Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 March	21 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Caines[edit]

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

User:49ersBelongInSanFrancisco previously proposed this for deletion. I concur with their assessment: "Fails WP:ARTIST or GNG. Current sources are a university bio and a few primary source project pages. Google finds only a few passing references in independent media, such as passing references to shows." SmartSE (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saskatchewan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see coverage meeting notability requirements. There are some published interviews but a lack of proper reviews, critical analysis, or other third-party sources. The article currently reads very much like it was written by its subject or someone close to her, and so would require rewrites even if sources were found. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the five sources come from two different sources. None of them are independent. A search turns up nothing but a healthy selection of republished autobiographies. Fails all notability tests. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as I couldn't find enough WP:RS to establish WP:Artist. Theredproject (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to pass NARTIST. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:26, 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) 00:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Curtiss[edit]

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

Lacks notability. sirlanz 23:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable person. WP:NOTNEWS. Ajf773 (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable.Acnetj (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Collection or collector doesn't appear to have attracted media coverage apart from one event, the fire, which isn't itself notable. Fails WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTNEWS etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The two acceptable sources here just make him a WP:BLP1E, because they both exist only in the context of his barn burning down rather than suggesting that his car collection was the subject of any media attention while it still existed, and the third source is just the routine obituary of his sister, present only to support the name of his wife. This does not constitute evidence that he's earned permanent inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable and fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:28, 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 speedy delete. no evidence of notability, self-written and self-promoting vanity page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. bharat sakate[edit]

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

This article is about an author with no coverage in independent reliable sources to establish general notability, nor does the subject meet specific notability for authors. All the books appear to be self-published (Lulu and Bookrix), and I can find no critical coverage of these works in reliable sources. The sources in the article are not independent, or in the case of poemhunter, just leads to the top level domain and is useless. Whpq (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP fails WP:AUTHOR on all counts. Ajf773 (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable.Acnetj (talk) 03:55, 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Jean Dolores-Schmidt[edit]

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

Non-notable 98 year old nun with some sports connection. My attemp to redirect was reverted. Legacypac (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She's received a ton of coverage this week from major organizations which probably passes WP:GNG but could also fall short of WP:NOTNEWS or WP:TOOSOON. I'm a non-vote here, but I'd lean keep. SportingFlyer talk 02:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see anything beyond local notability and human interest stories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's been decent local coverage of her before March Madness this year: [1] [2] [3] This won't pass GNG, but shows she's been notable within that community a long time: [4] SportingFlyer talk 05:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Decent local coverage before hand, but now has a ton of coverage from major organizations and thus probably passes WP:GNG, with examples here, here, and here. If we do keep this, it will need to be expanded. --DTM9025 (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources over many years. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe she is a notable nun with more than some sports connection, Chaplain to the men's basketball team for 27 Years, making her the longest Tenured person in Loyola Basketball program History. Plus there head Coach has a page , I believe this makes her more famous than the head coach of Loyola. She also has been an academic advisor, campus minister on LSC and WTC and to Regis Hall residents since 1991 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwdamron (talk • contribs) 14:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of which make her at all notable outside Loyola University. We have deleted articles on far more notable people than her. At the end of the day, if she wasn't American we wouldn't even be having a debate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thr substantial coverage in reliable independent sources makes her notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we've deleted articles on far more notable people, then perhaps our bar on notability is too high. I've seen this happen a lot where articles on subjects that a lot of people know and care about get deleted due to someone selectively declaring it isn't notable on a selective view of notability, especially if the subject is mainly notable in countries outside the U.S. or doesn't have a big online presence (which is not the end all be all) despite being very wide spread. --DTM9025 (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's notable and significant. Where are the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red people to defend this bio? – Athaenara ✉ 15:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since she's a nun I think WikiProject Women in Black would be more apropros yuk yuk.– Lionel^(talk) 02:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion tools aren't necessary here. Sister Jean absolutely merits a mention somewhere. She's secured her place in basketball lore, and sources are abundant. We could talk about a merge, but I think this material is fine where it is, rather than trying to cram it into another article. This is a great effort for a brand new user, who hopefully hasn't been scared off from contributing further. (Full disclosure: I went to Loyola!) Zagalejo^^^ 00:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. National media coverage sufficient to establish notability. —Lowellian (reply) 05:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick Google search shows multiple national (even international) newspapers talking about the topic.Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tons of national notoriety. She's the most recognizable star of March Madness this year. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found this 2013 article by the Chicago Tribune profiling Sister Jean. Its existence invalidates the WP:ONEEVENT argument. Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - major media coverage extended prior in time to the current notoriety. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough articles over the years that seems justified. NapalmSunday (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's extremely rare for me to comment on AfDs that are overwhelmingly so one sided. To be honest, I was a bit on the fence about this one initially. I knew nothing of the subject, but found some additional bits of information which I added a few days ago. I've been following this AfD and additions to the article. It's very clear at this point that she surpasses any concerns regarding WP:BLP1E, as her notability has sustained for some years now. What brings me to comment now, at this late point in the AfD and with it overwhelmingly keep, is this article. This article notes that in the first two weeks of the tourney Sister Jean was the most tweeted about person, and the most mentioned in any news articles of anyone in the tournament (>20,000 stories mentioning her). As Coy Wire said in this interview, Sister Jean is a celebrity. For her to have only a mention (if that) at Loyola Ramblers men's basketball belies the fame she has attained in her own right. The spotlight is certainly brighter now than it ever has been, but it was most decidedly on before this tournament. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She definitely is notable enough for her own article. She has received coverage from ESPN and CNN. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough, well sourced, well covered before the Big 4. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is very notable article, well sourced, and meets Biography of Living Persons policy. Felicia (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough WP:RSs to assure notability. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ample in depth coverage to satisfy WP:N. – Lionel^(talk) 02:34, 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) 00:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda CNola[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. Natureium (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A vanity bio that could probably be speedy deleted as an obvious advertisement. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: looks like it's been deleted before, twice [5] --Calton | Talk 08:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Not notable. The user's sole edit was this page which appeared under the user's name.Acnetj (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional autobiography ("deft handling" indeed...) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to have been created under the name of the original editor not the subject, so should be moved to Anthony Paul Savitsky Ruffino or similar if kept. I'm not entirely sure which combination of names he is known by, but can't find anything to indicate notability, his actions as described don't suggest notability, and as mentioned it's awfully promotional. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Calton. Possible autobiography or paid editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too promotional. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:32, 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 keep. Appears to clearly pass GNG threshold. Delete votes have no strong argument, or focus on the weakness of specific sources without explaining why all of them, and there are many, are useless for establishing notability. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheik Ali[edit]

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

The core section has been unsourced for a long time despite templates and there are no sources to back the claims. This article made a number of outrageous claims that have already been removed either by me or by others. Clearly not a notable wrestler under the guidelines regarding sourcing in particular - or lack thereof. Article written as a vanity article even though BLP doesn't apply for obvious reasons. I suggest deletion as it can't be improved with sources. Addicted4517 (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep sesrching Wadi Ayoub on Google Books serves up a plethora of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Clearly notable. Article just needs some work. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Look again. First page casual mentions, beyond that it's "Wadi" and "Ayoub" separately. Where is your substantial coverage of this particular wrestler? Actually look at the links, don't just count the numbers of them. It's nowhere near as good as you think. 2001:44B8:802:1100:2435:194F:8299:C36C (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked again and the coverage is definitely there. See "Wadi+ayoub"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiz94fopYPaAhUBca0KHdXEDXMQ6AEILDAA#v=onepage&q="Wadi%20ayoub"&f=false here for example. And the Arab Observer - Page 37 https://books.google.com/books?id=UedXAAAAMAAJ 1962 "The mammoth Hungarian gentleman ( Inset ) who rejoices in the likely name of King Kong actually took a beating last week at the hands of Wadi Ayoub, the Lebanese champion (main picture) in a Beirut match. This was a vengeance return tangle for a hout in Singapore, where — it is claimed — 25 policemen had to assault the ring to break up the wrestli ng pair. In the latest episode King Kong gave up after 25 minutes' mauling and was hauled off to hospital with head wounds.." FloridaArmy (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casual mention only. Once in the whole book (both of them) and one paragraph in the first. How is that substantial? 2001:44B8:802:1100:2435:194F:8299:C36C (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is a casual mention. The first is an entry wntirely about him in Legends of Pro Wrestling: 150 Years of Headlocks, Body Slams, and Piledrivers by Tim Hornbaker and the second source is an excerpt showing the detailed and expansive coverage his boughts received. Keep in mind sources from the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s aren't readily available online. Notability is well established. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not established. It is a casual mention. Newspaper coverage is available online from that period. So where is it? Singapore loved it's wrestling then. 25 police would have got newspaper coverage. It's not there. Looks to me like kayfabe embelishment that needs back up. And proper back up. You just used two books as well. Just two. 2001:44B8:802:1100:2509:8F4E:9BB6:817C (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the Australian newspaper archive Trove as Ali wrestled there then as well. Using Sheik Ali as a phrase and adding wrestling I got five results and none of them were about him. 2001:44B8:802:1100:34B9:C819:7333:19BE (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you consult the book 100 years of professional wrestling in Australia? It has very extensive coverage of Ayoub. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see who wrote it? COI all over that one. 2001:44B8:802:1100:74C9:9DB2:CD3D:3255 (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails Notability. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some of the existing sources are fine and significantly discuss the subject.[6][7][8][9]. Some sources also refer to him as one of greatest wrestlers in Australia.[10][11] The article also probably passes WP:ENTERTAINER as he has performed in notable wrestling matches.[12] KingAndGod 14:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources listed by KingAndGod constitute significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Previously mentioned sources contain casual mentions only and no significant coverage. Never worked for Stadiums Limited which indicates he wasn't as popular as has been led to believe. Never worked for World Championship Wrestling either (Manspace link is totally wrong). No notable wrestling matches at all proven. Third link from KingandGod biased per IP above noting conflict of interest. 101.189.113.1 (talk) 01:56, 29 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 Dream Team (TV series). Content available behind redirect for merging if desired. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billy O'Neil[edit]

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

Unsourced "biography" of a fictional footballer. No indication of real-world notability, and no RS found. Many results point to non-notable real people with the same name. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Dream Team characters Acnetj (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Dream_Team_(TV_series)#Cast, a plausible search term but not an independently notable character. Disagree with moving to the list noted above, that seems to fail WP:LISTN. Also, this is enWiki not Wikia. Fenix down (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV_series). Giant Snowman 17:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Dream Team (TV series), as not independently notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dream Team characters#Footballers - no notability. KingAndGod 14:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Dream Team (TV series), as some content here is salvageable. talk to !dave 15:25, 28 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 Dream Team (TV series). Content available behind redirect for merging. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Naysmith[edit]

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

Unsourced "biography" of a fictional footballer. No indication of real-world notability, and no RS found. Some ghits point to non-notable real people with the same name. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Dream_Team_(TV_series)#Cast, a plausible search term but not an independently notable character. Also, this is enWiki not Wikia. Fenix down (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV_series). Giant Snowman 17:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV series). Not independently notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - to Dream Team (TV series). Not notable enough to have a separate article. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. KingAndGod 14:11, 28 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 Dream Team (TV series). Content available behind redirect for merging. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Naysmith[edit]

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

Unsourced "biography" of a fictional footballer. No dedicated RS found. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Dream_Team_(TV_series)#Cast, a plausible search term but not an independently notable character. Also, this is enWiki not Wikia. Fenix down (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV_series). Giant Snowman 17:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV series). Not independently notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. KingAndGod 14:12, 28 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Guthrie[edit]

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

Does not pass notability requirements. Natureium (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply being a staffer at the White House is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to clear WP:GNG — which is especially true when the article doesn't even say what her title was. But there's nowhere near enough sourcing here to get her over GNG — there's one obituary in her hometown newspaper, one primary source government report and the publication details of a book she wrote herself. So it might be possible to get her over WP:AUTHOR as a writer of a book, if that were sourced to media coverage about the book rather than metasourcing the book to itself, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be sourced properly. In addition there's a likely conflict of interest here, as the creator's username is "Lawrence S Guthrie". Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Tulsa world gave her a substantial obituary. The Washingtin Post gave more of a blurb. I can't find much else and nothing about the book. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Fails WP:BIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable person, fails basic criterion for inclusion. We cannot build article based on single obituary since Wikipedia is not WP:MEMORIAL –Ammarpad (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The article was almost certainly created by a family member....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet Notability requirements. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article's creator has joined the discussion on the article talk page. They've noted some additional sources with coverage such as New Wave : State Flag in DC a Tad Off Color" (Tulsa Tribune, 11/1/1988, p.1) by th Joan Biscupic, this one and this one. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Tulsa obituary is a major one, and other sources in the article and discussed at Talk page do add up. I think it is useful for Wikipedia to answer the question "who is Helen Guthrie" as her name appears in various places, and she is interesting. Editor User:Bearcat and others are providing education to the article creator, about COI and valid sources, which is fine, at Talk page of the article. The creator has been participating in edit-a-thons. Besides the basic validity of the topic IMHO, it would be disruptive to the development of that editor to entirely delete their contributions and also the educational discussion at the Talk page.

We ought to formalize some policy that is newish-editor-friendly, where they get a pass on an AFD automatically, at least for a one-year period, for a topic that is marginal and not blatantly a copyvio or BLP. The topic could go onto some central list to be revisited in a year.

However in this case I do think the topic is notable without cutting any break that way. --Doncram (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:40, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Natureium (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jagged Little Pill (musical)[edit]

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

No references; this is really just an advertisement for an upcoming play. Natureium (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very quick google searches indicated that there was enough sources around to meet WP:GNG. Its notable unsourced or not and I have begun improving the article.Blethering Scot 22:31, 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 redirect to Dream Team (TV series). Content behind redirect for merging ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Knox[edit]

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

Unsourced plot summary. No indication of real-world notability, and ghits point primarily to non-notable real people with the same name. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Dream_Team_(TV_series)#Cast, a plausible search term but not an independently notable character. Also, this is enWiki not Wikia. Fenix down (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV_series). Giant Snowman 17:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV series). Not independently notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. KingAndGod 14:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caroguduudley[edit]

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

Somali "town" which, surprise surprise, doesn't exist. The area has quite a few things which look like enclosures or fields and a few tracks but no sign of buildings. No sources, the one link cited describes it as a "locality" which means people don't necessarily live there. Hut 8.5 22:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 22:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Another blank space locality with no references outside clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete ANOTHER ONE Nom says it all.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 20:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not There. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:47, 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 redirect to Dream Team (TV series). Content behind redirect for merging. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Hocknell[edit]

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

Unsourced, in-universe "biography" of a fictional footballer. No indication of real-world notability, and no RS found. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Dream_Team_(TV_series)#Cast, a plausible search term but not an independently notable character. Also, this is enWiki not Wikia. Fenix down (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV_series). Giant Snowman 17:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV series). Not independently notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. KingAndGod 14:13, 28 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 Dream Team (TV series). Content remains in history for merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Fletcher[edit]

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

Unsourced "biography" of a fictional footballer. No indication of real-world notability and no RS found. Some hits point to non-notable real people with the same name. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may be notable. I'm not familiar with the TV show, but the main character in a series that ran for 419 hour-long episodes might qualify for an article. Even after they killed the character, they reintroduced him as a ghost! There was recent discussion about sourcing elements of television and film, and it was pointed out that the recording itself is a source. Though not listed in our usual referencing style, this article is sourced by the section "Appearances per Season." I agree that the article requires additional citations, and a quick search found hundreds of usable sources so someone could rewrite per MOS:FICT. This seems to be primarily a style issue and not an argument for deletion. The character definitely passes WP:V. I'm unfamiliar with editing for this subject field, so I'll just comment for now and see what others have to say. Jack N. Stock (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all Dream Team players into one article and trim down. There are not many citations between them, list of players for the TV show would be better. Govvy (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge would be good. It just seems like a project to trim this down (sometimes less is more), but that seems tolerable as it needs to be totally rewritten anyway. Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Dream_Team_(TV_series)#Cast, a plausible search term but not an independently notable character. Also, this is enWiki not Wikia. Fenix down (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV_series). Giant Snowman 17:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. KingAndGod 14:14, 28 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) 00:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cuunmaraayood[edit]

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

Yep, it's another nonexistent Somali town. Unverifiable, nowhere to be found on satellite imagery and down in the one source cited as a "locality", which means people don't necessarily live there. Hut 8.5 22:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nominator says it all 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 20:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails V and everything else, Not There.L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dream Team (TV series). Content in history for merge etc like the rest of them ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Alexander (Dream Team)[edit]

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

Article about a fictional footballer, written like one about a real footballer. No indication of real-world notability (tagged since August 2014) and no RS found. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all articles in Template:Dream Team This is a type of cruft that compares to the worst of children's shows we have here. These characters need to be summed up in one paragraph, not entire articles where we confuse them with real athletes. Nate • (chatter) 01:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Dream_Team_(TV_series)#Cast, a plausible search term but not an independently notable character. Also, this is enWiki not Wikia. Fenix down (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV_series). Giant Snowman 17:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. KingAndGod 14:15, 28 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 Dream Team (TV series). (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 12:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harchester United F.C.[edit]

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

This resembles Wikipedia's articles on real football clubs, but it isn't one. It's a detailed fictional history of an entirely fictional club, from the TV series Dream Team. I'd argue the fictional club isn't notable at all by Wikipedia guidelines; but even if it is, this level of detailed coverage isn't justifiable (amongst other things, it violates MOS:INUNIVERSE and WP:NOT). To quote the comments of User:Anna Frodesiak on Talk:Dream Team (TV series) (almost ten years ago!), It is interesting and someone put a lot of work into it, but it is certainly not encyclopedia-worthy. This should be deleted and redirected to Dream Team (TV series). The fictional player biographies in {{Dream Team}} are also probably worth considering for deletion. Robofish (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying contributors: User:RI, User:Timo~enwiki, User:Bornintheguz, User:Differentgravy, User:Ezenden, User:Joe Bamber, User:Psycheout, User:Arsenaldc1988, User:CahirAndIrish, User:Dale Arnett, User:D1502825B, User:Manufan86, User:Lee1981uk, User:JournoBill07, User:KX675, User:Stubbsy89, User:Clyde1998, User:Danhbk, User:Mattyspringltfc, User:Oatesy 07, User:Electric river, User:Mad Bill, User:Ggabot, User:Bogger, User:Latics, User:Sours, User:Mr Hall of England, User:Wonderwizard, User:Footballgy, User:Dan18-12-96, User:Davefelmer, User:Michael Pora, User:Davey2010, User:Smithzy1. Robofish (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also potentially interested are User:Boothman and User:Browncoat101, who commented on the talkpage. Robofish (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete. While it's entirely commendable that someone did go to the effort to create an article resembling a real football club, User:Robofish is correct, in my view, that the article doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines. My preferred course of action would be to merge it into the Dream Team article, particularly anything that occurred within the TV programme, as part of a synopsis and backstory for the programme (written in a less factual sounding way) if at all possible. Everything else should be deleted. The player biographies from {{Dream Team}} could be merged into the article, provided that the information meets Wikipedia guidelines. Based on a quick review of these articles, it appears that most are fictional biographies which should be deleted under MOS:INUNIVERSE. Clyde1998 (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (possible search term) to Dream Team (TV series) Merge what content is needed into the article and remove what isn't needed. When it comes too all these fictional player bio's merged and trim them all in to an article along the lines of List of Dream Team cast and characters. Govvy (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Dream_Team_(TV_series), a plausible search term but not an independently notable character. Also, this is enWiki not Wikia. Fenix down (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV_series). Giant Snowman 17:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Palmieri[edit]

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

Biographical article with no sources independent of the subject. Not obviously more notable than a typical tenured research mathematician. PROD deleted without comment by article creator (SPA and possible COI). JBL (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet any of the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A GS h-index of 14 [13] seems decent for pure mathematics, but maybe still on the low side? XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources, and I had trouble finding some. The h-index is indeed still on the low side. No significant claim of notability made in the article. talk to !dave 15:22, 28 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 Withdraw. No objection to future nominations, but clearly she is noteworthy for reasons other than being a politician. (non-admin closure) Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Charles[edit]

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

Leader of a very small political party with no noticeable success that is focused on a single county of the UK. Therefore fails WP:NPOL. No sources to meet WP:GNG. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC) Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it has been pointed out that this person may be more relevant as a poet than a politician, if this is the case the article may well be notable. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not true that there are no sources here at all — what is true, however, is that three of the four sources are books, while the only one I can actually read to directly verify what it says is a primary source that does not assist notability at all. There is a potentially valid claim of notability as a bard and poet here, but it's impossible for me to assess whether she has a strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR or not. So I can't definitively cast a keep or delete here yet — nominator is correct that she has no inherent notability as a politician, but I'd need somebody who actually has direct access to the books to evaluate whether there's enough content about her in the books to get her in the door as a writer before I could make an informed decision one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keeping or at least merging to Mebyon Kernow, which she helped found, may be in order. I am finding discussion about her as a person, such as Charles Thomas talking about her work as editor of New Cornwall and her political beliefs at Gathering the Fragments. The Celto-Cornish Movement and Folk Revival: Competing speech communities talks about her forming a dance school in Truro, though I cannot see much more than that in the snippet view. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced on this bard thing at all, the Gorsedd is a kind of cultural association where people gather seasonally to celebrate traditional culture. These groups also organise festivals. Apparently members of these organizations are divided into three ranks. Ovates, who wear green robes, Bards, who wear blue robes, and Druids, who wear white robes, The druids are higher ranking in the organization than the bards.

This is in my view no more relevant than documenting the carnival organisers in your local town carnival, since it's basically the same thing.

She has written poetry but I can't find evidence of it being published, this is more likely something to do with being a bard (singer/poet), but there does not appear to be much on it in sources.

She has written a political pamphlet (What is home rule?) and edited a local magazine run by her political party (New Cornwall).

sources

- "History of MK - the 50s and 60s". Retrieved 2008-03-24. - primary source from her political party.
- Bernard Deacon, Dick Cole, Garry Tregidga, Mebyon Kernow and Cornish Nationalism, Welsh Academic Press, 2003. amazon link - This is fine, but one of the co-authors is a former leader of her politcal party she is part of and I doubt it's independance.
- Gorseth Byrth Kernow (1967) Bards of the Gorsedd of Cornwall 1928-1967, Penzance: Gorseth - this is not a book, it is a kind of annual from the bardic orgainsation she is part of, this is a newer example.
- The Cornish Language and Its Literature By Peter Berresford Ellis, p.172 (Accessed on Google Books 24 March 2008). - can't tell if she is substantially covered in this.

In short Bearcat, I can't see this person meeting WP:AUTHOR. -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say she does, I said that it's a potentially valid notability claim pending the matter of whether there are solid sources available for that work or not. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes no worries. I thought I ought to fully explain my logic on the situation in case it helped. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:42, 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 Procedural decline as created by a banned editor evading blocks, but with no prejudice against a renomination by any legitimate editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Wearne[edit]

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

Local singer with no obvious claim to notability. The article was clearly created by the subject. Fails WP:GNG Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable.Acnetj (talk) 05:03, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nidia Rivera Lopez[edit]

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

City councilwoman. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The only reliable source coverage is in the local newspaper. Most of that is focused on the election and a false accusation of having her primary residence in another state. Rusf10 (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete contrary to what editors seem to think, not every city council member in every city in New Jersey is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this search on her name [14] in The Star Ledger the major regional daily in this area, with three routine hits confirms non-notability, although some council member in a city this large (quarter million) could pass POLITICIAN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. City councillors are not automatically presumed notable under WP:NPOL — we accept the city councillors of major metropolitan global cities, but outside of that rarefied class of megalopoli the only other path for a city councillor to get into Wikipedia at all is to show a depth and range and volume of coverage that plainly marks her out as significantly more notable than most other city councillors. But every city councillor in existence could always show as many purely local sources as are shown here, so that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ZY Official[edit]

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

There's literally nothing out there... I guess other than their thousand or so sound cloud followers.. and 187 Youtube subscribers. A7 hinges on where you draw the line for "credible". GMG ^talk 19:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and was likely done with the intent to promote. Acnetj (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks any sort of coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG easily. -- Dane ^talk 04:44, 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) 00:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ovdiyenko[edit]

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

The subject of this biography does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. There isn't significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Only two of the sources are independent of the subject. One of those (kardify.com) barely mentions him, the other (614columbus.com) is a niche/local publication. The article is the sole work of a single-purpose account with an apparent conflict of interest. The fact that there are 15 external links (!) to the subject's Kickstarter campaigns strongly suggests to me that this article was written primarily for the purpose of raising money and self-promotion. Peacock (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Feels like a promotion for Kickstarter.Acnetj (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete for promotion and not meeting WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG because no WP:RS. A successful Kickstarter does not make you notable...! Theredproject (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there was one middling to poor source (Boing Boing, which is is more of a site for entertainment than reporting). Sources do not establish GNG.104.163.147.121 (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFSGD[edit]

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

Nothing in sources here nor on TR Wikipedia. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs in the article, google showing nothing although it is hard to look, it is an organisation that promotes voluntary work in Turkey. Szzuk (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:19, 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) 00:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Anderson Ellis[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Non-notable semi-pro athlete. Lepricavark (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete semi-pro athletes rarely generate enough press to gain notability, and I see no reason to make an exception here. Subject does not pass WP:GNG nor any other notability measure I can find for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the teams he played for aren't notable enough to have an article here, why would he be notable enough to have an article here. His college career was a walk-on so that's not notable enough.Acnetj (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:22, 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.

Ocient[edit]

The result was Withdrawn/redirect - Chris Gladwin (engineer) now fleshed out beyond a stub and is an appropriate redirect until/if the company receives additional in-depth coverage. GMG ^talk 19:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looks to me like WP:NOTINHERETED/WP:TOOSOON. The founders may actually be notable. The previous company certainly seems to be. It could probably go either way. For the company, the lions share of the coverage is about startup funding (e.g., [15]) or about the startup funding in addition to being passing mention reference to a press release (e.g., [16]), or about the startup funding and local sources covering Chicago topics (e.g., [17]). Others are more about the founder than the company really (e.g., [18]). Not seeing much that gives me the warm and fuzzies re: WP:CORPDEPTH. GMG ^talk 16:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just created Chris Gladwin (engineer) which should be a suitable merge target. Regards So Why 17:17, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Calendar Creator[edit]

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

Non-notable product and business with references to articles in minor blogs. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no WP:RS to establish notability Theredproject (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete software that has reviews in tech press but looks low key. Szzuk (talk) 07:26, 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Yan[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league player who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Can be recreated when/if they meet either of them. DJSasso (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 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 11:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Adoption Platform[edit]

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

Neologism and non-notable software application, with references solely based on the creator of this term. No significant in-depth coverage from non-business related sources were found during BEFORE. Creator has a declared COI with the company WalkMe which appears to have coined the term. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism, not a discrete software program. Szzuk (talk) 07:30, 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) 00:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of colleges and universities participating in ISEP (International Student Exchange Program)[edit]

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

WP:NOTGUIDE to tell which are participating, if someone is interested goto their website for updated version. Very hard to maintain. Störm (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. International Student Exchange Programs was speedy deleted as spam in 2016. postdlf (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:LISTN. Just clicking on several of the list entries there appears to be no mention at all of any affiliation with ISEP. Ajf773 (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator. FITINDIA 07:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where Is Najeeb[edit]

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

A non-notable short film, no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a very informative article but the film has coverage in reliable sources such as Patrika (newspaper) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: I know your voting history very well and it seems you have insufficient knowledge about sources and our guidelines. The link to Patrika is a primary source and reads like a piece of promotion nothing else. The film was released a year ago (in January 2017) and received zero coverage in reliable sources, received zero full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics, no awards at all so I request you to reconsider your vote above. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 03:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-unpersuaded by sourcing. Patrika is the name of several newspapers, and some of the sources are clearly PROMO and blog posts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM. FITINDIA 07:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--per nom.Fails WP:NFILM.~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:27, 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 merge to Leoni AG. Best solution. can eventually be expanded into an article if sufficient material is available. TimTempleton would you do the merge? DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leoni Wiring Systems Southeast[edit]

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

Delete Was nominated and withdrawn but by my analysis, the references are either broken links, mentions-in-passing or PRIMARY sources, therefore fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. There is nothing in the article to provide any indication as to the notability of this company. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advertising, nor is it a Yellow Pages alternative. This appears to be a run-of-the-mill business with no indications of notability and fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per reasons of withdrawn nomination 7 days ago, the provided references are independent and are coming from the secondary sources except for minor ownership claim in the infobox template of article. The "broken link" claim is partially false as there is a problem with website's repository. Until the resolution for this issue is done, the alternative reference was put giving the financial figures of the company and also gives clear indication of notability as it is one of 100 largest business enterprises in Serbia and one of 10 largest employers in Serbia. Therefore, "run-of-the-mill business with no indications of notability" claim by the nominator is false. More than two thirds of current references are in line with WP:NCORP. The other third are references for financial figures, business ID or Tax ID. In my opinion, the whole nomination is full of incorrect and false persuasions which lack grounding in facts.--AirWolf ^talk 15:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AirWolf, it appears that you are saying that Leoni is notable because it is one of the 100 laegest business enterprises in Serbia and one of the 10 largest employers in Serbia. If you can find a reference that is intellectually independent and states that Leoni is notable for that reason, please provide it here - otherwise it is just an opinion (yours?) that says "This is why Leoni is notable". Of the 10 references in the article, the first three are broken. Also, a common mistake many people make is by stating that the references are "independent" or "secondary sources". While this is sufficient for supporting facts and information within an article, this is not sufficient for establishing notability of a topic. Not only must sources be independent and secondary, but they must also provide independent content and not rely extensively on information produced/provided/published by the company. This N1info.com reference would fail as a reliable source since it has no accredited journalist/author - regardless, it is based on a company announcement and relies extensively on quotations from Klemens Sax, general manager for Serbia. It therefore fails both WP:RS and WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. This reference is a bare-bones company listing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This reference from dw.com is a mention-in-passing with no in-depth information and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This blic.rs reference has no accredited journalist and fails WP:RS - regardless, the article was written in relation to Serbia's Minister of Finance and Economy opening a new Leoni factory and is based on a company announcement (and PR exercise), fails WP:ORGIND. This blic.rs reference is similarly an article written at the opening of a Leoni factory and is little more than a PR exercise and fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, this N1info reference is covering the exact same factory-opening ribbon-cutting PR exercise and also fails WP:ORGIND. Article must have intellectually independent content to meet the criteria for establishing notability and these articles fail on that single point. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing Sir, what is your intention by giving misleading statements? "Of the 10 references in the article, the first three are broken." - the second reference is not broken, and it, among other things, replaces (for the reason given above) two "broken link" references which both back only four financial figures (revenue, net income, assets, equity). The reference citing company's listing in infobox template was added once the notability was verified. Per WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRITE, the company is notable, as it has been "the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." Also, the n1info.com and blic.rs references are not based on a "company announcement", but based on coverage by the national news agencies. Facts related to the annual financial figures, annual lists of the biggest gross/net exporters of Serbia and number of employees (all given by the independent sources) are all supporting to the notability of this topic, i.e. company.--AirWolf ^talk 18:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AirWolf, the link wasn't working yesterday but thank you, it is working OK now and I was able to download the PDF. As I've already pointed out above, the standard set for establishing notability is a higher standard than that for supporting a claim within an article. Nobody is arguing that the sources are not independent secondary sources. The point is that they are not intellectually independent, which is a requirement for establishing the notability of organisations. The downloaded PDF is a Serbian government publication based on published annual financial statements and contains no independent opinion or analysis, therefore fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing I'm sorry, but this statement: "The downloaded PDF is a Serbian government publication based on published annual financial statements and contains no independent opinion or analysis" is incorrect. In accordance with the Law on Auditing of the Republic of Serbia [19] (in Serbian) and further explained on the website of the Agency for Business Registers of the Republic of Serbia (here [20] (in Serbian)), every company operating on the territory of Serbia which annual revenues exceed 4.4 million euros are obliged by law to have their financial reports revised by the independent accounting firms. Further, only audited financial reports which are subsequently analyzed and checked by the Agency for Business Registers, can be published by the governmental agencies and institutions in various forms. One such document was provided in the reference of this article. So, it clearly is in accordance with WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.--AirWolf ^talk 14:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AirWolf .. I'm not sure what exactly I said that was incorrect. It is a government publication based on published annual financial statements - whether they've been audited or not is immaterial, the Serbian legal system is not our concern. I believe you are missing the point though. Nobody is doubting the accuracy of the figures but essentially, you are saying that every company whose accounts are checked by the Agency for Business Registers in Serbia and subsequently published by the annual government report is notable and meets the criteria for notability. That is not the case. It may be an indication that the company might be notable but it doesn't mean it is automatically notable (same as companies that are floated on a stock exchange are not automatically notable). We still need two references that are "intellectually independent" and contain independent content. None of the references you have provided meets this criteria. Every company that has its accounts audited could claim that their accounts have been independently verified but this doesn't make it an intellectually independent reference. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing Once again, you are interpreting my words wrongfully and giving misleading conclusions. I have never said that the notability is tested if the company has audited financial reports, and later published by the relevant governmental agency. As our views regarding "intellectually independent" references (concerning WP:ORGIND) are diametrically opposite (as per reasons given above) with no indication of reaching consensus, and as evidenced in repeated false and misleading statements, I will stop discussing with you the matter of article's notability and reliability of its references. However, I am open to opinions from other users.--AirWolf ^talk 17:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The place to cover this would be at the parent article Leoni AG IMO. Number 5 7 22:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge to Leoni AG The best sources here are really focused not on the company but on the government subsidies (eg the DW ref) which are not even discussed here; the page is written more like a directory entry than something people can learn from about the state of industry or doing business in Serbia. Most of the refs are not independent at all (eg company reports or the government report summarizing the company report) or churnalism. The URLs in 2 of the refs don't work for me either. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I have deleted these "broken-link" references. If you look above in a discussion carefully, I have replied that I have added valid link as replacement for the financial figures and other statements, until the resolution for links to website's repository is found.--AirWolf ^talk 11:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if this is one of the top employers in Serbia it is notable. However it may be better handled in the parent co page. Legacypac (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge up to Leoni AG as parent company. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Premeditated Chaos Number 57 Legacypac Just a little notice, as I'm seeing a couple of merge opinions. When it comes to notable subsidiaries (mainly outsourcing subsidiary companies in foreign countries as is the case here or doing business in foreign markets), there are several examples where there are existing articles about the main company and also its subsidiaries, just like it is a case with Telenor and its subsidiaries - Telenor (disambiguation) (for quick overview). Thanks for the previous proposals!--AirWolf ^talk 09:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't find the deleting voices convincing at all. Apart from refs already in the article, it's pretty easy to find coverage of the company across a spectrum of Serbian media:
- "Saradnja kompanije Leoni i niških fakulteta" [Cooperation of Leoni and faculties from Niš]. Radio Television of Serbia.
- "„Леони" повећава производњу" [Leoni raises production]. Politika.
- "FABRIKA LEONI USKORO NA RATARSKOM IMANJU, IZGLASALI GRADSKI VEĆNICI" [Leoni Factory soon on the Ratarsko Imanje venue, as voted by the city council]. RTV Kraljevo.
- "Počela sa radom treća fabrika Leonija u Srbiji" [Third Leoni's factory in Serbia commenced operation]. Radio Television of Vojvodina.
- "Vučić: Leoni postao najveći poslodavac u Srbiji, Niš će u 2018. doživeti "bum"" [Vučić: Leoni has became the largest employer in Serbia...]. Blic.
- "I četvrta fabrika: 5.000 radnika - iz Kraljeva za Mercedes" [And the fourth factory: 5000 workers from Kraljevo for Mercedes]. B92.

and there are countless others, this was just a scratch from the top. Notability must be judged according to the breadth of total coverage, not just the one currently in the article, otherwise we should delete 80% of our articles. One does not have to cite-bomb a short article with hundreds of such just to prove the notability, I hope. No such user (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you clearly did just grab stuff, regardless of whether it was independent reporting or churnalism. This is not helpful in a consideration of notability. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you clearly just scream "churnalism" without even trying to investigate. Do you speak the language? Have you at least tried Google translate? Did you even check our articles about publishers? That is not helpful in a consideration of notability. No such user (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the sources and used google translate - churnalism is obvious in any language. Please bring high quality independent sources when you work in WP. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: First of all, people don't work on Wikipedia, they contribute. Obviously, there is only one concern in article's references even though there is significant coverage in news, and that is presence of churnalism in some of article's sources, namely WP:ORGIND violation is questionable - "any material which is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism)". In my opinion, there is no evidence of great presence of PR material, and also there are a couple of sources that are fully in accordance with the following statement - "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject".--AirWolf ^talk 11:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No true Scotsman, Jytdog? AFD is not cleanup. At AFD, keep !voters are supposed to prove that the company has broad coverage in sources (the definition of notability), not to necessarily put forward sources that espouse critical views. Yes, like several other companies in the industry, Leoni has been criticized for exploiting cheap labor, pursuing political connections for subventions, and inhumane treatment of workers. To keep you happy, here's a couple:

"Na poslu padamo u nesvest, ni do toaleta nam ne daju" [We faint on work, they don't let us go to toilet]. Press.
"Grad gde se motaju kablovi" [City where cables are rolled up]. Deutsche Welle.
"Puna hala radnika kada dođe Vučić" [The hall is full of workers only when Vučić comes]. Danas.}}
"Sigurne investicije i nova radna mesta, ili Potemkinova sela" [Secure investments and new employment, or Potemkin villages]. Danas.
"LEONI – TUŽAN POGLED IZ HALE I IZRABLJIVANJE RADNIKA (II DEO); OD PONEDELJKA SE UVODE SMENE OD 12 SATI!" [Leoni - a sad view from the hall and exploitation of workers (part II) - 12-hour shifts introduced from Monday]. Novosti Dana.

No such user (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is volunteer work. It is work. It it takes time and care. And User:No such user, please review WP:ORGCRIT -- sources need to be independent and have substantial discussion to "count" toward N. Please bring only that kind of source to AfD. And btw we just finished an RfC to significantly clarify the definition of sources that count toward N in a discussion of companies Please do review WP:ORGCRIT (yes I know it is work to go read that and think about it :) ) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I did review ORGCRIT (not that there is something radically new). Now, would you grant that at least a few of these 673 hits on the Radio Television of Serbia (the national broadcaster), the first ~30 solely about Leoni, count as Significant, Independent, Reliable and Secondary?There are several duplicates because of bad handling of Latin/Cyrillic in search, but still. No such user (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not engaging further with you here: i appreciate that you have at least acknowledged that the kinds of sources matter, but you have left your previous justifications all unstruck, and posted just yet another lazy search result. Please stop adding noise into this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete to parent company. From the article Leoni AG might not be notable either so would not be a valid merge target.
Looking through the sources presented above;
1. About subject. Translation reads like a hatchet job. Question about whether PressOnline.rs is a reliable source. If reliable it is enough to base a few lines on but not an entire article, particularly considering its perspective.
2. Passing mention. Primarily about the city
3. Probably a good source but not much coverage. It borders on ROUTINE. No reason to have stand-alone article based on this
4. A passing mention. Primarily about economic plan
5. A couple letters. No independent reporting. No contribution to notability as required by NORG

I see nothing which would overcome the deficiencies in the other sources. Certainly nothing which can overcome the guidelines presumption of/preference for dealing with subsidiaries within the parent company's article. Jbh ^Talk 15:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: Are you analyzing sources from this diff, which include Radio Television of Serbia, Radio Television of Vojvodina, Politika, Blic and B92? While I could grant that they might be routine and/or influenced by politics, those are the top echelon of Serbian media; RTV coverage is very detailed and in neutral tone, for one. The sources you're talking about are the ones that are critical and/or skeptical about the company, and I could agree there is a mixed bag.

I couldn't care less about this particular article, but I can't resist the impression about double standards being employed here, and a lots of no true Scotsman arguments: sources already in the article are dismissed as "insufficient", sources from top mainstream media as "churnalism", and ones critical about the company as "unreliable" or "passing". No such user (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was commenting on the ones from [21]. If you are talking about my commentary, I did not say the critical source was unreliable I questioned the publisher because at least in translation, the tone of the article is sensationalist — maybe it is RS maybe not. I would want a native speaker to make that call. I also said that the tone would not allow us to base an article on it alone but it would, if RS, be usable in the merged article. As to the other sources I reviewed, I do not know what double standard you are talking about. No matter the situation I would have made the same assessment of the sources.

I believe some of the issues you are seeing with sourcing comes from the new sourcing considerations in the revised WP:ORGIND. However, from what I have seen in the ones I have looked at, even if the sources being dismissed as 'churnalism' were accepted they would not be sufficient to overcome the presumption that subsidiaries should be addressed in their parent article. That would require some very in-depth and indisputably high-quality sources. If the Leoni AG article were stronger I would have !voted a straight Merge. Jbh ^Talk 16:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: "However, from what I have seen in the ones I have looked at, even if the sources being dismissed as 'churnalism' were accepted they would not be sufficient to overcome the presumption that subsidiaries should be addressed in their parent article." I'm interested on what grounds someone determines that subsidiary companies should exclusively be addressed in their parent company articles and not to have separate articles. What about Telenor's subsidiaries? Also, you have evaded to answer the last section of User:No such user's previous comment.--AirWolf ^talk 17:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have clearly stated my opinion on the sources I specified. I have evaded nothing. I may not have given an answer you want to hear or which you disagree with -- well I did not explicitly state that 'a passing mention is a passing mention' but I assure you I apply the same standard for that here as elsewhere.

As to your other question please see the first point in WP:BRANCH. Re Telenor's subsidiaries some of those articles may be justifiable based on SPINOUT but stuff like Telenor Avidi should not have an article. However as far as this AfD is concerned please see OTHERSTUFF. Jbh ^Talk 17:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: I'm not talking about that single (former) subsidiary article (with total of 2 sentences). There are more than 10 Telenor's subsidiaries that clearly are not Telenor's corporate spin-off and are in contradiction with your statement that "subsidiaries should be addressed in their parent article" only. I'm asking how one determines that subsidiaries should be addressed in their parent article only. You have made a ridiculous statement and later called upon WP:OTHERSTUFF. It was never my intention to involve other examples just to justify this subsidiary. I'm calling you on that statement. Also, I respect all the opinions and arguments, but also sometimes need clarification for some of the arguments.--AirWolf ^talk 17:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: For example, WP:BRANCH is pretty good argument for further discussion in my opinion. As stated here: "unless they (notable subsidiaries) are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area.", the focus in a discussion should continue to be examination of given sources.--AirWolf ^talk 17:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AirWolf: The sources are a bit difficult to engage with because nearly all are are in Serbian (which I note tends to support the lack of coverage 'beyond the local area') but what I would suggest, if you want to dig deeper into them, is to first apply the truth table at WP:ORGCRIT to, say, the five sources you think support notability. Since editors are pretty entrenched I would suggest a short comment on how you read each requirement ie what you consider significant etc. This will give a base line — actually two. The first is a common group of sources to work from. The second is explicit definition of how you interpret the ORGCRIT criteria. My guess is that the sticking points will be on how each editor sees the elements of ORGCRIT. From there at least everyone is discussing the same things in the same terms.

That all said, I do not know if such analysis would change the minds of those who are saying Merge. In my case, as I mentioned, it would take some really in-depth reporting on this subject. Enough that it overshadows the parent (That might not be hard if the current state of the parent reflects the actual coverage. If the parent is not notable I would more readily accept a stand alone article on the subsidiary.) or sources, at least one of which meets ORGCRIT backed up by some other lower level reporting, from outside of the Balkans.

I do not see discussion of the Telenor family of articles as being productive for two reasons: first is OTHERSTUFF ie it does not matter what was done elsewhere; the second, expanding on the first, is that the two are not analogous. The depth and breadth of sourcing differs as does the length of the individual articles so the arguments are not really transferable. Jbh ^Talk 18:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: What is in your opinion the definition of "local area" (in context of subsidiaries in general - for noninternational and international companies) and what are the guidelines when you are determining that? Also, when you are suggesting for non-Serbian or non-Balkans reporting and sources, are you saying that the subsidiary company of large international company needs to be globally important or famous in order to have an article on Wikipedia (which contradicts WP:ORGSIG)?--AirWolf ^talk 21:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AirWolf: I can not think of a way to generalize without writing an essay but I can give a rough idea of my thinking. In this and similar cases I would say coverage needs to be by media outside the country/region where the subsidiary is headquartered. That is where one would expect any news minimally worthy of notice to be reported. (I guess that is as good a working definition of 'local' as any — The tier of media one could reasonably expect normal reporting of the subject to occur at.) There would also need to be enough 'local' coverage to flesh out a stand-alone article. Simply having a bit of 'non-local' coverage is not necessarily sufficient if everything can still be covered in a paragraph or two. A large amount of 'local' coverage on diverse matters that could not be properly explored in the parent's article would also weigh towards a spin-off. While the other end of the scale is if coverage were so great as to completely overshadow the parent such that the parent is only discussed in context of the subsidiary then there might be an article on the subsidiary and not the parent per NOTINHERRITED. It is a balancing act with the presumption, per BRANCH, being to address subsidiaries in the parent's article.

Part of the problem here is the parent article is, frankly, crap so it is hard to tell if the last of those situations might be the case. Another issue is that many of the sources for this article have been challenged as not meeting ORGCRIT/ORGIND. I would hazard that there may be issues of ORGDEPTH as well depending on which ones/how many end up passing ORGCRIT. For a Merge there is no need for this topic to meet ORGCRIT or ORGDEPTH or ORG anything. The sources just need to meet RS.

I do not know if that helped you understand my reasoning or not and I know there are a lot of if's and but's etc which can poke holes in this. It is not my intention to present a brief, rather I hope to simply outline my thinking in broad strokes. Jbh ^Talk 23:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a section in the parent article, Leoni AG, and pick up anything useful from the sources listed at this AfD. The suggested target is rather sparse, so this content (in a much condensed form, i.e. a couple of paras) would improve the target. This is a subsidiary, so it's appropriate to address the topic in the parent article. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - leaning towards merge and redirect, due to limited English sources, but I'm curious why there doesn't seem to be an article about this company on the Serbian Wikipedia. [[22]]TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: What are you trying to say in the latter part of your sentence?--AirWolf ^talk 21:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AirWolf: - I look at a lot of things when determining notability, to be fair. And I don't speak Serbian, so I'm not qualified to judge the sources. I went to see if Leoni's Serbian Wikipedia article was sourced better than this one, just in terms of quantity. I routinely do this for AfD when the articles are heavily sourced with foreign language publications. I was surprised to see there isn't a Serbian article. I'm familiar with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and how it can be interpreted to say "don't judge an article by what else is or isn't out there," but I find it strange that a notable Serbian company wouldn't be on the Serbian site before an article is created on the English version. It's just one other thing that argues against the subject's notability, IMHO. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: If that's how one determines topic's notability, based on topic's existence on different language editions of Wikipedia, may the Lord help us all. Also, let me remind you that Google Translate - a truly wonderful Google service app - was launched 11 years ago.--AirWolf ^talk 00:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's just one other thing that argues against the subject's notability, but ultimately, the article doesn't need the Lord's help - just a few good sources to pass WP:GNG. Right now it doesn't. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:38, 29 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. Speedy deleted by Deor, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Streamliner Lines[edit]

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

Non-notable company. This is a bus company that apparently consists of a single vehicle and a single driver (see here) that is possibly not currently authorized to operate (see same source), whose timetable indicates they have not yet even started operations. All sources in the article are primary, and no significant secondary sources can be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, concur with nom. Does not meet WP:NCORP. Created by SPA for promotion of the company.MB 15:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this bus is notable. Maybe toosoon. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH, but as Prince of Thieves said, might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. I find no significant third-party coverage. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apologize for creating article WP:TOOSOON. SwadianH (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SwadianH: No worries, could you consider putting {{Db-g7}} on the article to allow this to be speedy closed? Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Prince of Thieves: WILCO SwadianH (talk) 20:17, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Williams (politician)[edit]

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

Local county level English politician who does not meet WP:NPOL. I don't see enough reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, especially considering that what there is is routine coverage. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. I would agree that this article is borderline notable. Does having a CBE infer notability? Jason.nlw (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The CBE would, but she only has an MBE, two levels below. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The MBE does not confer notability, unless it was awarded by a Royal Personage, which in this case it was not. My understanding is that the OBE would confer presumed notability, along with the higher ranks of the Order of the British Empire which are the CBE, K/DBE and GBE. The MBE is the lowest level and awarded fairly routinely to several thousand people a year for long service to the public. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't make any difference who physically awarded it. They all come from the same source and are awarded by the Crown. The OBE isn't generally considered sufficiently notable on its own either. The CBE and above are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I saw this a few days ago and questioned it, but I left it because I'm not British and wasn't sure about the notability standards for the MBE. But if the MBE isn't considered an inherently notable distinction, then she doesn't have grounds for inclusion at all — county councillor is not an office that automatically passes WP:NPOL, and the sourcing isn't getting her past NPOL #2 as a "more notable than the norm" special case: it's far too dependent on primary sources and routine local coverage which is simply expected to exist for all county councillors, and the only source that expands beyond the purely local just namechecks her existence a single time in the process of not being about her. All of which means that none of the sources are cutting it in terms of making her a notable county councillor. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on Necrothesp. Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN and not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer talk 02:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. FITINDIA 07:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:40, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MakeAQuiz.net[edit]

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

N-site with no notability. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are only providing passing mentions in rs; fails WP:WEBCRIT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:43, 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 speedy delete. WP:G5. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Action Raja (2017 Film)[edit]

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

Already been deleted 5 times as Action Raja and still no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. The article was deleted recently but again it was recreated using different account by the same user. PROD-contested by an anonymous IP address without comment whom I'm assuming is the article creator. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:32, 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) 00:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Crosby[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and subsequently WP:BIO. The three reference verify the same 2 facts. Insufficient coverage scope_creep (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom, the citations we have are routine and one-time transactions. Where's the biographical beef? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a president of a think tank is not a position that confers notability, and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 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) 00:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Kanojiya[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:NBIO, with most sources being primary. Passing mentions in several non-notable sources and a leading newspaper for a WP:BLP1E. MT Train^Talk 13:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable, poorly worded. The second issue of course could be rectified but that doesn't excuse the lack of notability. DesertPipeline (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4 or Delete per nom. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:56, 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) 00:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Ovcharov[edit]

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

I didn't find enough sources to confirm his notability as an artist or public speaker. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page. Sources are not independent and reliable, and I cannot find any that are in a search. A very hyped-up page.104.163.147.121 (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page. No WP:RS. Theredproject (talk) 00:46, 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. There's clear consensus here that this should neither be deleted nor merged. There's some support here for renaming, but I don't see a clear consensus on that, so I'll call this NC on a name change. A name change doesn't require AfD involvement, so people can continue to discuss that on the talk page and/or be WP:BOLD. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elected transgender officials around the world[edit]

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

Guess I'll field the unlovely job of sending this to AfD again. - The future of this list was previously discussed here in December (under a capitalized article name), which resulted in a decision to merge to List of the first LGBT holders of political offices. However, nothing in that regard was done since, until the page was entirely redirected there by Aircorn, stating that a merge was infeasible because this list lacks information about whether or not listed people are first office holders. That didn't stick, either.

Based on the previously closing admin's comments that the notability of the list per se might be defensible, and the apparent infeasibility of a merge, I'd like to open this up for discussion again - because the article clearly either needs to be spruced up, merged, or deleted, but shouldn't remain in its current form. I have no opinion on which solution is best. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend "sprucing up" is the best alternative to deletion - the list is obviously note-worthy and does not fit nicely in any of the other lists. Gstridsigne (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The proposed merger/redirect is into "First LGBT elected officials." This is a list of ALL Trans elected officials, not just the first. The list is small enough to keep and maintain. Plus, trans folks have different experiences from other members of the LGBTQ community. And with the election of 9 trans folk in 2017 in the US, it is important to keep this list, especially as time goes on. Not to mention, superlatives that would be messy on "First LGBT elected officials" would not be so here. First transman elected, first tranwoman of color, first transman of color, et cetera. That would be quite a mess on the other page, but it works here. It does not break WP:OC#CATGRS, because Trans politicians may and usually do have different perspectives than even other members of the LGBT community - and their identity as trans folks will undoubtedly affect their policies. It does need a head article, but per policy "Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category may be created, but that it must at least be reasonable to create one." And it is reasonable that one can and should be created. Gstridsigne (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the previous decision, the arbiter said that a case could be made for keeping, but needed reliable sources to suggest that trans folk are decidedly different policy wise than other politicians. That was pretty easy to find. Here is an article from the Washington Post which pretty much shows, that yes, trans folk have different experiences and therefore different policy goals. It is obvious, but here is a reliable source that clearly states that. Gstridsigne (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If transgender politicians are better covered in reliable sources than other politicians then sure if can be sourced, and if being a transgender politician is a rare enough occurance to merit listing, then sure. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Striking !vote by blocked sock puppeteer. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the nominator the first time, I'm not going to cast another vote this time — I still believe that the same issues apply as before, so I don't feel the need to rehash them all. But if this does get kept, the title still needs to be something different than it is (i.e. List of transgender politicians), and the list needs to be organized differently. It should not include non-notable town councillors and school or library board trustees and members of the boards of directors of non-notable organizations, and it should not contain repeated entries for the same person each time they won reelection — it should be restricted to people who have Wikipedia articles to link to, just as the other lists of LGBT people already are due to their frequent misuse as a venue for attack vandalism against non-LGBT people, and it should contain one entry per notable person, not three or four or five repetions of the same person each time they got reelected. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with many of your comments Bearcat. The fact that many of the names are repeated when they assumed a new office seems odd. And many of the current names do have articles. But being that 2017 was a watershed year for trans folks being elected to office, perhaps the even the non-note worthy names should be kept in that secion. 9 openly trans folk were elected on one day. That is noteworthy in and of itself. But I agree - it needs some work - but shouldn't be deleted or merged. Gstridsigne (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum it should only contain bluelinks, and a rename to List of transgender politicians would be wise. I am taking the pruning of non-notable entries as a given when saying keep. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been clearing out a backlog at Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion and my interest in this article came about through that. I have no opinion on the article except to say that if it is kept it needs some better inclusion criteria so only notable people are on it. I do have some other general thoughts though:

I stand by the merge being unfeasible. It would require me going through each individual in order to establish whether they were the first. Even doing that the number of minor city officials would completely outweigh the other list and create major WP:undue concerns. There is a reason no one has done anything with this article after 15 months.
Redirect was a valid option. A redirect is merely a merge where nothing is fitted. It is like me merging everything into that article and it then being deleted. The alternative would have been me completely messing up the other article. Believe me I have done hundreds of AFD merges and redirecting is the best option in over half of them.
This is the wrong way to overturn an AFD. It should have gone to WP:Deletion review. It is here now and editors have responded so it may as well stay. I will ping the participants from the previous AFD though. @Sandstein, Mineffle, Bearian, and Carrite:.
Editors !voting merge without thinking of the practical consequences of the merge is a common problem here, one I am looking to address (see User talk:Atsme/MR). For a similar example see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 March 20 for an old AFD that I put up for deletion review due to the impracticality of a merge.

In conclusion I have no opinion on whether this is kept or deleted. But please do not merge it. AIRcorn (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. An important list, it seems to me. Carrite (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, and fix. --Enos733 (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't care what happens to the article, but the list is definitely a notable and sourceable one. SportingFlyer talk 05:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as long as in the data is somewhere on Wikipedia, does it matter where it is? Bearian (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provided that common sense, logic, reason and policy is followed, it does not matter where it is. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have went through the list and made a few adjustments. I have deleted repeated entries and consolidated entries where they were appropriate. I added a few citations, and added a lead to the article detailing why this list can be differentiated from other lists like "First LGBT politicians." I also deleted individuals whom I could not verify were trans, like Anne Graham of Redmond Oregon, and others who seemed not noteworty like Racheal Luckey who was elected to a neighborhood council. I also added a comment on the election in 2017. Obviously, these are necessary changes but there still exists more work to be done on the list. I would suggest removing some of the tabs - and I will be introducing an infobox to link it to the Transgender series. I also encourage others to make changes. Gstridsigne (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, Notable topic for a list; probably to List of transgender politicians. Reywas92^Talk 07:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and support the rename suggestion to List of transgender politicians. Rab V (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the renaming to List of transgender politicians. Gstridsigne (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of transgender politicians. The article is a complete disaster content-wise. Some form of inclusion criteria will be established, as not every school board member should be listed in an encyclopedia. But that debate is for the talk page, not here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being that, even WITH school board members, the total of trans officials in the US numbers less then 30, it seems reasonable and noteworthy to keep them. The highest office a trans individual has held is in the DoD - but that was an appointed position. Danica Roem and Althea Garrison currently hold the title of trans person in highest elected office, and as far as trans men, the highest attainment achieved is City Councilperson by Phillipe Cunningham. So, yes, even elected school board members seem noteworthy - only 3 transmen have been elected ever, 2 of them school board members. But of course, as you said, that is an issue for the talkpage, not here. Gstridsigne (talk) 20:26, 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 G5d. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chethan Cheenu[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:47, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yousuf Sifat[edit]

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

This player doesn't/didn't play in a full-pro league or a senior national team. See also WT:FOOTY#Asian Games. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the insanely low notability guidelines for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Player name doesn't appear on the first team of the pro-league club mentioned. Anhgamat (talk) 10:43, 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, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harlem 6[edit]

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

This subject fails to meet the Music notability criteria. The article reads like a fan page, referenced only to self-published promotional material. A Google News search fails to find any references at all. NOTE: There are some articles about a different group called the "Harlem Six" who were charged with a crime - do not confuse with this musical group. Gronk Oz (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delet Poorly written Cruft trash, or some kind of promotional thing. Searched turned up nothing on them, and although this doesn't have to do with my rational, I'm getting wannabe Wu-tang clan and Brockhampton vibes from them. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 20:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They are described in one sentence at List of Wu-Tang Clan affiliates and that might reflect all they have truly accomplished. They have a few official releases that were roundly ignored by the public and otherwise they've been on a few mix tapes and guest appearances. Their "new" album The Streets Made Us has been hyped as "coming soon" for four years. This poorly-written article is pure promotion, and rather desperate too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even without considering how bad the ~~article~~ fanpage is, the group is blatantly non-notable. The only "article" or "source" I could find was someone that found out that one of the members were charged with rape and then convicted on lesser charges after a plea bargain. [23] If the subject of the article gets convicted of sexual offenses and the only person to report it is a blogger, then the article probably has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving the AFD. Acebulf (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO as it is spam enough for G11 Atlantic306 (talk) 17:43, 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) 00:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gurdeep Mehndi[edit]

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

Non notable Bollywood actor,music director and singer. Only thing makes him notable is that he is the son of Punjabi Singer Dalal Mehndi Sonia89f (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Notability is not inherited, and a couple of roles in minor films is not sufficient. --bonadea contributions talk 13:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bonadea above and WP:TOOSOON. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:50, 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) 00:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burweyn[edit]

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

Another Somali "locality" we claim to be a town, blank spot on globe, etc., etc. Mangoe (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a place in Somalia called Burweyn, and it has even appeared in news reports [24] [25]. However it clearly isn't the subject of this article. Those sources say it's close to Buloburde which is in a completely different part of the country to the place this article is talking about. No sources to verify the existence of this "town", the one source calls it a "locality" which includes unpopulated places and nothing on satellite imagery. Hut 8.5 18:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete V, GNG. Not There. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:46, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7, author requested. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rishika Lulla Singh[edit]

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

Nothing here suggests notability - it reads more like a promo piece. There is a possibility that the company might be notable but nothing here suggests that the CEO is notable. A couple of interviews (preumsanbly press releases) and little more. Several refs about the company but that doesn't add any notability for the CEO. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:47, 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) 00:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Balli Gaabandhoor[edit]

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

Another day, another Somali "town" that's really a "locality" that points to a blank spot on the map, no meaningful GHits. You know the drill by now. Mangoe (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pnom. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of existence. Hut 8.5 22:35, 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 speedy delete per G5 The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garima Arora[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:NACTOR with some minor/uncredited role in some tv shows. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 16:32, 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 per WP:SK#1. The nomination is only proposing a merge. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunway Money[edit]

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

Merge with parent article. Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 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 merge to National Party of Australia leadership elections. I guess I could also say "repurpose" since we currently don't have a page for it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Party of Australia leadership election, 2007[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Not all leadership elections are notable, and this was a total non-event; not really an election at all. St Anselm (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Quite untrue to say "this was a total non-event", the change of a political party leader is very important in the political landscape of a country. As such I believe an article detailing it is appropriate. This nomination just seems to be a solution looking for a problem. Kiwichris (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably not enough material for a standalone article. The potential candidates for leader and deputy leader should have their involvement mentioned in their articles, if not already done so. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a new article about National Party leadership elections in general. It's not an inherently invalid topic — people are interested in the leadership histories of political parties, and they do get media coverage — but it's not necessarily the case that every leadership election always needs its own standalone article even if there's very little that can actually be said about it because it was a one-candidate race that ended in an acclamation. A better approach is what we do with New Democratic Party leadership elections in Canada: we start with an overview article about the overall phenomenon of the party's leadership elections in general. It directly contains all of the content about the races where we can't really write or source anything significant, because they were one-candidate or "incumbent leader challenged only by a minor fringe candidate who had no chance of actually winning" formalities, and then the races about which we can write and source more content have their own separate articles which are briefly summarized under a "main article" link to the standalone subpage. This isn't an inherently invalid topic, but it doesn't really need its own standalone article — including a brief summary of it in an overview article is a better approach in this case. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bearcat. We have far too many of these leadership election articles (the sheer number at Category:Leadership elections in the Czech Republic is painful to see) and I agree that merging them into a single article on leadership elections within the party would be a good solution to having numerous articles that are never going to progress beyond a stub. Number 5 7 12:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as nominator, I agree. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Party of Australia leadership election, 2016. St Anselm (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Czech case is not a good example because it has categories for 13 different parties, and some of them would be pretty minor. Some leadership contests deserve articles: e.g. those for Australia's main two parties, because they are always choosing a Prime Minister or alternative PM. That said, the Nationals leadership is never such a big deal (they are probably Australia's 3rd most significant party, but well behind the main 2), so I don't care either way on the merge. Adpete (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Bearcat. Some of these elections, where they are contested, might be interesting enough to justify standalone articles, but for pro-forma processes like this where there is only one candidate, dressing them up as an "election" is borderline misleading for our readers. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a new article like above, this wasn't a true election and therefore doesn't particularly meet WP:EVENT. talk to !dave 15:27, 28 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 17:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Maristela[edit]

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

In accordance with WP:BEFORE attempted to search for significant coverage for the subject of this biography article. Individual has received brief mentions in multiple reliable sources, but none where the subject of this article themselves was the primary topic of the reliable source. Additionally this article might fall under WP:SPIP. Therefore, I am proposing that the article be deleted at this time, as perhaps it is too soon for this entrepreneur to be considered notable. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mainly per WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 16:28, 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 redirect to Guiding Light. Content can be merged from history. Delete and merge is not possible. Sandstein 17:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield (Guiding Light)[edit]

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

Almost all plot, no indication of real-world notability. Two of the three sources are about the show itself, and the third is about the ownership of a road sign. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. When you search for the article and you get there, there isn't any there there. -The Gnome (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Guiding Light. Some of the more factual info *may* be able to be moved into the main article, but the more crufty stuff can easily go. StewdioMACK (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing independent notability; then merge anything deemed interesting onto the main article. -The Gnome (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. However, the article would benefit from more vigorous editing and sourcing. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suhai Aziz Talpur[edit]

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

Nothing special about 'being first' to do so. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep somewhat agree with nom but the subject appears to meet WP:GNG.1 samee ^talk 11:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 14:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for barely passing the relevant criteria for notability per source provided above. -The Gnome (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There are more than 6 reference and among which two are from the renowned newspapers, if there is atleast one source the article is kept, and the article is about a public figure, moreover the article is about a female/woman from a underprivilidged area of Pakistan which got such a high success, I recommend Strong keep.Jogi 007 (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meet the guidelines of notability. Please note that Suhai Aziz Talpur is the first female Assistant Superintendent of of Police in Sindh province. See reference →[[26]].Arif80s (talk) 07:18, 28 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) 05:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rahmat Mia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not appeared in a fully professional league or an international match. JTtheOG (talk) 05:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see Bangladesh Football Premier League on the fully professional leagues list but note it says on its page that it's a renamed league that in 2012 went professional. So if it is, he passes but if it isn't he fails. NZFC^(talk) 05:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Another promo piece strictly for the fans, the agent, and the club. -The Gnome (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet even our extremely low notability standard for football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 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. A redirect can be created separately. Sandstein 17:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fahda bint Falah Al Hathleen[edit]

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

No significant notability in her own right. No indication othat she is actually "First lady of saudi arabia' if such a thing even exists.

Only briefly mentioned in articles from March 2018 Heliotom (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further WP:INVALIDBIO "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)"Heliotom (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Saudi Arabia's King is clearly notable; his wife is not. Notability is not inherited; it's also not a dowry. -The Gnome (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources indicate how this person is notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited Chetsford (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:POLOUTCOMES says that The spouse of the head of state or government is usually regarded as notable; although citing OUTCOMES arguments in AfD discussions is discouraged. This ref [27] notes Little is known about Princess Fahda, the king’s third wife, and like most Saudi royal women she is not seen in public. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Salman of Saudi Arabia. The only coverage I've found is the mention that she's the mother of Mohammad bin Salman, and the recent news stories about her supposed house arrest. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:18, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cenin cement[edit]

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

Unsourced for too long and sounds a bit promotional. I'm finding mostly press releases or passing mentions regarding the cement business, while the parent group appears to have a bit broader coverage for which there is no article. MT Train^Talk 05:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since its own creators cannot be bothered (they possibly cannot locate evidence of notability, themselves). -The Gnome (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I added one reference, and it does sound like an interesting proposition (although currently with unsourced claims), but I am not finding sufficient evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, although theres a bit of news out there about this company, and its admirable what they are doing, there doesn't appear to be enough for notability (where are the significant (environment) awards?), may be a case of WP:TOOSOON? Coolabahapple (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Medice[edit]

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

I can't find good sources. New page by new account. [28]. Not seeing notability even with some famous work. Legacypac (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:MUS and seems to be the musician himself editing. StewdioMACK (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I got nothing on sources either. No sources from which to write an entry is pretty much the ballgame. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination for failing notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources have been updated to reflect information leif138 12:47, 20 March 2018

I appreciate the effort to look for more sources, as I would always rather improve an entry than delete it, but in terms of the reliable sources, these are pretty much the definition of trivial mentions—in Variety and Billboard, the subject doesn’t even get a full sentence. Unfortunately we just don’t have the material to write a “full and balanced” biography by Wikipedia standards (summarizing secondary source coverage of a topic). This material is better covered by music catalog sites like the ones referenced in the entry, or on the artist’s personal site. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:19, 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) 05:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Police Commissioner of Jaipur[edit]

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

Not shown to have independent notability to Jaipur, but not even mentioned as a notable position or group in the main Jaipur article. Created by blocked user. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non notable people, non notable position. Ajf773 (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This isn't even an article on the person. It appears to be a general definition of the post its self. Doesn't need its own article. Edaham (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the above comments, a non-notable post held by a non-notable individual. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:38, 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 17:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Cipolla[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable media personality created by an obvious WP:COI account. He's worked for a few notable media outlets, but not in a notable role. The article says he was the afternoon news anchor on WNBC (the radio station), but from what I'm seeing calling him an anchor is a stretch. It does not appear he had his own show, he just read the news during someone else's show. Rusf10 (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given timeframe, you might argue there could be pre-internet sources out there...but if there were enough to make a person notable, you'd expect there to be at least some reviews of the memoir they published in the internet-era. Not so much. So I'm not hopeful about getting adequate secondary sourcing for this. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lacking supporting evidence of actual notability. -The Gnome (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep'~~ A couple of searches quickly brought up 3 WP:RS articles from which I did a little sourcing of the outlines of his career. Editors willing to search will readily find more, but I think this now meets WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC) Withdrawing, I am NOT persuaded that a source from outside the NYC media market is required, but I do think we need either an additional INDEPTH profile or evidence of IMPACT. Some journalists get used as a model for a film or play, some get extensive mash notes in the texts of notable memoirs, some are the authors of impactful, widely-cited journalism. Cipolla appears to be a very popular on-air broadcaster. feel free to ping me to reconsider if anyone has a well-founded reasons for arguing keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A mere mention of a person in an RS is not indepth coverage. I can't see all the sources you added, but this one looks particular bad [29] They wrote a few sentences about him, that's not significant coverage as required by WP:BASIC. He also is not the subject of this article either [30]. Just because an article contains his name does not make it a good source to support notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first article that you object to provides several details about his career, and the New York Daily News is a reliable source for facts about journalists working at other New York News media; the article Tale of two Franks no Chip off the old block is a 3 paragraph career summary honoring this journalist on his 25th year in the biz, it is a sort of light-hearted riff on the fact that New York has had, over the decades, two journalists christened "Frank" Cipolla, although the other went by "Chip." The second source that you find objectionable is an article about an entirely separate topic in the New York Post that I used - legitimately - to source a single fact about Cipolla's career (employment at WWOR-TV). Detailed articles about his career that that you do not mention are feature article in The Hunterdon County Democrat "Award winning broadcaster Frank Cipolla writes about his experience at WCRV in Washington in new book" and a feature article (or perhaps an essay by a columnist?,) in the New York Daily News: :A Frank Look at Local News" , and, yes, I do regard this as the kind of significant, in-depth profiling that supports notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I additionally wonder whether we could find anything to indicate he got more than hometown coverage? I am of the opinion that hometown sources should count for something but I do think we need outside sources as well, to establish broader notability and satisfy the “balanced” account requirement in WP:WHYN. Somewhat like (but less severely than) the campus newspaper of a subject’s alma mater, hometown-only sources may be tilted toward giving an inflated impression of a subject’s significance, and outside sources provide a means of cross-checking. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, although The Star-Ledger is New Jersey's statewide newspaper. I have certainly not run exhaustive searches, there are ohter Franks Cipolla and I just looked for th elow-hanging fruit, er... serch words. I add that the New York metropolitan area is an awfully big media market with thousands of working journalists who have never had a profile in one of the city's major dailies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean about New York-area recognition feeling more significant, but since we don't pass articles on New York restaurants or plays that only have NY-based coverage, I don't know why we'd do differently for bios. If he really is more than locally significant, I'd expect to see that external sources did also take notice, and I haven't here yet (and I did look for quite a while myself last night). Innisfree987 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local broadcaster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he's not even notable for the local NYC market. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Napalm Death. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 12:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Herrera (musician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable member of several bands Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing the relevant notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Napalm Death per the consensus of the previous AfD. Satisfies WP:NMUSIC criterion 6. --Michig (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No mention of subject and you know, but refuse to acknowledge, that the criteria simply states that the subject may be notable, not that the subject is notable. No sources to support notability, therefore, the subject is not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - "No sources to support notability, therefore, the subject is not notable" - are you seriously claiming that the absence of sources in the article has any bearing on notability? --Michig (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - You never answered the question posed to you. And no, there is no significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In other words, there are no sources related to the subject that confer notability. They do not exist anywhere. That's why they're not in the article. Are you seriously saying that a subject that has virtually nothing written about him is notable just because he sits behind a drum kit in a few bands that happen to have articles on Wikipedia? What sort of encyclopedic entry can we have about the subject who is just mentioned in-passing when the bands are discussed? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - You didn't pose any question to me, but we have accepted notability criteria that have been arrived at by consensus - while I don't agree with all of them, I don't think it unreasonable to express an opinion in favour of keeping on the basis of satisfying those accepted criteria. How can you possibly state that there is no significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Have you searched through print copies of all music and drumming magazines? Of course you haven't. I found one that lists him on the cover as the subject of one of the main articles. --Michig (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        You're right that I didn't pose a question. I called out your manifold ignorance and assumed you would defend it. You didn't. The consensus is still is that the sources for a stand-alone article need to exist. You are the perennial holdout to changing the wording so we placate you and deal with your objections every time this come up with a subject. As for not finding any sources, I've done my best to find some, and unless you can provide some, we have to conclude that they don't exist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        This is the problem with you Walter. When someone disagrees with you, you just start throwing around insults and wikilawyering. Your failure to find sources that exist has been demonstrated time and time again. Your record at AfD is poor. Finding sources to confirm what is in the article is trivial. Worst case here should be a merge and redirect to Napalm Death, probably the world's pre-eminenent grindcore band for which he has been the drummer for over 25 years and for which he is best known, and you should have considered this option rather than wasting everybody's time with an AfD. --Michig (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll wear that hat. I don't mean to be insulting though. You're right that I haven't found any print sources. But then again, neither have you. I'm happy to leave it there and let the closing admin decide how to interpret the criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Napalm Death. The above argument got out of hand, with Michig being the professional voice of reason, and WP:NBAND #6 is valid. Walter was less professional but raised some good points on how the drummer has not been covered much in the media in his own right, beyond being in multiple notable bands. I suggest that Napalm Death be updated: when that article proceeds to 2003 it can say that Herrera joined Venomous Concept as a side project, then a little later it can say that he subbed temporarily for Anaal Nathrakh. The current Herrera article has a few sources that can back this up. In fact, I will do that right now. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Napalm Death is done. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andre DiMino[edit]

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

promotional article about a non-notable activist. Neither him nor the group he runs are notable. Rusf10 (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very promotional. Should be speedied. scope_creep (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked in a news archive, a couple of hits from coverage a few years back, mostly in what I take to be a local ethnic publication called the Italian Voice. He was part of an activist organization called the Italian American One Voice Coalition that I have just tagged for notability. DiMino and the Coalition were riled up about [[Jersey Shore (TV series), which shone a brief but intense spotlight on the New Jersey Italian American community, portraying it in a very negative light. One sympathizes, but sympathy does not confer notability. Lacks sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:06, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Augusto Amador[edit]

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

City Councilman, fails WP:POLITICIAN. I see nothing more but mentions of him in the local newspaper. Rusf10 (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. City councillors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because they exist — we accept city councillors in global cities as notable, but in any city outside of that class a city councillor has to be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to be deemed significantly more notable than the norm for most other city councillors. (And no, the fact that Newark is a suburb of a global city whose councillors are accepted as notable does not give Newark's city councillors the global city treatment, either.) There's simply nowhere near enough valid sourcing here. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another article on a non-notable municipal politician in New Jersey.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 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) 05:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Watch[edit]

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

Doesn't seem all that notable. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per complete lack of secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No Deletion The website has just been created and is a future resource for my company. There is little reference because it's basic company knowledge I know that isn't anywhere else. I have the current references for line everything together so it makes sense. Not only this, IT JUST STARTED, therefore, I will update this as more ideas flow into my head. JustinWx

@JustinWx: Independent and reliable sources are needed for articles in order to demonstrate WP:NWEB (in this case)/general notability. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JustinWx: Your rationale is another reason for deleting this article. Wikipedia doesn't help newly established companies to gain publicity. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per nomination~~ Strong delete [Edit: Opinion changed after learning this is done for publicity, while Wikipedia is explicitly NOT meant to promote anyone and anything. -The Gnome (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)] The criterion is notability. The subject of the article was recently born, so WP:TOOSOON also applies. Perhaps, the nominated article is about a worthy start-up effort; but Wikipedia is not here to promote worthy business efforts. -The Gnome (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explain publicity — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinWx (talk • contribs) 17:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Most of the explaining one would need has already been done by you. You wrote: The website has just been created and is a future resource for my company. That's a clear admission of a WP:TOOSOON violation. Then you admit to lack of notability: There is little reference because it's basic company knowledge I know that isn't anywhere else. You have my best and sincere wishes for success with your venture; if this gets indeed deleted, come back when the subject is notable enough to have the article reinstated. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just created company has no place n Wikipedia because we don't advertise for startups and newcomers. Wikipedia documents what has already been published about. Utter lack of independent reference shows failure of meeting the criteria or inclusion. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The company was created in 2016 and serves over 30 thousand people on Facebook and Twitter, therefore, small is not applied and when I say, I am meaning new to Wiki, not a new company. Reliable sources for a self-owned company is not do-able. Also, I’m not trying to get publicity, just a source with everything about the company in one place. JustinWx —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources for a self-owned company is not do-able. - yes, it is. Anything can potentially be discussed in depth in a reliable source. If a company (no matter who owns it) doesn't have significant coverage in independent sources, and doesn't meet these criteria, then it isn't notable according to Wikipedia's definition and there can't be an article about it. --bonadea contributions talk 13:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sourcing does not appear to exist, at least I am not able to find it. --bonadea contributions talk 13:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All sources will be removed, what “reliable” types should I add then, in what form? JustinWx —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATED Source list has been updated, 3 complete sections have been added and filled in totaling 6 different sections (not including sub-sections) JustinWx (Edited Comments)}} @ 10:24, 20 March 2018 (EDT)

Reasons for deletion include the following:

- Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion

- Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria

- Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish

- Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)

- Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)

- Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)

- Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

- Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

- Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons

- Redundant or otherwise useless templates

- Categories representing overcategorization

- Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the non-free policy

- Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace

- Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

None of the topics above apply to this case.

1 - Doesn't Apply 2 - Doesn't Apply 3 - Doesn't Apply 4 - Doesn't Apply because "without any relevant or encyclopedic content" --- which, relevant content is provided 5 - Doesn't Apply 6 - Doesn't Apply 7 - Doesn't Apply 8 - Doesn't Apply 9 - Doesn't Apply 10 - Doesn't Apply 11 - Doesn't Apply 12 - Doesn't Apply 13 - Doesn't Apply 14 - Doesn't Apply because the content is suitable. JustinWx —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability (criterion 8) has not been shown, that's why it was nominated and that hasn't changed. The sources in the article are primary, published by the company itself, and independent sources are needed to show notability. There's also a large amount of unsourced info, some of it rather promotional, in the article. A deletion discussion generally lasts for a week and is closed by an administrator who has not participated in the discussion, and who looks at the arguments that are based on policy (ignoring those that are not). --bonadea contributions talk 07:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I will look into finding some sources from other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinWx (talk • contribs) 11:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JustinWx You're doing a lot of things wrong. (1) You do not get to decide that "the discussion is over" and that is because we have not a consensus to retain the status quo and, moreover, you support retaining it. (2) The criteria you listed are trumped by WP:N, the rule that brought the article to the stand. (3) You are confusing the process for deleting articles with its companion process for speedily deleting articles. And (4) in discussions such as this one, where who says what is important, please try not to forget to have your input signed. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DISCUSSION OVER, DELETE @The Gnome Sorry, I'm new to all of Wikipedia and don't know the difference of deletion. I am also frustrated as a page I made may be deleted because it's a smallish community. I didn't know the size of the company, which changes the number of references, had anything to do with a simple Wiki page. If you want, delete it, I don't have any more time to find references to my company. It's simply not worth my time and effort for this attack. -JustinWx

There is no "attack." No one is out to do harm to the company or you. You're correct about Wikipedia having rules that might seem a little bewildering to a newcomer, but when you get down to it, the rules here are quite straightforward and simple: To get on Wikipedia, a subject has to be, more than anything else, notable. And notability is supported by third-party sources; not our own efforts. That's about it; the rest of the rules are built to support the functioning of the encyclopaedia around these basic premises. I fully understand the frustration in seeing something close to your heart, such as a nascent company to which you've dedicated a lot of work, getting deleted from Wikipedia. I can only sympathize. I wish you, JustinWx, and your company, such success in the near future that your company makes a triumphant comeback here and questions of notability no one will dare raise. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very insufficient secondary coverage. In-house blurbs, social media posts, and incidental mentions do not notability make. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:01, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Musskan Sethi[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON, and doesn't meet WP:ENT as an actress or model. Just one film and now she's Wikipedia-notable? No major awards. Biography is highly promotional. Can this be thrown into draft until she becomes notable? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not meeting WP:ARTIST. One, non-leading role in one, rather minor film does not for Wikipedia make. -The Gnome (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:54, 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. Killiondude (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baaror[edit]

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

Another unverifiable Somali blank-spot-on-the-map. Interestingly, this gets a bunch of semi-legitimate hits because "ba aror" is supposedly the Somali name for some Commiphora species (at least if you believe the CRC World Dictionary of Medicinal and Poisonous Plants. Mangoe (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability per nomination. Let's hope this trend goes out of fashion soon. -The Gnome (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not There. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:40, 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) 04:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic fintech dictionary[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Clearly doesn't belong on Wikipedia per WP:NOT and WP:STANDALONE. Waggie (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Ajf773 (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTDICT Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and above comments. -The Gnome (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was intiailly thinking this would be about a book, but the list format fails NOTDICT. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear enough it's not appropriate here, but I'll take the opportunity to ask, is there really ever a situation where something gets transwikied to Wikitionary per "Handling problems" on NOTDICT, or in practice does most everything just need deletion? I ask because I realize I wouldn't even know how to check if something was appropriate for transfer (especially in a case like this where it's not one term but a list), but maybe the answer is, it basically never is? Innisfree987 (talk) 17:17, 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 Speedy delete. per G7 by Espresso Addict. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 05:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Through the decades[edit]

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

Part of title was mistakenly not capitalised SirCrow (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is eligible for G7, as SirCrow is the only editor of the page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per above — IVORK _Discuss 02:35, 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) 04:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laz Ki Bohol[edit]

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

A supposed (but acto geonames unverified) populated place which is in a rugged area even more barren than usual for Somalia. Searching on the two variants produces nothing meaningful in either case. Mangoe (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's hope this trend goes out of fashion soon. -The Gnome (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not there. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:41, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Holmes[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable former actor. Quis separabit? 01:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not meeting WP:ARTIST. -The Gnome (talk) 15:46, 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. Normally, I'd find some way to invoke WP:ATD and call this a merge, but there's cogent arguments here why we can't do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time vortex (Doctor Who)[edit]

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

Appears to be entirely fictional technobabble-cruft that fails WP:GNG. The only major mentions of it are in primary, in-universe sources such as books written for/about the show._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~I find it hard to believe this isn't covered in some reliable sources somewhere. I seem to remember it was an important element of the show. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is an in-universe thing. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 22:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In universe is usually a delete argument isn't it? Szzuk (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The page has no references which is usually a delete from me but given that Doctor Who is so well covered it probably could be referenced so I will hold my vote for now. Szzuk (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really this needs the attention of someone who knows Dr Who sources, since looking for such stuff on the web is like looking for a grain of sand on a beach. Prince of Thieves (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking any outside sources that support the subject's independent notability. It's not enough that we have an article dedicated to TARDIS, we now must have an article about what the machine does? Whatever text there is of interest should be added to the TARDIS article and that should be all. -The Gnome (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a spinoff of the TARDIS article, it's a sort of space time thing that is regularly featured in episodes and is also the title sequence. The TARDIS, and most other Dr Who thingies travel in and out of it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. To Tardis, no refs but has a place there. Szzuk (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot explicitly recommend that a piece of text is added to a Wikipedia article without any references to outside sources. As far as I know, it is forbidden. -The Gnome (talk)

Comment I would like to argue to keep, but on balance think that there is not enough notability to justify a standalone article. However there is useful material here which could be merged (although there is some more trivial and non-notable content that could go). The question is where? My concern about merging with TARDIS is that the Vortex is not just related to the TARDIS - other time travel devices in Doctor Who travel through it as well, such the devices used by Captain Jack and River Song. If the spin-off fiction is included there are also a number of stories which feature races that live in the Time Vortex. However I am not sure where else it could go. It is pity that there is not a Time Travel in Doctor Who article or Scientific Concepts in Doctor Who article that could cover this and also the Blinovitch Limitation Effect. Dunarc (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The material might indeed be useful (I'm not qualified to pass judgement on this) but where are the sources supporting it? As we all know, Wikipedia is not a publication of essays. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You make a fair point and I totally agree about the essays point - it is one of the reasons I think this could be covered in briefer format in another article rather than kept, although as I say if this is decided as the way to go I do not think the TARDIS article is the best place. The lack of references is an issue (and I meant to note that in my previous comment so thanks for flagging up), but I think that could be overcome as there should be reliable sources out there for some of the points. Dunarc (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plotcruft, see WP:NOTPLOT. No apparent notability because of no sources. Do not merge unsourced content. Sandstein 17:22, 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. Sandstein 17:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Envy (American rapper)[edit]

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

I can find very little information on this person other than rap profile sites, and the claim that he had a number one single isn't true according to billboards own site https://www.billboard.com/music/envy , which instead says his song peaked at 87 for a week 💵Money emoji💵^Talk 01:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not meeting WP:ARTIST. Per nomination, this one tried to sneak in on false pretenses, as well. -The Gnome (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the number-one single was apparently on Billboard's Hot R&B/Hip Hop Singles Sales chart, whatever that is, and the claim came straight from the press release from his record company. Richard3120 (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That confirms my suspicions that this was just a shady promo article. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 20:19, 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) 04:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fullerenes in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is pure listcruft. Most entries are things in books or video games that are named after fullerenes - this content belongs on pages for that piece of media, if anywhere on Wikipedia. Possibly the fine art section would have some value at Julian Voss-Andreae, and the Google logo fact is already mentioned at Fullerene#Popular culture, but I can see nothing else of significance. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 00:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Nothing there. At best, this should be a subsection of the article on Buckminster Fuller or his creations. -The Gnome (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely bizarre article, I'm shocked something this obscure and niche to the point only 4 1/2 people who have ever existed would care about it exists. The fact that it overcame 1 previous AFD is even weirder.💵Money emoji💵^Talk 14:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, the previous AfD was over a decade ago, though I'm not sure what the site's criteria for inclusion were back then. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 15:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, back then the only reason some things could be kept was because they existed. Due to how much this site has grown over time, guidelines have tightened- I guess it isn't that weird.💵Money emoji💵^Talk 16:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ick. The indiscriminate trivia it burns. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:59, 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. Sandstein 17:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aztlan Underground[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Three album entries at AllMusic and none have reviews. Same at Reverb Nation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete NN, Run of the mill band article. Wikipedia:Bringers of Darkness. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)~~.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete / Weak Delete~~ (see comments below). A band that has been making culturally-relevant music for almost 30 years, but I'm sorry to say that they have attracted little notice in their lengthy history. The article states that they have been mentioned in several newspapers and magazines, but those are typically concert listings and name-drops within lists of similar bands. They have appeared in Los Angeles Times on several occasions but usually as brief mentions within articles that are actually about the scene that they came from. They have indeed been nominated for awards ([31]), which gets them kind of close to WP:NBAND #8, but not enough. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete per nomination and comments above.~~ Reluctantly changing vote to Weak keep. The sources supporting notability still barely, if at all, meet WP:ARTIST. For instance, a few of Michig's sources quote duplicated text, some others are mere mentions in lists, and so on. As to duffbeerforme's sources: The pdf file from learcenter is not accessible, the website itself presumed MIA; another is a duplicate of Michig's, the only truly valueable mention in the media I can see; the discog list is totally unimportant; and The Village Voice article is offline. No, the bits do not "add up" but, still, the benefit of the doubt is given for this is a band whose modest claim to fame was before the internets conquered the world. -The Gnome (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage from a wide range of sources, e.g. [32], [33],[34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. Some of the coverage here is brief, but enough isn't. --Michig (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I detected most of Michig's sources during my own search and would argue that, except for the chapter in It's Not About a Salary, the coverage generally consists of name-drops of this band as an example band within the music scene that is actually being discussed in the respective text. I would not consider this to be significant coverage of the band itself, but they could be a contender for WP inclusion based on these several brief mentions in books. Therefore I have changed my original vote above to "Weak Delete". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Their early years are not the best years for online coverage but there is more than above. They are often name checked as an example of mexican rap.

The Encyclopedia of Native Music above (Michigs first) is good

This is a good source.

This (warning pdf) essay from American Quarterly gives them decent coverage, paints them as significant.

Those three alone seem good enough for GNG

this might be OK

Kun, Josh, THE DECLINE OF EAST L.A. CIVILIZATION r, Village Voice

Writes a bit about them in his review of some compilations including Sociedad=Suciedad.

D3 Entertainment looks like it could be considered an important label for WP:MUSIC [44].

All the bits add up. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Improve (Changed Vote) - Michig and Duff have convinced me to change my vote. There is evidence that the band gained notability in their early years, but the article needs to be improved to reflect that. In fact, if the result of this AfD is to keep, the admin can contact my talk page and I will improve the article with the sources found in this debate. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:12, 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.