Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 March	20 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[[:]][edit]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merkules[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and spammy - new editor that would have been directed to Draft in ACTRIAL. Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are the subject's own website and from user-submitted wordpress pages and websites. No evidence of significant independent, third party recognition. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here satisfies WP:NMUSIC, the writing tone has an advertorial skew to it, and the sourcing is nowhere near solid enough to claim that he passes WP:GNG in lieu of failing NMUSIC. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The two third party publications are obscure, little-seen, written by local writers about the local scene. Not enough to satisfy WP:GNG, let alone NMUSIC. Binksternet (talk) 06:53, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Celebration Symphony Tour[edit]

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

Non-notable concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR that has been tagged as using one primary source, a fan site, for a year. Aspects (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The tour's existence can be mentioned briefly at Celtic Woman; set list and schedule are non-notable WP:FANCRUFT. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Martinp (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a place for advertising. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:32, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fontaine Jr.[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:FILMMAKER. Best known as an actor for playing Rafe Castillo on Santa Barbara for several months in the early 90s. Some other minor roles in TV and films. A few director credits for seemingly non-notable films. Also, the majority of the article's content was added by User:Industrialhousefilms, which is connected to the subject (the subject is its CEO and Director according to Bloomberg). Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 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. Consensus is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards to qualify for a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hikmat Nafi Shaukat[edit]

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

Once again, a BLP with serious concerns. Sourcing, at first glance looks okay-ish, but look again. Hikmat Nafi Shaukat appears in lists and groups, yet very little information--too little to access notability--is about him. I am afraid this is more of a coatrack for CIA torture than an actual encyclopedic article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure I see the BLP concerns here (it seems to pass V and DUE, one could argue on PERP and lack of conviction - but CIA black sites are a murky business). The subject isn't close to passing WP:SIGCOV - the sources in the article do not establish this, and a BEFORE does not find much more. Much of the content of the present article is a POVFORK/COATRACK on Black sites - with the article really being about Hikmat Nafi Shaukat's incarceration at a black site - which does not seem independently notable from Black site. I don't think there is anything here worth merging to Black Site.Icewhiz (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV despite the fact that he is one of a number of detainees discussed with relation to "black sites."E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total lack of GNG passing. At one point editors of Wikipedia tried to have articles on everyone detained at Guantanamo Bay, detained by the CIA, allegedly detained by the CIA, and related mass directory lists. We have since moved away from such uncontrolled mass inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of love stories[edit]

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

Too ~~vague, subjective and~~ indiscriminate a criterion. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Many of these list entries aren't even notable stories but subplots in other fictional works. Ajf773 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like WP:OR._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too indiscriminate: almost anything has some form of love story to a varying degree. --☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no real criteria as to what qualifies as a "love story" (like most of the listed examples are just subplots and are not the main focus of the story) and the list is way too indiscriminate anyways. 98.209.191.37 (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~IP editors cannot !vote at AfD. Please either get a user account and sign this post with it, or unbold your comment.~~ James500 (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course IPs are allowed to vote at AfD. Don't be an idiot. Reyk _YO! 17:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was sure we had a guideline against this because IP addresses change all the time because they are constantly reassigned but I have struck my comment as I suppose I could have misremembered. I apologise if I was mistaken. James500 (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A list like this is not indiscriminate if it is referenced properly. If an independent reliable source calls a story a love story, if it says "this story is a love story", then we have a perfectly valid grounds for including that story in a list like this. There was a lengthy community discussion about these sort of lists a while ago about lists like this, occasioned by the list of weird buildings, and there was strong consensus that a list like this was perfectly valid, provided that there was a reliable source that confirmed in express and unambiguous words that the entry belonged in the list. I think the discussion took place at the village pump, but I am not certain. I am speaking for site consensus here. James500 (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As pointed out by Ajf773, many of these are not love stories specifically, others are not fictional. This is too vague and indiscriminate to be workable. Reyk _YO! 17:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In theory, a notable list, narrowly tailored, could be created. Can it be saved? Bearian (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Difficult. I suppose you could make a list of legendary lovers, e.g. Romeo and Juliet, Robin and Marian, Adam and Eve, Tristan and Isolde/Iseult, Lancelot and Guinevere, Narcissus ... and himself? But there are way too many from real life (and everyday fiction), so where do you draw the line? I mean, you have all of recorded history to work with. Elizabeth and Robert Browning, no problem, Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton seems okay, as does Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. But what about Celine Dion and René Angélil? Ronald and Nancy Reagan? Or in my neck of the woods, Pierre and Margaret Trudeau? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asianisation[edit]

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

Article summary (copy and pasted from an internet dictionary) is completely unrelated to the body, which is a collection of quoted anti-Asian remarks from Australian and NZ politicians. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 21:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly defined topic in the article, and I can't see significant coverage of the term or idea in reliable sources. Adabow (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has been built up by using news articles and quotes. There isn't a single academic source to confirm that this is an accepted term in both historical and contemporary discourse. (101.160.137.188 (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Keep This phenomenon is real and can relate to many places in the world. Article should be improved by adding more demographic or culture statistics data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.65.9 (talk) 11:32, 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) 00:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jireykaabdheere[edit]

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

Another Somali "town" which doesn't actually exist. Source describes it as a "locality", a term which includes unpopulated places. No sign of any sort of building on satellite imagery and no reliable sources. Hut 8.5 21:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails V and eveyrthing else, Not There. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Blank space on map and no non-clickbait mentions. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 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) 00:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baarrooble[edit]

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

Another Somali "town" which doesn't actually exist. Source describes it as a "locality", a term which includes unpopulated places. No sign of any sort of building on satellite imagery and no reliable sources. Hut 8.5 21:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails V and eveyrthing else, Not There. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete There are some traces of possible human habitation in this case, but we can't verify that it was a town with this or any other name. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lynch (sportscaster)[edit]

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

Subject does not quality for inclusion on Wikipedia under GNG or JOURNALIST. He's merely one of many, many local US news/sport on-air talents. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 19:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Under nominator’s reasoning, all local anchors should be deleted, no matter how large the market and if they are the lead anchor in their department. Note this from article (goes to notability, in my opinion) “In 2012, the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association named Lynch Massachusetts Sportscaster of the Year. This was the sixteenth time Lynch received this award, more than any other sportscaster in the history of the award.[4][5]”MensanDeltiologist (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Massachusetts Sportscaster of the Year, not national. Also, these awards are a dime a dozen, and are often the result of corruption (not implying this is the case here, but it's not unheard of). Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete almost all local sports casters are non-notable. We need much better sourcing to show such. Dime a dozen state x person y of year award does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The SNG for TV news anchors is somewhat restrictive, and there's no way it's met here. I don't see enough coverage for GNG, either in the listed references or in a Google search. The Boston Magazine interview is better than nothing, but is local and a primary source. The Phillips Exeter alumni magazine and his paid-speaking profile are not better than nothing for meeting GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky (director)[edit]

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

A non-notable actor and director, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence that he played a major role in Touring Talkies. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:DIRECTOR and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:DIRECTOR. FITINDIA 02:09, 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 delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steg steganography software[edit]

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

The PROD placed by User:MER-C was contested with no explanation, but I agree with their rationale "Promotional article about unremarkable software." SmartSE (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 21:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with their rationale "Promotional article about unremarkable software.". The software is freeware and we have already other similar wikipedia articles of similar niche software that certainly are not famous to the general public and some of these does not have any scientific article in their references (Steg steganography software has one). Examples StegoShare, OpenPuff, StegFS, only to mention the software on the same topic that have an approved article on wikipedia. For consistency we should keep (or propose to delete) all of these articles. io.massimo.m 11:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Just because other bad articles exist that nobody has deleted yet, is not in itself reason to keep the article. Possibly a mention on a broader article such as Steganography tools would be possible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - uncourced therefore no evidence of notability. Searches yield nothing other than the expected download sites. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep searches yield nothing other than the expected download sites" does not convince me because it cannot be objective but subject to change due to search methods. Instead the comparison with similar, already accepted pages, is objective so for me the page is ok dexmac 12:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this meet WP:GNG notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a self-promotional page linking to itself. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 20:28, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn. Sources added, and the original PROD nominee is OK with withdrawal. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Collins (journalist)[edit]

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

I declined a PROD which gave a rationale of "Fails multiple sections of Wikipedia:Notability (people)." There are not enough references currently to meet GNG, and I haven't found any (though the name hinders searching), it's about this person. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't have time to do the source-hunting right now, so I cant check WP:GNG. However, Collins is one of Ireland's most senior political journalists. He has been at the top tier of the game for over 2 decades, having been political editor of no less than quality national newspapers, so he meets WP:JOURNALIST #1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BHG. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. I nominated it for deletion but it looks like its been added to since then. CamdenEric (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @CamdenEric: If you want to withdraw the nomination, you can do so because nobody has supported it. It will then be closed.
  But only if you do want to withdraw it. Your choice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl How do I do that? Just take it off the page? CamdenEric (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CamdenEric: just post a comment saying "withdrawn", bolded like a !vote. Someone else will do the close. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, hopefully did it right. CamdenEric (talk) 01:03, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh D. MacPhie[edit]

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

Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman and writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 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) 00:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Kgomotso Kupe[edit]

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. As for "Who's Who Southern Africa", it is just a CV-hosting site, as evidenced by "Managing Your Profile", the first section in the FAQs. Edwardx (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Edwardx (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Beyond the promo concerns - SIGCOV is lacking. The article itself (despite the seemingly many refs - they lead back to much fewer sources (duplicates), many of which are not secondary RS) does not establish SIGCOV. My BEFORE (in which "Pearl Kupe" seems the main search term) doesn't establish SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 08:55, 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 Redirect to Royce da 5'9". There have been many recent (Feb/March 2018) album/song AfDs in which the nominators were advised to save everyone's time with a bold redirect to the artist's page. User:Sergecross73 has convinced me that I should have done that myself instead of nominating the AfD. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Ryan[edit]

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

Album has been "coming soon" for at least two years. Recent user-generated chatter has the album being released in May 2018 but I can find no reliable sources for a true release date. WP:HAMMER and WP:TOOSOON apply. If the album is ever released, someone could easily create an article better than this one. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now. A number of reliable sources have reported on it, but they're mostly all echoing the same thing that an original source had said, which is basically that its the name of an upcoming album Royce da 5'9" is working on, and it's going to be a "personal" album. That's...it. It's a viable search term, and likely to be notable if/when he ever releases it considering popularity of his other work, but as is, it should really just be a sentence or two in Royce's own article. Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 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 as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Furthermore, Mr. Maxwell is a prolific best-selling author who more than passes WP:GNG requirements, which should cancel the article's inclusion for a deletion debate. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Maxwell[edit]

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

Had a look at the sources and did an online search. Not finding independent in-depth coverage about Maxwell or any of his books in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Edwardx (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep New York Times Best Selling Authors always seem to generate enough third party press to warrant an article and pass WP:GNG, especially those with multiple books on the list. As an example: Inc Magazine #1 in Top 50 Leadership and Management Experts; Omaha World Herald "Unlock the power of your potential with John C. Maxwell; leadership guru is Chamber's keynote"; Forbes "John Maxwell's: 5 Tips To Becoming A Better Entrepreneur And Leader"; Singapore Straits Times "Maxwell 'loses his marbles' and now lives with No Limits"; Forbes India "Celebrating leadership"; Northwest Indiana Times "OFFBEAT with PHIL POTEMPA: Reader reminds John C. Maxwell ranks as leader for speaking"; Rappler "John C. Maxwell: Grow Today, Grow Intentionally"

Wouldn't it be speedy keep, as no one else has weighed in yet? L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever works for you, but it still applies: "The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions from the start."--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AGF'ing that the nom simply failed at BEFORE, Maxwell's clearly notable; one need look no farther than the find sources template for plenty. Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 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) 00:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heather A. Ryan[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Has been a political candidate in two states, but never won an election. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable.Acnetj (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-winning candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that she was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason besides her candidacy, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to be deemed notable as a politician. But this claims nothing about her that would count as a valid claim of preexisting notability for other reasons. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for congress are non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails N ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:41, 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) 00:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Frerick[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Dropped out of the IA-03 primary without filing, and all refs are about his campaign. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being non-winning or withdrawn candidates in political party primaries — if you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he does not become notable as a politician until he wins the general election in November. But that's clearly not going to happen now, and even if he had stayed in the race and won the primary that still wouldn't have been enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a free posting service for campaign broucheres.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails N ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:42, 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 keep. There is a clear consensus to keep the material in some form. There is also clear consensus, at least amongst those that commented on it at all, that duplicating the data across articles is bad. However, there was no consensus as to whether this should be dealt with by converting the parent article into a list of lists, or converting the daughter articles into redirects, or some other refactoring. Only that some editorial action should be taken. SpinningSpark 13:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realised that the daughter articles are a clear violation of WP:CWW. If the pages are not redirected by someone, this will need to be corrected. SpinningSpark 13:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities by temperature in South America[edit]

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

Pretty much the definition of an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. The same applies to all articles in Category:Lists of cities by temperature. As far as I can tell there's no real selection criteria for what cities are included and which are excluded within the geographic area. Other than that, these just duplicate the climate information already available in the individual articles in a pile of unexplained weather statistics. GMG ^talk 18:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding. Apparently these were all spun off from a main article so may as well:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Also feel free to bundle every other list article in that category into this AfD as well. Ajf773 (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and NOTSTATS. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as blatant WP:NOTSTATS violations. The statement in the main article about actual temperatures is unsourced, OR, and possibly inaccurate. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Despite assertions above, it is not "indiscriminate" and does not violate NOTSTATS. The main one, which i am looking at, has nice sortable tables. This is the kind of very accessible, child-friendly traditional-type (but bigger and better) encyclopedia article. NOTSTATS states that "Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. " Here, the statistics are in tables, are very readable, and I don't see what needs to be explained. To the negative voters, are you confused by something that you don't understand? --Doncram (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of cities by temperature. Yes, it could do with some trimming so that it became a List of capitals by temperature to sit alongside other Lists of capitals articles, but as per Doncram, this is what you expect to find in an encyclopedia or atlas...Jokulhlaup (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be possible to formulate more precise criteria, e.g. population size above 1 million or only capitals. Climate data is a reasonable encyclopedic subject, generally unproblematic in most Wikipedia articles, and I'm not sure why this seems to attract such a vituperative reaction. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... Well at least the smaller articles are very near WP:A10, depending on whether you feel List of cities by temperature in CONTINENT is a valid redirect (and not an implausible misnomer)... to... an article by the exact same title only simpler, and therefore easier to search for in every possible way. GMG ^talk 12:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - interesting sheets. I do not see a reason to delete. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 00:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. WP:ILIKEIT. Ajf773 (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It needs a clearer inclusion criteria, but that's easy: just use the lists of largest cities we already have and/or a list of capital cities and/or the largest city in each country and/or any of a number of other easily articulated criteria. It's weird that the primary policy people are citing is WP:NOTSTATS. Yes, it is statistics, but NOTSTATS does not say "no statistics are allowed on Wikipedia". To the contrary, it just says they shouldn't be unexplained. They could use a real lead, but do you have difficulty understanding the statistics, which are nicely formatted in our handy template? NOTSTATS applies to this as much as it does any of our lists of cities by population, by geographic area, by elevation, lists of countries by ... you get the idea. It's a notable topic -- there are many sources listing countries by climate, internationally, nationally, and subnationally (I don't think this has been challenged, but if someone actually does a search for sources on which to base a notability reason for deletion, I'll link to some). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... Rhododendrites, you do realize that most of these are just sections split off from a main list right? I mean, I disagree, but I can see how someone could argue for inclusion of the main list... but I'm not totally sure why we should have the content duplicated twice at the very least. GMG ^talk 00:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I forgot something. Yes, certainly the forking is no good. Whether we keep the master list or the continent-based lists depends on the inclusion criteria set. Unless there's a good reason to do otherwise, I would suggest converting list of cities by temperature into lists of cities by temperature. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there do need to be some inclusion criteria established on a talk page. However, this is content I would expect to find in an almanac, so the various NOT arguments are not terribly convincing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer List of cities in South America by temperature as the name if kept, though unless this is re-listed we won't sort that out here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Habil Surkhay oglu Gurbanov[edit]

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

I'm not seeing WP:GNG coverage of this individual. It also looks like the article creator wrote the article. Marquardtika (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Marquardtika (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is on two other wikis. Obviously, the article creator wrote the article, but I don't think they were the original creator, at least not on az.wiki. I think they tried to translate the article into English and had a fair amount of trouble doing so. Because of that, the article needs a fair amount of work.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: do you think it meets GNG? If so, I'm willing to work on improving it. It just didn't look salvageable to me--almost hoax-like, since it said his father was Bill Gates--but it looks like you restored it to a better but still problematic version. Marquardtika (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marquardtika: Heh, the reason I restored an earlier version was to remove the Bill Gates nonsense. There was also something about the subject working as a "stripper" earlier in his life. That struck me as just a wee bit odd. :-) Honestly, I don't know if it meets GNG; I'd have to do a lot of work to figure that out, and it's rarely something I do. Also, I'm at a disadvantage because of the language issues. Sorry I can't be of more help.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this in AfD/medicine? Natureium (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was able to verify his tenure as a professor at Azərbaycan Milli Elmlər Akademiyası but unable to find independent secondary sources to determine GNG, or anything that passes PROF. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:56, 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 keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Titcoin[edit]

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

not notable, primary and unreliable sources Retimuko (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A brief look at the sources shows CNN, Vice, Playboy, Men's Health. These are not primary sources... Greenman (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at the CNN article? It has nothing to do with Titcoin. Retimuko (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - CNN text and video doesn't mention this topic, no. but... Widefox; talk 00:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's Vice, Playboy and others go into detail so seems at least a weak keep based on passing WP:GNG. Widefox; talk 00:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It has received SIGCOV in RS, though it is somewhat comical commentary rather than serious coverage of a legitimate cryptocurrency. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Bustle, Vice, Cosmopolitan, The Daily Dot, Men's Health and Playboy provide significant coverage. An article instead on Cryptocurrencies in the adult entertainment industry would suffice, but Titcoin seems to easily be the one with the most coverage. The fact that the coverage is designed to be comedic does not negate the notability of the topic, nor does the distastefulness of the subject. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 00:59, 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. SpinningSpark 13:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen G. Bassett[edit]

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

This is a non-notable WP:FRINGEBLP. While the subject of UFO_conspiracy_theory#Disclosure is a valid one for inclusion of Wikipedia, for a biography, we need an assertion of independent notability of the person, not just WP:SENSATIONalized quotes and appearances in agenda-driven documentaries. Awards from WP:FRINGE organizations do not count either. Recognition for WP:MAINSTREAM outlets independent of the "News of the Weird"-type stories currently propping up the biography are necessary to properly couch a biography as WP:NPOV. jps (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Meets GNG on the basis of the sources in the article already. Also, the nom doesn't give a valid reason for deletion. Their claim that "we need an assertion of independent notability of the person" has no basis in policy. Anyway, look at profile in the NY Observer, profile in the Washington Times, profile in Mother Jones, Washington Post 1, and Washington Post 2. This is a ridiculously untenable nomination. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument is simply that the guy is not notable. Discounting the notoriously unreliable and agenda-pushing NY Observer and Washington Times, the "profiles" as such are not biographical profiles of Bassett. They are WP:SENSATIONal news stories about UFO nonsense. Clickbait. jps (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're claiming that the NY Observer and the Washington Times are not reliable sources? Just flat out? That's silly. You need to take it to RSN if you want to make such a broad claim. Furthermore, you can't just dismiss two Washington Post articles and a Mother Jones article as sensationalist clickbait. It's ridiculous. No matter what nonsense you care to believe about the other sources, the two WaPo articles are enough to pass the GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - They're agenda-driven news sources that slant their choices of stories and editorialize their copy to serve a right wing political POV. The narrative that Podesta was a crazed maniac was appearing in both of these publications as of the election last year and it is why these profiles got play. Nothing at all by which to write a WP:BLP1E about. jps (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Washington Post is an "agenda-driven news source"? Good luck with that theory at RSN. And to claim this is BLP1E is kooky. What's the one event? The guy is being profiled in the WaPo and you're trying to dismiss that? Sheesh. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SENSATION. jps (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DICK. jps (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP:PLEASEDONT. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

jps losing an argument on the merits, accuse me of socking. Make your momma proud. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are a little too cocky for your own good. I know who you are, and it is clear that your reading comprehension is not up to the level you might need to do well in college. Be careful. jps (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahahah! You're making that up. I'm not anyone you think I am, because I'm not socking or evading. It's just an AfD, friend. No need to go off the deep end just because your arguments are unconvincing. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm happy to have a conversation about what WP:FRINGEBLPs deserve including on Wikipedia, but if you cannot be bothered to learn the rules associated with these types of articles, it brings to mind WP:CIR. And when you have a static IP like you do, it doesn't take much to look to see who you are. jps (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Even taking into account that there are thousands of people at any given time with access to this network, not to mention the open wifi in the library? You might have some fringe powers yourself. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up, why not? It helps make train the natural language processor, certainly. jps (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: please explain, I don't fully understand exactly what part of WP:FRINGEBLP overrides WP:GNG. I also don't know where the natural language processor fits in, or exactly how you could figure out who 192.160.216.52, I already ran a trace and could only narrow it down to ~15 people. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGEBLP only asks us to consider carefully what sources we use to confer notability. In particular, avoiding news of the weird sources and sources published by fringe outfits. My argument is that we have WP:SENSATIONalist sources from the mainstream media and fringe sources as the only possible sources for the article. As to questions of identity, don't worry too much about this. I just don't like it when people are evasive like this (you can try to narrow down the search further with some scripts that I will let you discover for yourself). This is incidental to the discussion at hand. jps (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the temptation of being a script kiddie! I see what you are saying, but at the same time practically every piece of 'news' that is ever published is sensationalist to some extent, I just can't see why that discounts the use of these media sources, which ought to be enough coverage, if they can be used. I understand that fringe sources themselves are unreliable, but I don't think the notability argument here rests on those sources. The Guardian for example is regarded as one of the UK's more independent and reliable newspapers, it's not a tabloid bogpaper like the Sun or the Daily Mail and therefore not known for sensationalism. I Think the NYT article gives some context, basically this person is notable for being a lobbyist, the fact he is a crazy UFO spotting conspiracy nut lobbyist is interesting, and itself arguably sensationalist, but well covered in reliable media sources. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the issue: UFOs, as a topic, are properly discussed in the context of evaluating evidence, pseudoscience, and occasionally as a psycho-social phenomenon. The articles that people are hoping to use as evidence of notability for this person do not even begin to treat the subject in the appropriate way because they are tuned towards the titillation that is the idea of a lobbyist working on behalf of a wild conspiracy theory. Biographies of living people need to be carefully considered before we delve into them, and when the person in question is claimed to be notable for the fringe-promotion, we look to the relevant epistemic communities to see whether they have had to sit up and take notice. As far as I know, neither NASA, the US Government, nor any scientist has bothered to even entertain this person's ravings. So, where does that leave us? Incapable of writing a truly WP:NPOV article on the subject. We do the reader a disservice if we include the breathless reporting done by third-string political journalists writing self-interest stories on weirdos. Since Bassett does not feature as a prominent figure in the normal evaluations of personalities within UFOlogy as discussed by the WP:MAINSTREAM organizations that delve into them (say, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, we're left with our hands tied trying to write a neutral biography on this subject. That's why we have these rules. It is preferable to delete articles that don't have the sources from the mainstream that can make an evaluation of the topics. jps (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fringe or no, this was one of the first and most relevant crazy UFO spotting conspiracy nut lobbyists in the US. (as opposed to an amatuer crazy UFO spotting conspiracy nut, which is what came before), He has featured in 14 documentary films about crazy UFO stuff, been substantially featured in national news. He has also setup highly dubious associations and a Political Action Committee to drive some kind of crazy UFO spotting conspiracy into politics, which is fascinating, and therefore widely reported. This clearly meets WP:GNG, and I will point out that WP:FRINGEBLP specifically says: "There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs". If this guy was not a crazy UFO spotting conspiracy nut he would not be notable, but he is, and he is. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You know of a WP:FRIND source on the guy? jps (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~A what? Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was actually going to !vote to keep it, but then I saw WP:NFRINGE in one of jps's comments and read it. It matches with my impression of the nominally reliable sources used in this article as what I would generally call "filler" news stories. They only cover this subject because he's unusual, not because he's ever done anything noteworthy. So with that in mind, I'm not seeing anywhere near the coverage I would expect for a notable person. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The notability of the subject is marginal, while the article, in its current state, in 100% promo 'cruft, which also happens to be in part self-cited and to advocate for a fringe topic. Sample content:

Between 2004 and 2010 Paradigm Research Group produced six X-Conferences (Exopolitics Conferences) in the Washington, DC metro area. The first five were held at the Hilton Hotel in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The sixth conference was held at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.^[1]

References

^ Bassett, Stephen. "Executive Director". X-Conference. Paradigm Research Group. Retrieved April 14, 2017.

I don't see anyone rewriting this page, so deletion is the right course of action here, per WP:PROMO / WP:FRINGE. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am not against TNT. I also think the article is rather badly written. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Prince of Thieves: are you changing you !vote to "delete" then? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Thieves, ජපස, 192.160.216.52, BLP applies at AfD as it does everywhere; it should be possible to discuss a subject without insulting them. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My first reaction on seeing that it had WaPo, MotherJones, and Politico as sources was "Keep". Then I read the sources (completely) and began to understand other editors concerns. Every source chooses a "wow, you won't believe this" sensationalist angle for the story. We have no in depth analysis, response, or critique of the subject, his work, or his role outside of what is essentially one event ("America's First ET Lobbyist!"). How could we write a full, balanced and objective biography based on that? A majority of sentences in the resulting pseudo-biography would have to begin with "Basset claims...". Yes, we should have articles on notable people who are notable for fringe beliefs. But we need sources that demonstrate the subject has lasting impact rather than being examples of high quality clickbait. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: the Washington Post and New York Observer articles provide substantial coverage. But ජපස's argument compels me to discount Mother Jones as "news of the weird", and to reduce the value of the WP and NYO sources. Overall, this is not enough to establish notability. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just glancing and it all looks ok, after reading it becomes a nn fringe individual with ref bombing by a likely coi editor. Szzuk (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:NFRINGE: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers." True, basset is a person, not a theory, but he's fringe, a crank, advocate of nonsense. There is a full profile in the Washington Post, a long, INDEPTH interview with details of his bio and extra-terrestrial activism: UFO truthers want to make Roswell an issue for 2016. Meet their lobbyist. then there is a full profile in Mother Jones, an edgier take than the Post: [ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/stephen-bassett-ufo-lobbyist-congress-aliens/ This Is What It’s Like to Be the Only Man in Washington Lobbying for UFOs], and several more in similarly reputable publications. There is simply too much coverage of this crank and his career to justify deleting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:39, 27 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, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Blood[edit]

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

Album did not chart. There is a review [1] and minor articles by hip-hop specialist websites/blogs [2] [3] but to me this isn't enough for WP:NALBUMS. In addition, the artist himself is not notable in his own right, having had numerous articles on him redirected to his band [4] Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a rather unusual case because the album did get reliably reviewed a couple of times, but the artist has been deemed unqualified for his own WP article. So by extension the album should not have its own article. The album could be mentioned briefly at D12 or their discography article. (Also note that "Album did not chart" is not an appropriate rationale for deletion, but otherwise the nominator is correct on notability.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:31, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of self[edit]

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

A topic outline. This was speedily deleted but Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 March 4 decided that AfD should discuss this article's inclusion. This is an administrative nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 14:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs. There is a whole outline wikiproject which i'm struggling to understand, isn't the outline of a subject the regular articles lead section? Szzuk (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – @Szzuk: "Outline of" in an article's title is short for "Hierarchical outline of", because the latter would just be horrendously long to include in titles. So, we use its short form, which is the common term used throughout academia and by other encyclopedias (including Worldbook, Britannica, etc.). Hierarchical outlines are a form of tree structure, a type of visual layout. They include sentence outlines, like the type most students learn to plan the structure of a paper, article, or book; and topic outlines, like the synopses professors hand out to their classes at the beginning of the school semester, or the subject outlines included in the 15th-edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia outlines started out as purely topic outlines, but are evolving into a hybrid of the two forms, becoming annotated outlines, with the most developed ones being a list of topics with each topic including an annotation. Annotated lists are covered and encouraged in WP:STAND. — The Transhumanist
Keep -- The fact that there's an outline wikiproject and there are dozens of these outline articles, many more than ten years old, suggests that there's a consensus that they're notable, probably if the subject being outlined is notable. Self is clearly notable, so probably the question of whether this outline is notable is actually a policy question, and should not be settled at AfD, but through some other process, maybe RfC or something? See WP:OUTLINE for a description of the presumptive notability. Note that I'm aware that DR sent it back here, but I think that was a mistake. They ought to have overturned the speedy and suggested an RfC. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – outlines are a type of list, and are covered by the WP:LIST and WP:STAND guidelines, and further explained by WP:Outlines...

There are over 900 outlines (740 outlines with the title "Outline of x", and over a 160 more outlines with the title "List of x topics". To see a list of all of the latter, view this page with SearchSuite.js with details turned off.)...

Outlines date back to the very beginning of Wikipedia. Back then, both outlines and indexes were titled "List of x topics", or even "List of basic x topics". The problem was that 2 very different formats shared the same title naming standard. So they clashed: how could you name a structured list as the "List of geology topics" when there was already an alphabetical index using that title? So, new naming conventions were created, so you could have both an Outline of geology and an Index of geology articles. — The Transhumanist 02:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outline articles in general are fine, but this one seems problematic to me because of the nebulous and extremely broad inclusion criteria. This includes every topic which relates to individual people, including vast swathes of philosophy, psychology, economics, ethics and many other disciplines. I don't think the result is very useful. Hut 8.5 18:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, the result looks like crap, but WP:DINC. Self is notable and complex, so Outline of self must be also. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is something which can be addressed through editing, given the extremely high level and abstract nature of the article topic I strongly suspect that any other attempt to have an article at this title is going to run into similar problems. The logic that "X is encyclopedic, therefore Outline of X must be as well" doesn't work. The fact we have an article on Entity isn't en excuse to write Outline of entities listing every single kind of entity. See also WP:NOTINHERITED. Hut 8.5 19:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But, Wikipedia has an entire list system dedicated to listing every single kind of entity. Those can be considered to be part of one huge gigantic multi-part list of entities. See the top-level lists at Portal:Contents/Lists and List of lists of lists. With an outline of such general scope, such as the Outline of knowledge (which can be interpreted as the "Outline of all topics"), the scope of which is all knowledge (which is even bigger than the scope of all entities)... such an outline is possible because of WP:SPLIT, through which we branch it out to other outlines or lists (lists are branches of outlines too). Self, by comparison, has a much narrower scope, and would be much easier to build than the broader subjects of geography, culture, science, technology, and so on. But we have outlines for each of those hugely broad subjects...

If the encyclopedia has an article on the subject, then the corresponding outline is likely entirely fixable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of relationships, for which the article was improved from a very shoddy vague state. — The Transhumanist 02:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a high level article though. The vast majority of the entries are things like Self-esteem, Temperament or Equanimity, which are low-level concepts and don't really subdivide any further. The idea of "self" relates to little bits of many different disciplines, which means the articles listed are going to have to be fairly low level as the high level ones won't necessarily relate to the subject matter. Self-esteem is part of psychology, for instance, but you couldn't include psychology in the list because much of it doesn't relate to "self". By contrast it is a lot easier to build an outline of "science" or "philosophy" because those are conventional academic disciplines with well-understood subdivisions. Hut 8.5 18:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring of the outline is underway. Now, psychology is included in the list, as Psychology of self, which narrows it down in context to the scope of the current topic.

You mentioned that science and philosophy would be easier to build outlines for, but I started both of them and did extensive work on both over the years, and I can tell you they weren't any easier to build (I also started Outline of self). You can't get more abstract than "philosophy", and the foundations of science are about as abstract as you can get, while the overall technicality of the subject and its specialties adds further difficulty. But, how hard an outline might be to build is irrelevant: we don't shy away from a topic just because it is hard.

By the way, Outline of self is a very high level article. You are right, it is an extremely broad subject. Here is the top tier of Wikipedia's content organization system, by which all of its major navigation subsystems are organized (where they are displayed at the top in the table of contents for each), including Portal:Contents/Outlines:

As you can see, "self" is included in WP's top-tier of classifications. Not having an outline of self would be a major oversight and would create a glaring gap in the outline system. — The Transhumanist 11:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a terribly good categorisation, even if it is the one the portal uses. If you want to improve it then I suggest you come up with some sort of objective inclusion criterion for the page, ideally something which can at least in principle be checked against reliable sources. Otherwise the contents of the page comes down to the whim of whoever wrote it and you end up with a mess that isn't very useful. The portal dodges this by restricting itself to articles with "self" in the title, which works there but probably won't generalise to an entire article. By contrast philosophy is a conventional academic discipline and as such it has various schools and sub-fields, I wasn't terribly surprised to see that Outline of philosophy mostly just lists the most prominent of these and there must be secondary sources which give an overall outline of the field. Hut 8.5 19:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination does not provide a deletion reason and the speedy was WP:A11 which was rightly dismissed as inappropriate. So, there's no case to answer. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to portal namespace~~. I'm deliberately not bolding that because it is controversial so maybe an AfC for outlines in general is in order. See Portal talk:Contents/Outlines#namespace discipline for instance and the discussion around the failed proposal Wikipedia talk:Move navigational lists to portal namespace. Outlines are an alternative navigation method to categories, lists, or navboxes. They are accessed through Portal:Contents with the top level page being at Portal:Contents/Outlines. Thus, to my mind, the outline pages should be in the Portal namespace. At least where there is a main article of the same name, to have an outline as well in mainspace is a content fork. I would expect the mainspace article and the outline to have a great deal of commonality of links. The fact that they don't says to me there is something badly wrong with one or both pages, but that is a cleanup issue, not AfD. There does seem to be some awfully big holes in the outline system though. Outline of self is found listed at Portal:Contents/Outlines § People and self under "Types of people". There is only one other entry: Outline of children. I'm pretty sure those are not the only types of people! SpinningSpark 19:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Note that all the major page-based navigation systems have a top-level page in Portal:Contents, including Lists, and Categories. But, Categories also has its own top-level pages in its home namespace. Lists, Outlines, and Indices each have a top-level page in portal space, category space, and in article space (where they reside). The home namespace of all lists (of all types) is the article/main namespace. The topmost list is List of lists of lists, and the Outlines' topmost level outline -- the system's true top page (that is, which is actually part of the outline system) -- is the Outline of knowledge...

Concerning holes in the outline system, see WP:IMPATIENT. The outline system is a work-in-progress, just like Wikipedia is. The religion section of the outline system was empty for years, constituting a major gap, until the Religion WikiProjects had a frenzy of friendly competitiveness after the Outline of Islam was posted. :) Now we have some very extensive outlines on religion. Gaps are more likely to be filled the more exposure the system has. Front and center, in the encyclopedia itself, is the best place for it. After all, it is not just navigational, it is topical as well, falling under the WP:LIST and WP:STAND guidelines.

One thing that is not immediately obvious, is that regular lists have been merged into and split from outlines many times. Outlines are the most versatile type of list, and they are by their very nature comprised of smaller lists, both structured (smaller outlines) and straight lists (regular lists). Because of this, outlines contain thousands of lists, link to thousands more, and many hundreds of "List of" redirects point to outline sections. Moving outlines to another namespace would create thousands of cross-namespace links (on both sides), and would estrange many "regular" lists from their home namespace, where they originated before being merged into outlines. Since all lists together comprise the list-based navigation system, breaking it apart across namespaces would be highly disruptive. "Outline of" and "Index of" articles used to be named "List of", but were changed due to overlapping scope with each other—they are still the same lists they used to be. — The Transhumanist 03:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Transhumanist has convinced me that this is the way that outlines are done on Wikipedia so I have struck my original !vote. I'm still not entirely convinced that navigation pages should be in mainspace but an AfD is not the place to change that. SpinningSpark 08:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-WP is not a place to post your sociology essay. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – this is a bonafide outline, a type of list and Stand-alone list. Outlines form one of Wikipedia's navigation systems, and along with regular lists and indices with which they are highly integrated, comprise an even more extensive navigation system. Outlines are the top of the list system, for every major subject, because they link to the other outlines and regular lists for their respective subjects. So outlines aren't just "the outline-based navigation system", they form the core of the "list-based navigation system".

Note that list types in titles are not part of the subject, they simply indicate the format. So List of sharks is not about a list, nor is it about shark lists, it is a list of sharks. The same with WP's glossary of philosophy. It is a glossary, it is not about some glossary. And so it goes with all the other list types, such as outlines, indexes, and timelines.

So, the subject of this article is "self", and its format is outline format. Self has its own article, which establishes the notability of the subject.

The question then becomes, why have an outline on the subject? Outlines on Wikipedia have two main purposes: 1) show the structure of a subject (what topics belong to the subject, and which topics fall under each other) in a form (as a list) that is easy to understand: the tree structure, and 2) provide a navigation tree of Wikipedia's coverage of that subject, like a table of contents. Concerning the latter, in the spirit of its navigation role, the question the outline tries to answer is "what does Wikipedia have pertaining to the subject of self?". And it does a pretty good job of answering that question and presenting the answer in an easy-to-grasp tree structure to assist the reader in deciding what they want to read about next. — The Transhumanist 03:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement of outline underway – overhaul begun. — The Transhumanist 03:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a reasonable outline, and there is no indication that any deficiencies cannot be improved by regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the list is about a significant area of philosophy, also intersecting with psychology, religion etc. as the article mentions. I think the "Other personal concepts" and "Individual rights" sections are off-topic and need to be cut, but the list overall should stay. On a side note, the article's placement under "People and self" in Portal:Contents/Outlines seems very dubious to me – I think the section should be renamed "People" and the outline should be listed under "Philosophy and thinking". — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "delete" arguments seem to be merely disputes about the content of the outline, not the value or notability of the outline itself (and it certainly isn't a "sociology essay"). This is kind of a "contents" page, and I recognize its value as such. Whether it can be restructured to be more helpful is a different question. I'm disappointed that editors want to delete this, as the outline enhances the value of WP. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:46, 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) 02:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan McBride[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth and non-trivial support created by COI. Verges on WP:ADVERT. reddogsix (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a fairly clear conflict of interest here — if the subject didn't create it himself, then a personal friend of his certainly did (the giveaway being that nobody without a conflict of interest ever thinks they need to upload six different photos to illustrate a stub.) There's simply no strong claim of encyclopedic notability here, and no very strong reliable source coverage to carry it — apart from a single local news story, the "referencing" here is otherwise almost entirely to primary sources and blogs. The only thing in the external linkfarm that looks like a potentially strong source in theory, Teen Vogue, turns out to be a very general analysis of the general phenomenon of teen LGBTQ activism, entirely failing to single McBride out for even a mention of his name. So it does absolutely nothing to help. I wish him well, but we don't exist as a venue for honouring unsung people who do good work — we have specific notability and sourceability standards that have to be attained before an article becomes earned, and none of this (neither the substance nor the sourcing) reaches the necessary targets. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Linkfarm issue can be resolved by deleting most egregious links. To borrow a legal term, since McBride has the potential of notability later in his career, I would like it to be without prejudice if article is recreated later on if he is wiki worthy. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion today does not prevent the article from being recreated in the future if and when he attains something that passes our notability criteria. So no, we don't keep an article today just because of what might become true in the future — if he doesn't already have enough notability to qualify for an article today, then we delete the article today, and if and when his notability changes it can be recreated. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PROMO for a non-notable political activist, my searches show that it is far WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails both WP:ANYBIO & WP:PROMO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 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. J04n(talk page) 14:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signature weapon[edit]

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

It has been quite a while since this article was nominated for deletion and none of the editors that voted to move this article and modify into a list article have followed through. It remains unsourced fancruft WP:SYNTH and WP:OR unsuitable for an article, and considering the vast majority of notable weapons are also signature weapons, it seems superfluous to the other lists of fictional weapons if they were pared down to only the notable ones. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't see any list, it seems to me to be a perfectly valid stub article giving notable examples of signature weapons. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is purely original work. Commendable, perhaps, yes, but also to be deleted. Where are the sources that make the subject "signature weapon" worthy of a Wikipedia article? Every phrase or term that we use in everyday language does not merit an article. This is appropriate for a dictionary; not an encyclopaedia. -The Gnome (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete I see that the "list" was no sooner moved per the last AfD than it was moved back (since it was never converted to a list). Really, this is severe fancruft: is there any armed character in history who does NOT have a weapon of choice? I'm sure we can find lots of people talking about how some character's weapons signifies something about them, but in a general article that's simply a second sentence. As it stands, this is an inferior entry in TVTropes. Mangoe (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar? Joan of Arc? Edward Teach, Gilgamesh? George Washington? Audie Murphy?--Froglich (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be about giving examples of signature weapons - that's trivia and WP:SYNTH. The discussion is whether the CONCEPT of a "signature weapon" is at all encyclopedic, or merely a WP:DICDEF. It doesn't seem like it is. Even the people who have had signature weapons, are mainly recognized by their names and actions and not their weapons, which remain essentially trivia. It's mostly in fantasy universes where people have powerful magical weapons where it becomes relevant._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Fantasy universes" and what happens in them are not taboo subjects at Wikipedia, and your use of the word "mostly" concedes that there are real-world examples. But these are distractions, as it comes down to RS, and the article has a sufficient amount.--Froglich (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T~~here are numerous real world examples of signature weapons. Even more if you think people like King Arthur and Robin Hood were real. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete For no other reason than that I want to see this miserably declining tragedy of the commons project hollow itself out as quickly as possible by deleting any and all things of tangential interest until only reliable-dinosaur-press-vetted political propaganda articles remains. So: Delete it! Hurry up! Kill them all....--31.220.44.228 (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC) ~~non-constructive comment struck. IP's only other edit was blatant vandalism. As sarcastic as the comment is, I feel it qualifies likewise. Prince of Thieves (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article presently meets the minimally required amount of sources. (I should point out to the AFD submitter that his own obscure articles are on equally thin ground, if not more so given that only industry trade press appears to be talking about that game level, as opposed to signature weapon being in common enough usage that some dozen or more articles here presently link to its page.--Froglich (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is off topic and getting more off topic

- Let me remind you that this is a ad hominem attack - such things are not allowed on Wikipedia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it's not. You weren't even the subject.--Froglich (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - He means ... the AFD submitter that his own obscure articles are on equally thin ground, if not more so ..., ad hominem's are generally making derogatory reference or veiled implied threats to another editor or their creations rather than objectively looking at the article in this AfD. -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Pointing out an equivalence is not an ad hominem attack. In any event, dwelling on the second sentence of my !vote commentary isn't grounds to overlook the first.--Froglich (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Um, that's the definition of an ad hominem attack. Ignoring the fact that the articles I made are mostly referenced from reliable sources while this one has no suitable sources (two are WP:GAMEGUIDE, the other is about Robin Hood specifically rather than the concept of a signature weapon), any kind of "well you edited/made an article that's worse!" is going past the debate and attacking directly an editor, since that article otherwise has nothing to do with the debate._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Examine this chart. -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]~~
— Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out exactly where I have "attacked" your personal characteristics or authority, or retract your accusation. --At no point have you been the subject during this conversation; however, your continued pressing of the matter is calling WP:COMPETENCE into question, and I note on your TP that you have recently had two "speedy" deletion attempts and one AdD overridden (items 36, 39, and 46 regarding Walden, AC6, and Tower of Latria), and am beginning to suspect that you just like trying to delete things regardless of their presumed lack of merit.--Froglich (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I !voted keep (obviously the article is valid) and still think you should avoid comments like the one I pointed out above. Making reference to the nominator own article as if to say "why are you doing this, your articles are worse", is subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. This is defined as ad hominem (which has a broad definition), and is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. I am happy to explain further on my talk page if you like, but I will hat this now.Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough sources outside the gaming/entertainment community to satisfy GNG, e.g. The Washington Post "Signature Weapons of War", The Telegraph "Orlando gunman used AR-15 assault rifle to kill his victims - the weapon of choice for mass shooters", Wired "$265 Bomb, $300 Billion War: The Economics of the 9/11 Era'S Signature Weapon". Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Pure WP:SYNTH - articles feature obviously different definitions of "signature weapon", the only thing they have in common is the definition of signature to mean distinctive. The encyclopedia article is obviously trying to be about the concept of signature weapons as used by individual people. I don't think the idea of mass shooters using signature weapons is notable enough for an article either though, nor is the idea of nations using them. This is because they never intended said weapons to be "signature", they were simply labeled that by the author of the piece._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those both fit my idea of a signature weapon, which is a weapon closely associated with a person or character. Eg. Judge Dredd is always depicted with a Lawgiver. Robin Hood generally with a Longbow. Thor with his lightning-hammer Mjölnir (all viking age weapons were named, the value of a sword being greater almost anything else). Odin's spear is Gungnir, etc etc, there are hundreds of examples all of which can be reliably sourced. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. there seems to be some question about what should be included, but that's a question for the talk page. If there are overlapping meanings, we can sort them out in the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lalit Mohan[edit]

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

WP:BLP fail Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 18:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:21, 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. No WP:RS. There was no discussion of the proposed redirect, so I'm not going to include that in the consensus, but somebody else can be WP:BOLD and create it if they want. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Building (Brian Larsen album)[edit]

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

Am I missing something here? YouTube and Twitter are nowhere near suitable for assessing GNG, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing else. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I ran a couple of news searches and came up empty; page gives no indication of notability beyond the fact that artist is bluelinked. appears to have been created as PROMO shortly before album came out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a few sources related to the album and am happy to continue contributing to the page, but believe it is worth keeping. Will blue link the album via the crew's respective wiki pages as well. The album itself has notable contributors, so A9 does not apply. Mix Tape Queen (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You added a source that goes to a "Page not found" page, and an interview--a primary source. That in no way, shape or form satisfies notability requirements.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slick, just fyi, interviews in WP:RS do support notability; there's a world of difference between an interview or Q&A conducted by a journalist and published in Vanity Fair or the Chicago Tribune, and the sort of "interview" just used to "source" this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well E.M.Gregory this interview has a three-sentence intro and a brief Q&A. An interview is a primary source, no matter who publishes it. My (and Wikipedia's) standards for a quality source are a bit higher than that. But you won't find me sighing about it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mix Tape Queen, I urge you to familiarize yourself WP:RS. The "sources" you added (youtube, non-notable blogs) are not reliable. The page now has 5 "references", none of which is a RS. Notable contributors do not make an album notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be an insufficient amount of coverage from independent sources on this album, citing WP:NOTE. Not much else worth saying that hasn't already been said. Waterco4 (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brian Larsen, agree with the delete !votes above that this is not notable. J04n(talk page) 12:27, 27 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 Grande Prairie. J04n(talk page) 14:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swan City Trailer Court, Alberta[edit]

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

Also inluding:

This nomination includes three trailer parks located within the City of Grande Prairie, Alberta, Canada. They are, or were, listed as designated places by Statistics Canada for census purposes; however, I'm not convinced that this alone makes them notable. All three trailer parks exist within City limits and are not, as described, "unincorporated communities" - they're just developments within the City for which Statcan measures the population. I don't think any of them could pass GNG outside of the population count. According to MOS:CA, "A neighbourhood or community within an incorporated municipality, however, should only have an article independent of its parent municipality when an article can be written that meets the core content policies and guidelines." Madg2011 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Background: Eldoes and Swan City were still StatCan designated places (DPLs) as of the Canada 2016 Census despite being annexed by the City of Grande Prairie from the County of Grande Prairie No. 1 on January 1, 2016. T&E was a DPL in 2006 despite being annexed on January 1, 2001. It was retired as a DPL by StatCan for the 2011 census. All three were unincorporated communities within a rural municipality before annexation into an urban municipality. I will be back with more a little later, with my rationale for opposition. Hwy43 (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the outcomes of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various Alberta place stubs, the 110 places proposed for deletion in 2010, and the other one or two-place Alberta unincorporated community AfDs discussed in the years that followed. All three are recognized as localities by StatCan (T&E, Eldoes, and Swan City), which was a key argument for those that survived the various place stubs AfD mentioned above. Just because these unincorporated communities are now within an urban municipality doesn't make them any different than any other unincorporated community remaining in rural municipalities that have persisted as articles over the years. Further, every DPL in Alberta has an article (see also Category:Designated places in Alberta). Deletion of these three without concurrent consideration of dozens of other DPLs, including five other trailer park/court DPL articles, is premature. A more fulsome discussion would be required. Hwy43 (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback Hwy43. I know you're an experienced editor in this space so I will consider accordingly. Madg2011 (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hwy43, would you describe past consensus as, "a designated place is inherently notable, regardless of population, municipal status, or GNG?" If all it takes to make a place notable is that Statcan recognition, then these clearly qualify - but that seems like an unusual variable to prioritize. The only thing that makes these three trailer parks different from any neighbourhood, development, apartment building, or other trailer park (there are at least two more) in Grande Prairie is that Statcan publishes/published census data for them.
I think the current practice works well in rural municipalities. There, a DPL is likely to be a notable settlement or local population centre. But within City limits I feel that the logic breaks down. Madg2011 (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, Wikipedia used to have a consensus that all named geographic locations were always inherently notable, so that as long as their existence could actually be verified we had to keep an article regardless of whether or not it was possible to reliably source any actual substance about it beyond stating that it exists. But that's not the state of WP:GEOLAND anymore; it's since been tightened up to differentiate between "legally recognized" populated places, which are still presumed notable, and "not legally recognized" populated places, which are not. Basically, that means a city always gets an article, while a neighbourhood or subdivision or trailer park within the city only gets its own spinoff article if one can be sufficiently referenced to clear WP:GNG. So you're pretty much on the ball about what GEOLAND actually says, and Hwy43 isn't. In the context of the "various Alberta place stubs" discussion that Hwy43 raised above, these three are equivalent in nature and status to "the 12" that did get deleted, not to any of the ones that survived. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Grande Prairie. StatsCan census profiles, as valuable as they are as sources for demographic data, are not sufficient sourcing in and of themselves to get a community over WP:GEOLAND if there's really nothing else we can say or reliably source about them besides the demographic statistics alone. If these were unincorporated communities outside of any municipal entity, then obviously we'd have to keep them as there'd be no viable redirect target — but if they're within a city, then they really don't each need their own standalone permastub. Redirecting them to the city's article and adding brief mentions of them there, the same as we would do for any other insufficiently sourceable article about a city neighbourhood, is all we really need. Bearcat (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grande Prairie. Non-notable trailer parks. PhilKnight (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yemi Adenuga[edit]

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:17, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Tredgold[edit]

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

Not finding independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 5 refs in the article, 2 x 404, 2 x blog, 1 x trivial. Szzuk (talk) 19:20, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yuvraj bhujbal[edit]

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

Unsourced non-notable political operative. New account less than 10 edits would have been stopped by ACTRIAL. Legacypac (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a totally unsourced biography of a living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any sourcing either. This might've been a candidate for BLPPROD but I do think it was worth bringing it AFD, where there's a better chance someone with relevant regional and/or language expertise may be able to identify sources others might not have access to. But unless/until, I'm afraid deletion seems appropriate. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsourced biography of a person with no credible claim to passing any of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I'm genuinely curious what the population of India thinks our notability standards for politically involved people actually are, because this profusion of articles about practically everybody in India who's ever signed a party membership card at all is getting tiresome. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and basic WP:GNG, no coverage in regional news too. FITINDIA 01:29, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stéphanie Reynaud[edit]

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

Tagged for translation but it's already in English, except for the french titles of her work. Fails WP:ENT Legacypac (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced WP:BLP. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after searching ten pages of Google results, I couldn't find one article about her, French or otherwise. No article on the French Wikipedia either. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:34, 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 Speedy delete. WP:G12 by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of a book[edit]

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

WP:NOTHOWTO from a non-autoconfirmed editor. Legacypac (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I will add that this also really seems copy-pasted. However, I searched a bit to see if I could find the source but didn't find anything, otherwise I would have speedy deleted it. Bensci54 (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-g12. It's a paste from two universities' student how-to pages, plus a paste of Summary which I've just replaced with a link. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:13, 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) 00:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2cl fernet[edit]

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

This is... kindof... "doesn't qualify for speedy deletion because no one thought to make a category that specific". I redirected to Fernet but was reverted. Apparent local drink, special for no particular reason, with basically no coverage of any importance that I'm seeing. I hesitated to say that it would even be a particularly plausible redirect. GMG ^talk 16:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would have been vetted had ACTRIAL been running. Legacypac (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No sources for a drink or cocktail with this name appear in any searches. Perhaps it's just made up. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also couldn't find any coverage, despite numerous combinations of keywords. 2cl turns out to be the size of the smallest bottle you can buy, but there's no indication that this has any more cultural significance than a chilled shot of fernet. I wouldn't even bother with a redirect - nobody is going to search for 2cl fernet, any more than they would 12 ounce coke or 16 ounce coke. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:28, 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 speedy delete G11 & A9 by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) FITINDIA 16:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khaab[edit]

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

Can't find any coverage that would meet WP:N or WP:GNG, nor can I find any evidence that the song "topped charts worldwide". Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since we don't have an article on the artist, I just tagged the article to be speedily deleted per A9. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - ineligible for an article because there is no article for the artist. (I wonder if the singer is one of the people listed at Akhil disambiguation; if so, that may make the song eligible for the AfD process rather that Speedy Delete, but it still has no independent notability.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wasn't sure which Akhil it was, which is why I didn't go for A9 right away. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:31, 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. Sandstein 21:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IbisBrowser[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of significant and independent coverage. References in the article are either press releases, blogs, or company sources. Searches turn up mirrors and wikis, more blogs, more press release sites, and false positives. No indication of sources that pass WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT is not satisfied. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article originally by the WP:SPA IbisBrowser. The company website features ibisPaint and ibisMail but not this product so presumably it is no longer maintained. (Judging from the article text, they had gone heavily for the Windows Mobile platform as the future.) The 2008 AfD discussion viewed the article as well-referenced, but I suspect the standards are tighter today, as these appear to have been routine announcements and listings rather than in-depth coverage. My own searches are not finding evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 18:51, 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. Sandstein 21:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Board of European Students of Technology[edit]

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

No independent sources. This page and Cantus have drawn attention of WP:SPAs dedicated to promoting BEST's cantus activities. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson:Are you serious? Out of the 12 sources on this page, 10 are obviously independant.

Those are affiliated groups or groups they collaborate with. That's not the level of independence necessary to establish notability. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do corporations count? Like Total S.A.? N1CK3Y (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Academic or journalistic sources are preferred. A corporate page announcing some sort of deal with BEST would not be independent. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson:Do you have an independent source confirming any official affiliation with those groups or any ongoing official collaboration? :) PS: By proposing this page for deletion are you officially acknowledging BEST Cantus activities (as you've put it) :D This is getting better by the day :) Mad_Duke (talk 00:43 CET - 20.03.2018.

@Mad duke: Please remain civilised. @Ian.thomson: [5] and [6] both return over 300 results. Strong keep.— Preceding unsigned comment added by N1CK3Y (talk • contribs)

What results in particular are you pointing to? The sheer number of results doesn't matter. You need to cite an independent source that provides in-depth coverage about the organization itself. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why, the first one seems pretty promising, already. From "The province : Las Palmas daily", which provides us with pretty good coverage of the local EBEC round, with this as third paragraph : BEST (Board of European Students of Technology) es una organización de estudiantes universitarios de Europa sin ánimo de lucro. BEST Las Palmas planteó en esta edición un curso, que se desarrolló entre el 7 y el 15 de marzo bajo la coordinación de Vicente Díaz, profesor de la Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura de la ULPGC y la dirección de Laura Ruíz y Miriam Corcos. Maybe this one is better, though : [7] N1CK3Y (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another good one : UNESCO[8]. If it is possible to become more notable than this, explain me how. N1CK3Y (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The UNESCO source is closer to what is needed, but it needs to be in-depth coverage. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article im Standard (Österreich) about the EBEC final round in Istanbul, august 2011.[9] N1CK3Y (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article in il Tempo Stretto about the autumn seasonal courses of 2013[10] Both are independant and (very) mainstream, both cover the two main types of events organised by BEST. N1CK3Y (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Mad Duke: Are you trying to get blocked as a troll? Because you're doing a very good job of heading in that direction. All Wikipedia articles do is summarize mainstream academic or journalistic sources, sticking to independent ones when establishing notability. Your refusal to even consider that maybe you have no idea how things work here is astounding. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Ian.thomson: All I can see is one guy (you) with a stick up your behind talking in 2 topics he knows nothing about :) Sir, please find a topic about some topic you are more familiar. This one is out of your league. Also, have you ever used google or found out how internet actually works? I guess not because you can't recognize a notable reference from a reputable source because you don't know what source that is in the topic of higher education. Mad_Duke (talk 01:13 CET - 20.03.2018.

Blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: There is a "Board Of European Students of Technology" registered to the Belgian state here[11].— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.58.45.232 (talk • contribs)

That looks like a WP:PRIMARY source, which doesn't really establish notability. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick google search brought some articles: [12] ; [13] ; [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.58.45.232 (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn coi spa pri. Szzuk (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What? N1CK3Y (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is written like a piece of promotional material and should be rewritten from the bottom up anyway. And the quality of the~current sources is not satisfactory. N1CK3Y (talk) 16:58, 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. Sandstein 21:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Diesel[edit]

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

Sources are not WP:RS. The Cosmo and AskMen are not particularly significant/interviews. Nominated for awards but never won. Therefore fails PORNBIO and GNG.--Theredproject (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a long line of articles on non-notable pornographic film actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails pornbio & gng. –Davey2010^Talk 02:22, 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. Sandstein 21:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passang Rinpoche[edit]

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

Doesn't really assert notability as such, and nothing in the article itself suggests notability (or provides citations to anything that does). Unless notability established, delete. Nlu (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks even one indepdent source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No refs either here or on the native language article. Google showing nothing of note I can see. Szzuk (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent source. -Zanhe (talk) 14:18, 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. Sandstein 21:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T-Shirt Bakery[edit]

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

Non notable. At time of nomination, article is unsourced and overly promotional. _{Vermont | reply here} 13:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete db-corp and db-spam. Fails WP:CORP: zero Gnews hits, and I can find no secondary coverage online. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- AgreedMensanDeltiologist (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been written based on local facts and research into the t-shirt bakery. I might add that paper articles carry just as much weight as anything written online... I vote to KEEP this article on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brightnewstar (talk • contribs) — Brightnewstar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. Advert. Szzuk (talk) 19:50, 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 Speedy delete. MT Train^Talk 06:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahuja towers[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:GEOFEAT and the article deviates a lot from the topic. There are mostly passing mentions in sources mostly relating to the construction firm, but nothing significant turns up to indicate the importance of the building. MT Train^Talk 13:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing is copied from the Times of India and therefore I have nominated the article for G12 speedy deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:17, 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. Pinaki1001 only removed content, and did not add any, let alone any sources, and so their claim to have improved the article sufficiently to save it from deletion is weak. Sandstein 21:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ananth Narayanan[edit]

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

This is a biography of a business executive who has not yet achieved encyclopedic notability. It is also one that has recently been expanded by a user whose name is the same as that of the subject.

The sourcing is largely of the type that we often see here -- brief quotes from the subject, routine announcements, and news about the company (and not the executive). The following on-line list is illustrative - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Ananth-Narayanan. The only subject-specific items that I could see on that list were discussions of his wine collection (plus a brief quote about what cellphone app he uses). And the article itself doesn't point us to anything more substantial.

Because so much of this article is given over to the company, I don't think there is much here that can usefully be merged. But a redirect to Myntra does seem appropriate. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. FITINDIA 01:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete as per nominator. User:Pinaki1001. Have made necessary changes/ revisions to ensure its NOT more about Myntra and supported with legit references. Kindly do not flag for deletion. Will ensure all the measures taken to provide relevant contribution —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn - The author clearly indicates on their talk that the subject "was created by me and a group of friends". So, obviously A11, and I would have seen it if I had looked for 45 more seconds before writing this. GMG ^talk 12:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beremagne[edit]

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

Non notable month-old "micronation". From what I can tell, basically zero coverage. At least the claim that they are listed with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs appears to be entirely fabricated. Likely other information is as well.

Really, the only thing that passes as a defense against A11 is the possibility that someone thought it might be a good idea to recreate the wikimonde article here without a bonafide personal connection with the subject. GMG ^talk 12:37, 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. Sandstein 21:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Villu (deity)[edit]

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

Can't find any references to this god outside of Wikipedia. Talk page mentions source in Ukranian, but does not specify what this source is. Possible hoax. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not finding anything about this, though false hits from something else named "villu" are clogging searches somewhat. But just not getting scholarly references. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 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. Sandstein 21:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qarday Cumarow[edit]

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

Another Somali locality, mislabelled as a town, which points to a blank spot hand which has no corroboration besides mirrors of us or geonames. In this case, however, there is a quirk which illustrates the problems with using these databases without verification. Just a bit to the southwest is the town of Shaatilow, and it is unquestionably there: besides showing up in the aerials, it appears in numerous documents and maps. But I have not been able to get it to show up in geonames no matter how I try. Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence at all that this "town" exists. I suppose it's possible that "Cumarow" is another name or another transliteration of "Shaatilow" but we have nothing to support this. Hut 8.5 19:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NotThere L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:45, 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. Sandstein 21:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Sagar[edit]

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

Poor source. Most of the source are primary. WP:BLP fail Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 11:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also could not find independent references that support notability. London Hall (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page is created with proper permission of the Author Abhishek Sagar,Please do not remove it ,you can even enquire the author from his mail ,The page should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Social XD (talk • contribs) 12:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Social XD: Wikipedia is not a place or a website for doing self promotional campaigns or advertising. You should be neutral and should be able to follow notability guidelines when creating quality articles. Can you find at least one unique reliable primary source to prove the content you provided in the article? Please refer to this :- WP:NOT. Abishe (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Fails to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, and it smells like COI. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 00:43, 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. Sandstein 21:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rudra Kaushish[edit]

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

Not notable also poor source with spam. WP:BLP fail. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 11:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability at all, Fails WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Inadequate sourcing to prove notability. MT Train^Talk 05:47, 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. Sandstein 21:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeaid[edit]

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

An article on an energy drink company founded in 2011, sourced to routine coverage, fastest-growing lists and funding announcements. Aside from the sources in the article, there is this BevNet article, but neither that nor the Santa Cruz Sentinel piece seem sufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH and demonstrate this to be more than a routine company going about its business. AllyD (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but the company has been around for over 5 years. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:22, 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. A redirect can be created editorially. Sandstein 21:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen C. Ananian[edit]

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

Before bringing this article to AfD, I attempted to propose that the article be turned into a redirect due to the one event that the subject received significant coverage for, the aerial victory over a Messerschmitt Me 262, however that proposal had a consensus of oppose. Subject of article does not appear to be notable according to WP:BIO, and more specifically WP:SOLDIER. Most of what has been written by the subject has been done by the subject themselves before they died in 2017. While the subject of the articles service should be preserved, it should not be done so here on Wikipedia per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect name to 137th Airlift Squadron f/k/a 504th Fighter Squadron and briefly mention him there. Otherwise, not notable for stand alone article and WP:Memorial, applies. Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirect possible if the me-262 claim is cleaned up and reffed in 504th (currently it is to his autobio, this repeats it - not sure of RSness). BEFORE shows some additional sources, e.g. [15] [16] [17] - but not nearly enough to reach SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 23:14, 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 keep. I was not aware of how extensive the coverage is. I thank Hodgdon's secret garden for doing what I should have done . An argument can be made that the book is better known than she is, and the article should be about the book. But In this case the book is autobiographical, so I think it would better be for the person DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Westover[edit]

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

One memoir, no matter how well received, does not make a notable author. No evidence of  of scholarly publications to meet WP:PROF.  DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable.Acnetj (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which guideline do you cite? In that her work is widely cited/made note of not only by literary critics but also by observers of ultra-traditional rearing with concern roles of women[18] and of mountainous back-country religious life,^{NYT review} indeed this writer is the very epitome of notable.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia goes by its own criteria not willynilliness:
Wp:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if (1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline [e.g., wp:PROF, etc.] listed in the box on the right." [...] "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"^{"Notable". Encarta. Archived from the original by Internet Archive.} or "note"^{American Heritage Dictionary definition Retrieved 17 January 2015} – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary."
Wp:Basic: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published ^{What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.} secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,^{Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject."}
A ton of secondary sources specifically about this author's upbringing, young-adult academic acomplishments, ravingly reviewed book on the list of #1 NYT Best Sellers for non-fic 2018. "The New York Times Non-Fiction Best Sellers of 2018"--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article creator). Westover's is young, got her PhD, and wrote a memoir. The thing is, as the simplest WP:BEFORE or a glance at the article wold show, the memoir is a hot bestseller that has produced copious coverage of her life (profiles and interviews in leading media in Britain and America,) far more than enough to pass WP:BASIC and the book would fly past WP:NBOOK which would carry her past WP:AUTHOR. I decided to start a bio page instead of a page on the author (as I would usually do with a notable book by a first-time author) because the book is a memoir, which made it seem to work best as a section on a bio page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to Abstain - The article has been changed since the last time I read it that improved notability, so I am giving this a chance. Acnetj (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, as having "created a well known work" ie. Education in around 700 libraries thruout the world, and it has "been the primary subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", enough already in the article and just looking at the 1st page of a gsearch lists more from notable and independent sources - "Educated : a memoir tara westover book reviews" Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, media coverage clearly meets WP:GNG. Audiovideodiscoo (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 22:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) talk to !dave 12:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Milad Karimi[edit]

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

WP:PAID, WP:COI Gujimall (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, clearly notable per WP:BIO. He's probably also per WP:ACADEMIC, though citation count in GScholar is low: I don't currently have access to the reliable tools for properly checking academic notability. Nominator should have read the deletion criteria carefully WP:BEFORE nominating this article for deletion, as WP:COI and WP:PAID are issues that can be fixed, and not grounds for deletion. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eminently notable enough to pass WP:NPROF. I dont see any WP:COI. A simple search will verify his bona fides. scope_creep (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF, well sourced. Also this is vague nomination from an account whose only mainspace edit is one PROD of another good article and this misnomation. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This shouldn't have even been nominated, and the same goes for the other seemingly random article which the nominator prodded. And the "joker" sandbox edits are just weird. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:07, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WVNC LP[edit]

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

According to the contest of the CSD, this station just received its FCC license. Has no citations; no news articles (that I can find). Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 05:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: License is enough for NMEDIA, but the page needs a lot of work. Paging Wcquidditch or Xenon54 for the article content and Mlaffs for the correct page name. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:16 on March 20, 2018 (UTC)

After noticing this AfD was still here, I decided to give it a look-see to see if I missed something and clearly I did. There isn't a WVNC-LP licensed anywhere in the US, especially North Carolina. The only "WVNC" called station is located in Watertown, New York and that's a low-powered TV station, WVNC-LD. As such, I have struck my above keep and am changing it to a Speedy Delete and Hoax. I actually recommend the page be deleted per G3. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:23 on March 23, 2018 (UTC)

Delete Hoax. Should've been speedy deleted. The onus is on OP to provide one shred of evidence that this exists. I see no evidence of an FM station using the callsign WVNC-LP. There is no FM station licensed to 90.9 MHz in that region of North Carolina. There is not even an application to build one that I can find. The claim that it started broadcasting yesterday is completely ludicrous in light of this lack of evidence. Stations don't just fall out of a tree and start broadcasting, there is a meticulous months- to years-long paper trail before they even get permission to build somewhere, let alone transmit. If it really does broadcast, my conclusion is it is a pirate and thus fails the general notability test for organizations. And the FCC should be contacted. Xenon54 (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum - I'm not an expert on the rules regarding how stations interfere with each other, but with full-power 90.7 in Durham, 10-watt 91.1 in Raleigh, and full-power 90.9 in Rocky Mount, it seems real difficult to me to cram in 100-watt 90.9 in Cary without actionable interference to someone. Furthers my suspicion that this is a pirate or a hoax. (And pirates don't typically have a fondness for Bloomberg...) Xenon54 (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are three FM facilities licensed to Cary, NC — full-power WNCB at 93.9, low-power WSHP-LP at 103.3, and translator W228CZ at 93.5. None of these are at 90.9. There are six FM facilities licensed at 90.9 in the entire state of North Carolina — five of them full-power and one translator. I also can't even find a not-yet-named construction permit meeting this description. I'm comfortable seconding Xenon54's contention that this is a thing that does not exist. Mlaffs (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when its existence and operations can be reliably sourced. It's not the claim of having a broadcast license that gets a radio station over WP:NMEDIA, because that's a thing that pirates and hoaxers can easily lie about — it's the sourcing that can be provided to properly verify that the claim is actually true. Mlaffs is correct that the lack of verifiable evidence here throws the claim that it got its license a few days ago in doubt — but even if we grant the assumption that it is indeed true and we're just making some kind of error in finding the right FCC record, the mere fact of having been issued a construction permit is still not grounds for a Wikipedia article: a radio station has to be verifiably on the air before it qualifies to have an article on here. And on top of that, a radio station also has to originate some portion of its own original programming, rather than operating purely as a rebroadcaster or translator of another station or syndicated programming service, but this neither shows nor sources any evidence that that condition has been passed either: it just claims that the station broadcasts Bloomberg Radio, without stating or sourcing any indication that it creates any of its own original local programming. So if this is a real station as the creator claims, then no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it can be properly sourced as passing all of NMEDIA's conditions for the notability of radio stations — but Mlaffs and Xenon54 are correct that as of right now this looks more like either a pirate that's lying about its license status or an outright hoax that doesn't exist at all. And even if it does exist as a rebroadcaster of Bloomberg, that would get it a redirect to Bloomberg rather than a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite creator Caryncliving (talk · contribs)'s claim on the talk page, there's nothing out there to suggest that the FCC has licensed this station, or granted it a construction permit, or even received so much as an application to build the station. Indeed, to add to the evidence of this station's complete absence from the FCC's records: their Consolidated Database System (CDBS) lists only a single station that currently holds the WVNC base call sign: the similarly-named television station WVNC-LD in Watertown, New York. Any presumption of notability for broadcast stations all but requires that the station be licensed, there be sufficient coverage in reliable sources to verify operation (which is basically non-negotiable, as the absence of those sources all but ensures that the general notability guideline won't be met either), and that the station either does at least some of its own programming or has had a history of doing so — and none of this is true for "WVNC-LP". It may or may not be a hoax (though I must admit that I'm a bit skeptical that Bloomberg Radio would be carried on an LPFM at 90.9 FM, given that Bloomberg Radio airs commercials, licensed LPFMs are always non-commercial stations, and stations between 88.1 and 91.9 MHz are non-commercial at any power)… but if it does exist, this is a non-notable pirate station at best (and the claim of 100 watts makes it clear that this is definitely not a Part 15 station, either — those can't be more powerful than about 0.01 microwatts). --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As amply noted above radio stations leave a detailed audit trail at FCC.gov and there is absolutely nothing there to support this. Out of curiosity I drove to the RDU airport area to see if there was actually any activity such as a pirate station operating on 90.9, but that frequency is completely dead, with nothing audible.Thomas H. White (talk) 14:16, 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. Sandstein 21:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ahmad Chattha[edit]

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

not a member of any legislature. fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN Saqib (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The sources plainly verify that Chattha lost the 2016 assembly by-election that this article claims he won, and even the claim that he is "President of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, Gujranwala" was cited to a source which explicitly named somebody else, not him, as being appointed to that position. (And even if he had been appointed to that position, it's not an WP:NPOL-passing position that would have gotten him a Wikipedia article in and of itself.) That makes this a clearcut WP:HOAX. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it as it doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. M A A Z T A L K 13:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable politician, with few mentions in RS. samee converse 17:23, 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. Sandstein 21:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overlook Park (Murrieta, California)[edit]

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

Municipal or county park (not clear which), fails WP:GNG Rusf10 (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's just a park. Lepricavark (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any evidence this park exists. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:30, 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. Sandstein 21:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overlook Park (Melbourne, Florida)[edit]

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

Municipal park, fails WP:GNG Rusf10 (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, trivial and only of local interest. Kierzek (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a run of the mill park. Lepricavark (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm dubious whether this park still exists. No parking. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:36, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Education Association[edit]

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

An article that is not really notable. It has been stale since 2012, without a single reference. The tone is likely promotional since the tone is probably a copy paste. Artix Kreiger (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a WP:SOFIXIT case as the major teacher's union in Ohio. Definitely needs some major help but we generally tend to keep state teacher's union articles without exception. I'll look at things throughout the next seven days and hope others can help too. Nate • (chatter) 00:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it appears they are semi-regularly asked to comment on issues that a teachers union would get involved in by various news organisations, the union itself doesn't appear to be notable. Unless someone can find some significant independent reliable sources on the Union itself I consider it non-notable.Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 452 Google news results when you click of the last page of results for an accurate count. They set guidelines that schools follow, and the media does seek them out when questioning about things, so its a notable organization. Dream Focus 03:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Obviously a bad article in its current state, but they have some 125,000 members. I'm not sure about Ohio, but in many states, the teacher's union is one of the most powerful political groups in the state.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an organization with this size and political role should be presumed notable unless there is a compelling argument to the contrary. Overzealous rejection of union pages due to a decline in the financial viability of labor reporting is also WP:RECENT and should be avoided. Audiovideodiscoo (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Accurate looking article on patently notable outfit in need of sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY, if every editor who runs a search to check notability added just one sourced fact to the article... it's an idea.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOW. It;s a fairly big union. FWIW, I'm a member of UFT. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 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. There are two "keep" opinions by Johnbow2233, and the "keep" by kaylaperryyy (talk · contribs) is by a non-registered account. No substantial analysis of sources from the "keep" side, just assertions about the movie "Rat Fink". Sandstein 21:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schuyler Hayden[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Appearing in a self-funded film doesn't meet WP:ENT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He also was in other televisions shows and movies. That was just one he did himself. He was a lead in the movie Riot On Sunset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.159.64.253 (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple notable roles are not shown.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are. He was in the movie Riot On Sunset Strip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbow2233 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Starring role in Rat Fink, significant role in Riot on Sunset Strip, satisfies WP:NACTOR. --Michig (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NACTOR; only starring role was in a non-notable work. SportingFlyer talk 18:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His starring role in Rat Fink and significant role in Riot on Sunset Strip meet WP:NACTOR requirements. Rat Fink was definitely notable. It was featured in tons of newspapers etc. and it premiered in movie theaters. Johnbow2233 (talk 11:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not believe the movie passes notability guidelines. The article Rat Fink is about something completely different which pre-dates the movie by two years and there's very little about the movie anywhere on the internet, even with an IMDB listing (which doesn't show notability.) His other role doesn't appear particularly significant. SportingFlyer talk 20:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no wikipedia article on the movie rat fink but there are lots of newspaper and magazine articles on the subject. The movie also had a billboard on sunset trip in Hollywood in the 1960s. It was featured in the LA times too. I believe the movie is notable and there deserves to be a wikipedia made in Schuyler Hayden's name. The movie also was just released in blueray by Retromedia Entertainment Group, Inc. after they found one of the last copies of the movie to exist. Rat Fink was also shot by Oscar winning cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond.

Schuyler also had a significant role in the movie Riot On Sunset Strip and there are articles of that also. Johnbow2233 (talk 02:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rat Fink has a lot of coverage including significant coverage of Hayden and should have an article Atlantic306 (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: some analysis on the sourcing for the importance of the film will help break any deadlock.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it is something worthy to improve upon. I give a benefit of a doubt given things that should been considered notable because of the past may not been so apparent today.Acnetj (talk) 07:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He died before doing enough to satisfy NACTOR. Even if Rat Fink (lost for 50 years, according to the Blu-Ray release) is (being very, very generous) considered a notable film, the same can't be said for his only other movie credit, the minor Riot on Sunset Strip (and a non-starring part). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rat Fink was definitely a notable film that he starred in as well as Riot on Sunset Strip which he had a significant role in. There are a lot of articles found on google of newspapers / magazines talking about him and the movie Rat Fink and like I have said before there was even a billboard on Sunset Strip in Hollywood of Schuyler for the movie Rat Fink. That satisfies WP:NACTOR. He is also the Father of American Wrestler/Actress Ursula Hayden. There are five people including myself who have voiced their opinion on this matter and believe this page should exist. Johnbow2233 (talk 11:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time you've voted. SportingFlyer talk 02:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd still like to see a keep argument that's based on notability and not an extension of WP:ILIKEIT, as none of the keep votes have provided sources. Rat Fink does not have an article on this site. A Google Search shows the film is registered on imdb and a number of film directory sites. A book search shows his name appears in some books which talk primarily about Riot on the Sunset Strip, and a couple others talked about Rat Fink as well, saying it could "do the art theater rounds well if handled correctly," not exactly a good endorsement. Hayden's name appears in similar directories. I don't see significant coverage at all. SportingFlyer talk 02:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that Rat Fink is a notable film and the starring actor Schuyler Hayden should have a Wiki page. kaylaperryyy talk 09:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment note to closer: this vote was the contributor's third-ever contribution, and user Johnbow2233 has contributed nearly exclusively to this article and the article about the actor's daughter and may be SPAs. SportingFlyer talk 14:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I first was fascinated with GLOW Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling and then wanted to know everything about the owner Ursula Hayden. Then I found out about her father and decided to make him a wikipedia page because no one had before.Johnbow2233 talk 09:02, 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. Sandstein 21:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. and Mrs. Fred C. Tucker Jr. Distinguished Career Award[edit]

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

Nice career award with a decent payout but its notability is really limited. Listed recent recipients also lack notability. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable.Acnetj (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:51, 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. Sandstein 21:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Buck Award[edit]

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

Award seems to not exist anymore. Can't find any recent news stories. It is a short article and unsourced. Either it should be deleted or merged to Pearl S. Buck. Can't find the foundation page either. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked pretty hard for both the award and for the "Sino-American Foundation for the Advancement of Hermeneutical Studies" and found nothing at all. The article was created by an editor for whom a total of 4 contributions are visible (but whose talk page suggests that there may be some WP:REVDEL pages also - It seems that they also created an article for the foundation that was CSD#A7'd in 2007.) I wonder if this was a hoax? Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Fiachra said. At best, it's been unsourced for more than a decade and there's no real reason to believe old print sources will suddenly turn up to verify the award or the org; should someone later emerge who possesses them, that person can start a new entry. At worst Classicwiki has spotted a hoax that lasted 11 years and deserves a barnstar for it. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't seem to find much of a mention or coverage, beyond a different Pearl Buck award; can't even verify its existence, current or former. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:21, 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 keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-Valley Community Television[edit]

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

Wasn't sure to bring this to AfD or not. The argument to keep is that the tv channel serves several large towns. However, I can't seem to find much independent coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Most of the coverage I'm finding is routine stuff in the local newspaper like "you can watch tonight's high school basketball game on TV30", nothing indepth. The article right now is completely unsourced, so that doesn't help either. Rusf10 (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. WP:BCAST says that "Because of the public interest served, most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable for Wikipedia purposes." This station definitely produces original coverage, even after the cuts discussed in the press articles. There's a decent amount of local press coverage of the station (see, for instance, [19]) but as Rusf10 points out, it's very local and much of it is run-of-the-mill. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - May not meet WP:GNG but WP:BCAST is more forgiving and subject appears to meet requirements of first and/or second-to-last WP:BCAST bullet points due to original content produced and large population served. ~Kvng (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thing with WP:BCAST is its not actually a guideline. However, the first bullet point deal with over-the-air broadcast stations, so that is inapplicable here. Depending on how you read the second to last bullet point it may meet it, but like I said its not actually a guideline, so it really should have to meet WP:GNG--Rusf10 (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry, but WP:BCAST actually is a guideline - it's not an essay. The long-form link is Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Broadcast_media. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiachra10003:From the top of that page "This is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. It is intended to make up for a deficiency considered overly detailed for inclusion in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."

WP:OUTCOMES is also not a policy or guideline. These things are nevertheless useful for recording consensus to help avoid repeating the same deletion arguments too frequently. ~Kvng (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying to completely ignore WP:BCAST, I'm just trying to put it in context.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you make a fair point. The whole of WP:NMEDIA seems to have a somewhat ambiguous status and when I read through the two archives of the talk pages, the ambiguity only deepens. The page changed from an essay to an explanatory statement in the summer of 2013. Also, when you go to Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines#Notability, NMedia is omitted. However, if you go to Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines, NMedia is included. User:Bearcat and User:Ritchie333 seem to have been the people most involved in the discussions around that time and may have light to shed here. WP:BCASTOUTCOMES was what I was most familiar with as a representation of consensus. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: just to clarify, WP:BCAST's provisions for television stations being presumed notable if they produce original content are meant for FCC-licensed terrestrial stations, not cable public access stations. Cable public access stations have their own separate provision in NMEDIA, which is that they do not get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, and instead have to actually be sourceable over WP:GNG — in the absence of an FCC license, an operation like this doesn't get an automatic presumption of notability just because it technically meets one of the other criteria for the notability of television stations, because it doesn't meet all of them. (By the same token, a Part 15 radio station can technically meet the "produces original programming" criterion as well, but it's not presumed notable on that basis alone, as it still fails at least one of the other base criteria: the holding of an FCC license.) A television or radio station needs to meet all of the criteria for the notability of broadcast stations, not just one or two of the four, to get an automatic presumption of notability — it has to be FCC-licensed and actually operational and an originator of standalone content and reliably sourceable as meeting all three of those conditions, not just one or two of those things. But a station that fails one or more of the criteria can still be kept if it can be shown as the subject of enough media coverage to clear GNG. That said, the sourcing already here isn't that bad (except that the CNN citation isn't relevant to the station's notability or lack thereof, because it's not about the station but merely verifies an otherwise tangential fact about a former employee) — I'd still like to see a little bit more sourcing, if possible, before I'm entirely convinced, but it's already some distance down the path toward keepability. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lack of access to a good new archive may be responsible for Nom's finding only "trivial" coverage. I have added some additional persuasive coverage of the station and it's history, status and funding, articles form which article can be further improved. A good deal more such coverage exists. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is in the gray area of "more of a guideline than a rule" WP:BCAST for "Public access cable stations" between State/NYC size and 50K population with just a "government access feed". I've added some RS, some of which could replace the "citation needed"s. StrayBolt (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the lengthy staff and small award sections should be deleted, since none of the content in either section is notable, and I marked three dead links, but the minor coverage that's there just barely meets WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:27, 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 keep. Sandstein 21:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington Independent Media[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage outside of local media and even that is limited. Rusf10 (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with WERA-LP. wumbolo ^^^ 13:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC) ~~Can't access the newly provided references. I can see that (at least) one ref explicitly talks about this in the title, so this would be a K from me. wumbolo ^^^ 17:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)~~ Keep. Indepth coverage on WaPo. wumbolo ^^^ 18:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is (and has long been) a large and active outfit. An enormous amount of coverage - including details on various series that it produced over the 30+ years the station has operated - is available in back issues of the Washington Post. I added a handful of broader picture WaPo feature stories to the article which is, I think, now adequately sourced to pass notability. Also added a detailed profile of the station form the Boston Globe, detailing a major transition in 2003 that broadened both funding and mission. wumbolo ^^^ Did the TV station spawn the radio station, I seem to recall seeing that in one of the articles I read, or, is there some other relationship between the two? We should consider how best to connect the two articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a brief, sourced sentence and link to page, describing Arlington Media's creation of WERA-LP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are searches in WaPo on 'Arlington Community Television" (the station's original name): [20], and [[21]]. (I think these searches are open source.) INDEPTH coverage of various aspects of this station over 3 decades is not hard to find. It even shows up in books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - several of the links are inaccessible, requiring a ProQuest account, so I'm basing my vote on the number and reputation of the sources. On a related note, I started marking the ProQuest links as dead on another AfD since they are inaccessible to most, but am wondering if there's a policy about not marking these types of links as dead? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:41, 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 redirect to Imperial examination. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucracy of merit[edit]

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

Unsourced and orphaned, expansion is unlikely. I suppose whatever is salvageable can be merged into imperial examination. Timmyshin (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: There is no content in this unreferenced article which can enhance the thorough Imperial examination article. Although the "X of Y" title seems an unlikely English search term, Google Books shows it used in at least one book, so a redirect to the main article could have value. AllyD (talk) 08:21, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propagation and Back-Propagation Diffusion through Neighborhoods Algorithm[edit]

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

This was prodded, with the originally rational "All sources were/are predatory in nature [22]. Very likely not notable, and if it is WP:TNT applies." The article was deprodded because someone did not know what "predatory meant", and said that since User talk:Renamed user qh37rbwki62h19772b reviewed this at AfC this shouldn't be prodded/deleted. And to that I say I don't care who reviewed it, it should never have been accepted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. not notable, fails WP:GNG. Prince of Thieves (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tend to think this whole area of biologically-inspired general-purpose heuristics is a cruft magnet, but there are definitely notable subtopics within it. This doesn't appear to be one of them. Google scholar finds only one uncited paper with the title phrase "Propagation and Back-Propagation Diffusion through Neighborhoods". That's not enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, which can only be demonstrated through significant coverage in secondary sources. Whether the publisher of the primary-source paper is 'predatory' or not isn't really relevant. 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:F98A:ED54:C4EB:9774 (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't rise to the standard of being a notable technique in the field of bio-inspired optimization methods. XOR'easter (talk) 15:13, 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) 12:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Starlite[edit]

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

Highly Likely to be a hoax, Chemistry depiction makes no sense and has meaningless claims. No evidence of NASA having ever tested the substance Zubin12 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the material is a hoax or not, that doesn't mean the article should be deleted. It got plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Cf Cold fusion - should that article be deleted because it didn't really occur? Similarly Loch Ness monster? Ben Finn (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ben Finn, and per WP:GNG. Even if it turns out to be a hoax, it had plenty of coverage in WP:RS. Equally, if we can find WP:RS stating that it's a hoax, we should add those too. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes GNG. Continuing coverage, even was in Guinness. As for how fringey/hoaxy this is - that shoud be determined per the sourcing. If it is a hoax (seems something was tested) - it is a notable hoax.Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is most definitely a hoax, a notable one given the number of people hoodwinked. Szzuk (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Maurice Ward. None of the claims about the product are verifiable. I don't think it's notable enough as a hoax to justify a stand-alone article; also I can't find coverage that proves it's a hoax. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Maurice Ward into Starlite, which seems to be the only notable thing in Ward's background. It's possible the product is a hoax but that doesn't mean we should not have the article. (We have an article on the Cardiff Giant.)--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a standalone page Starlite, the nuclear blast..., The secret life of starlite... and many more sources. Whatever this product is, it is certainly notable, so we should describe what it is instead of deleting. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to be enough references and coverage even if it is a hoax. StewdioMACK (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hoax or not, it is notable. Lepricavark (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is appropriately skeptical about the claims of this 'invention' and instead recounts media coverage attempting to expose the hoax. Follows WP:NHOAX perfectly. Audiovideodiscoo (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge Maurice Ward here. He's only really notable for his promotion of this substance, and while there are certainly enough sources to say one or other is notable, it doesn't seem worth having 2 separate articles. Substance seems more notable than man based on source titles/headlines etc, although it's hard to do a direct comparison because of other Starlites and Maurice Wards. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:13, 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.

[1] Bassett, Stephen. "Executive Director". X-Conference. Paradigm Research Group. Retrieved April 14, 2017.

[1]