you like that.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing... Utterly amazing... I know I am at the stricter end of the notability/inclusion spectrum but I am always willing to change my !vote even when I have argued strongly for my initial position. Cheers! Jbh ^Talk 14:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I do that a lot, too. People make persuasive arguments. Or something happens to suddenly make a non-notable topic notable. Or someone figures out the right keywords, or the accurate name to search, or....E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all participants @Szzuk, CanterburyUK, Slatersteven, Drmies, Icewhiz, Shrike, BabbaQ, and TheGracefulSlick: It has been proposed that this article be redirected to an article on the event 2018 London "army of children" plot. Jbh^Talk 14:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a much better idea than a biography. I wish we would be doing this for a lot more of em. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Changed per above. A poorly-written article on the event is a slight improvement over a poorly-written article on a living person. Cannot say notability has been established either way, but that seems to be a secondary issue for these types of subjects -- unfortunately.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I could support that move, absolutely. BabbaQ (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ~~I prefer delete of Umar Haque at a second afd. But anyway,~~ go for it, it might turn out ok. Szzuk (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with that rename.CanterburyUK (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mickel Joseph[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTRACK and there is no indication of significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable track athlete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the Carifta Games are not a "major senior level international competition", and neither is the 2014 Central American and Caribbean Junior Championships in Athletics. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Thomas (athlete)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTRACK and there is no indication of significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the Carifta Games are not a "major senior level international competition" power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Densley Joseph[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTRACK and there is no indication of significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the Carifta Games are not a "major senior level international competition", and neither is the 2000 Central American and Caribbean Junior Championships in Athletics. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murvine Charles[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTRACK and there is no indication of significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable track athlete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the Carifta Games are not a "major senior level international competition". power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alroy Peters[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTRACK and there is no indication of significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the Carifta Games are not a "major senior level international competition". power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rena Mitchell[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTRACK and there is no indication of significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the Carifta Games are not a "major senior level international competition". power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy-Ann Gilchrist[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTRACK and there is no indication of significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the Carifta Games performance was in a U-17 division and clearly not a "major senior level international competition". power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Halle Hazzard[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTRACK and there is no indication the subject passes WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm unsure whether the OECS Track and Field Championships counts as a "major senior level international competition"; I don't think it does but am not 100% sure. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaydean Joseph[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTRACK and there is no indication the subject passes WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laasodhuxulaale[edit]

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

Not notable: it's an "unpopulated locality" all right, which is to say, a blank spot on the map with a name and that's all. Mangoe (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything that makes its unpopulated status a point of notability and can't really find anything on searches. Seems like it's just a nothing-place that doesn't need a mention. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article about a random patch of desert which doesn't claim to be anything else. There is a group of structures about 15 km to the northeast from the coordinates given but we don't have anything to indicate it's called Laasodhuxulaale. Hut 8.5 22:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails V and eveyrthing else, Not There. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gamali Felix[edit]

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

Non-notable youth athlete who fails WP:NTRACK and WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Ntrack, refs don't support gng, they are mostly lists of results from junior competition. Szzuk (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Alonso Fernández de Córdova[edit]

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

promotional article by undeclared paid editor. That's reason enough for deletion, bu additionally every source in either PR, his own work, or a mere notice. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- promotional article, about a subject with questionable notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any source that would fulfill criteria of GNG for this name. Lorstaking (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sister 2 Sister (TV series)[edit]

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

Not a notable television program. Airs on a minor American TV network, and no independent references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recently created by an spa with likely coi. 4 refs - 2 primary, 2 weak. A panel talk show that airs in Pennsylvania only on a christian channel. Szzuk (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Maghnam[edit]

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

A non-notable political candidate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As of yet the article subject is a candidate, and thus fails WP:POLITICIAN. Her other positions are not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. If she wins her election then we can revisit the issue, but for now WP:TOOSOON holds.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As usual, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won yet: if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that they already cleared a notability standard for some other reason before they were candidates, then they have to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as politicians. Obviously the article can be recreated on or after election day if she wins, but nothing stated or sourced here entitles her to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero mentions at Google News. Must be an unpopular candidate. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The election campaign hasn't started yet. Coverage of candidates will obviously start occurring once the writ gets dropped, and still won't constitute a WP:GNG pass in and of itself for a candidate who wasn't already notable for other reasons — but its lack of existence as of today isn't evidence of a candidate's popularity or lack thereof, because the campaign kickoff is still a couple of months away. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a candidate is not grounds for notability. If what Bearcat says is true "the election campaign hasn't started yet", it is not even clear she will actually be a candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the fact that the election writ hasn't been dropped yet doesn't mean the parties aren't already selecting their candidates, and one of the primary sources here plainly verifies that she's been selected as a candidate. I was merely responding to the notion that her "popularity" as a candidate was relevant to whether this should be kept or deleted — being a candidate is not in and of itself grounds for an article regardless of "popularity" or lack thereof, but it's not a question of her status as a candidate being an unverifiable assumption. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Internet phenomena in Pakistan. J04n(talk page) 13:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhi Boli Qomi Boli[edit]

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

A social media hashtag with no claims of notability, and claims of non-notability ("6000 tweets"). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I saw this when it first arrived and would have speedied it if a suitable category had existed. I paused before considering XfD wondering whether a redirect to Sindhi language might be appropriate with perhaps a sentence added. On its own however, it has only very local notoriety and no notability. Fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velella (talk • contribs) 03:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would suggest that this article should be kept as it has gained a lot coverage in local media and on social media. If it's not being kept then this should be merged as a part in Sindhi language.--مھتاب احمد (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable enough, and an article with such title doesn't seem like an encyclopedia entry, so I would go with delete. M A A Z T A L K 12:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Internet phenomena in Pakistan. samee converse 17:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer Education Foundation[edit]

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

This is academic/nonprofit spam, with no sources but lots of spam links. Creating by promotional WP:SPA accounts that have done nothing but add industrial waste like this into our beautiful project. Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One link is to the WaybackMachine. The others do nothing to confer notability. Fails WP:ORG Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A link to the Wayback Machine should be evaluated on whether the original link was to a reliable source. In this case, the original link was to an article in the San Diego Union Tribune, a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source perhaps, but it dosn't make this subject notable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain, can you clarify: you are suggesting that the article should be kept because of one passing mention in a local newspaper (though actually I think that article may originally have come from the Chicago Tribune)? Where do you see significant coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail" and "is more than a trivial mention"? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment - the whole picture of which this page is a part is laid out at COIN here at "Academic promotion from Cornell Food and Brand Lab". Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Brian Wansink, whose dubious research results have surely made him amply notable. I've edited the page and removed a good deal of unreferenced content. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about just merging and redirecting as I did a few of the related articles, but there is no point to a redirect. This foundation is utterly un-notable and I doubt there would even be an article if not for people apparently from the lab creating it. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Brian Wansink. scope_creep (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One real source does not make something notable. Natureium (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of the two references is an interview with Brian Wansink in the San Diego Union Tribune. It's not a problem that it's via the WaybackMachine, but the interview mentions the article subject very much in passing; so much so that the interviewer states, "With characteristic modesty, he [Wansink] failed to mention that, in 1999, he founded the Wansink Consumer Education Foundation". That is the entire mention of the CE foundation: the interviewer making the point that the foundation was not mentioned during the interview. I don't have access to the other reference offered, an unlinked article from the Omaha World-Herald. If the paper's archives are not online (which seems likely from their website), perhaps the editor who added the reference could put a relevant quote in the footnote? But unless that's a lot better (source-wise) than the Tribune interview, I stand by my "Delete". No depth of coverage. Bishonen | talk 12:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smarter Lunchroom Movement[edit]

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

Blatant academic spam, mostly sourced to press releases and other SPS, created by aWP:SPA editor who has done nothing but dump garbage like this into our beautiful project. There could perhaps be an article on this, but this is industrial waste. Jytdog (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The last six references are from reliable sources. The topic seems notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be notable but it would have to be completely rewritten to not be an advertisement. Your removal of the speedy tag, cursory editing, and !vote here leave pollution in Wikipedia. Does "inclusionism" really mean including garbage? Does your vision of a national park include oozing barrels of industrial waste?

This is pure, disgusting hard selling by people promoting the "so-called "movement" -- "The movement has received coverage by major media outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, The Huffington Post and NPR[8][9][10] and has inspired changes at local, corporate and legislative levels."

The civil rights movement was a movement. The title, that sentence, and most of the rest, is putrid marketing dumped into Wikipedia. Disgusting. Jytdog (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

here are the "sources"

SPS spam "About | Smarter Lunchrooms Movement". www.smarterlunchrooms.org. Retrieved 2017-06-27.
SPS spam "Sponsors | Smarter Lunchrooms Movement". www.smarterlunchrooms.org. Retrieved 2017-06-27.
SPS spam "The Smarter Lunchrooms Scorecard | Smarter Lunchrooms Movement". www.smarterlunchrooms.org. Retrieved 2017-06-27.
SPS spam "Key Facts about the Smarter Lunchrooms Movement - eXtension". Retrieved 2017-06-27.
SPS spam "Smarter Mealtimes in Child Care | Smarter Lunchrooms Movement". www.smarterlunchrooms.org. Retrieved 2017-06-27.
SPS spam "Short Version Smarter Lunchrooms Annotated Bibliography of Non- Cornell Research" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
SPS spam "External Scholars Contributing to Smarter Lunchrooms Research" (PDF). April 2017. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
OKish, but see below Rubin, Bonnie Miller (2017-02-24). "How Schools Can Get Children to Eat Their Vegetables". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2017-06-27.
promotional blog about new book Svokos, Alexandra (2014-10-16). "The Sneaky Way To Get Kids To Eat Healthy School Lunches". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2017-06-27.
OKish, but see below "Fruit, Not Fries: Lunchroom Makeovers Nudge Kids Toward Better Choices". NPR.org. Retrieved 2017-06-27.
Forbes contributor - doesn't count toward N Forum, Forbes Leadership. "Why Big Food Belongs in the School Lunchroom". Forbes. Retrieved 2017-06-27.
local news 1st step "Lunchroom smart choices bill passes | Franklin Hamburg Lafayette NJ | Local News". www.advertisernewssouth.com. Retrieved 2017-06-27.
local news 2nd step "Assembly passes Smarter Lunchroom Act | Franklin Hamburg Lafayette NJ | Local News". www.advertisernewssouth.com. Retrieved 2017-06-27.

About the "see below" - the research hyped in the NPR and WSJ refs is from a lab that had six papers retracted and 13 or 14 corrections issued after the lab was found to be p hacking and otherwise skewing their data to generate papers, that they then excelled in hyping. See retraction watch here and this buzzfeed story.

So what are the putative great refs here to even try to build an article with, if somebody felt like carting out the industrial waste and trying to make an actual WP article here? Jytdog (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find susbstantial coverage of the program in RS, only brief mentions (I can't check the WSJ source admittedly). Combined with the COI issues, deleting is the only option. SmartSE (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an advertisement. Natureium (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ASU Undie Run[edit]

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

Local university thing, not for WP. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- "Local university thing" is a hitherto unheard-of criterion for deletion but, regardless, it must yield to the GNG. And this subject passes it easily. It's got sufficient national and regional coverage. Just see [8] and [9]. And maybe in the future nom will stick to already discovered criteria for deletion. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have almost always deleted articles on events such as these, using a relatively strict interpretation of the necessary sourcing. the sourcinghere is jsut that: the Huff Post is unreliable for notability, not bering underconsistent editorial control. Local newspapers alwaysreport colelge events, and are therefore indisriminate. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, as all sources on the article appear to be primary, Huffington Post isn't necessarily a proper source, and New Times source is hyper-local. SportingFlyer talk 22:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not notable, poor sourcing as mentioned above.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jef Friboulet[edit]

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

Nothing to establish WP:Artist. The references all link to a personal website via archive.org. The four results I could get out of google news were to auction offerings in a regional french newspaper [10] that only mention him in passing at best. Nothing in academic databases... Theredproject (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 00:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything substantial on him via google or news at all. There is a lot more detail on his french wp page but the refs there aren't searchable. He won some awards but there is too little detail for me to tell if they convey any notability. Szzuk (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "Halo 5: Guardians". Halopedia. Retrieved 2018-03-12.

[1] "Halo 5: Guardians". Halopedia. Retrieved 2018-03-12.

[1]