Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 March	29 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 speedy keep. Snow (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine Hossenfelder[edit]

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

The subject is not notable enough to merit Wikipedia article, as it fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. All the references article, except Scientific American, are either publications of the subject or the pages of the institutes/organizations the subject works at. Just a single article about the subject in a 3rd party source does not establish notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubed junejo (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP She is well known in academia and also in popular science. VoltarCH
KEEPShe has had an impressive academic career, is a sought after popular science writer / communicator and her first book (with the Hachette Book Group) is due Spring / Summer 2018: (https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/basicbooks-s18-catalog.pdf). Jesswade88 (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Live Science quoted Hossenfelder as an authority when trying to evaluate the importance of Stephen Hawking's last scientific publication" ... that does it for me.Victuallers (talk) 09:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citation record [1][2] is enough for WP:PROF#C1; she is quoted as an expert often enough (e.g., [3][4][5][6][7], in addition to refs already in article) to satisfy WP:PROF#C7. XOR'easter (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the others above. Impressive career, passes PROF. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aside from potential notability as a physics popularizer, Google scholar [8] shows 6-8 publications with over 100 citations each (count a little fuzzy because it crosses one out for reasons I don't understand and another is just short). That's enough for WP:PROF#C1 for me, even in a high-citation field. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The crossed-out one with 108 citations looks to be a duplicate of the entry above; why it doesn't just list them together, I don't know. But that's still 6 papers with triple-digit citations apiece, plus one more with 99. XOR'easter (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:PROF easily. -- Dane ^talk 00:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with all comments above Nejaby (talk) 09:24, 30 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 10:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle zits[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable fiction-cruft that fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to first write an article about the story itself and then merge the info about gentle zits into it. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'll have to go back and take a look at the Kandel translation of The Cyberiad, but I don't even recall this, and there's no reference to the particular story within the book. (our article on it, BTW, is terrible.) Mangoe (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, finally got to it. The story in question is the first one in the book, and the zits are particularly mentioned as something the machine gets rid of: "gentle zits" is one phrase in the Kandel translation, and every other time, they are just "zits". There's really no point in an article on them because (a) they're just a prop in the story, and it doesn't matter what they (or the gruncheons and the pritons, which also go in for more than one mention) are, and (b) Kandel's job as a translator of all of Lem's Polish wordplay was, often enough, simply to write the thing over from scratch, so that I'm told that the poem about a haircut with all words beginning with the letter S is in fact a completely different poem on a different subject using a different letter in every language. Mangoe (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Kpalion above that without an article on the actual short story, this article about an item within that story has little validity. However the article has a possibly notable factual statement. I cannot find access to the sources in the article claiming that the "gentle zits" concept has been studied by Polish linguists. If that is confirmed to be true, it can be discussed at Stanislaw Lem#Significance or someplace similar, with sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Del. by BB23 under G5 (non-admin closure) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Cooney (singer)[edit]

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

Unreferenced music bio. Evidently fails WP:NMUSIC inclusion criteria. Editor is brand new and busy creating page after page without references or notability. Would have been slowed down by WP:ACREQ. Legacypac (talk) 23:37, 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 delete G5. John from Idegon (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Rebecca Sedwick[edit]

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

Uncited (as opposed to unreferenced) Biography of a minor who is notable exclusively for their suicide. At a brief glance, I see a "NoBullying" campaign site and a "48 hours investigates" reference that both appear to have a significant naritive editorial wash over it instead of the very clear cut explanation of the facts. This is not eligible for BLP (or recently deceaced because of the suicide being in 2013). This might be a WP:BLP1E, but I'm electing to choose the most conservative nomination to get an ironbound consensus. No objection to Admins speedy closing this if they believe a more liberal interepertation of policy is in order. No objection to Admins speedy closing this in light of snow consensus. Hasteur (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Hasteur (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS also applies. Legacypac (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In a perfect world based on policy and quality, such an article on a sensitive issue would have been speedily deleted. Unfortunately, a few news sources repeating the same tragic story with little lasting significance warrants a seven-day discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per BLP1E and common decency. SNOW should be applied very liberally here. John from Idegon (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Article creator sockblocked. All contributions nuked. Somebody close please?John from Idegon (talk) 00:36, 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 Deleted under G5. (non-admin closure) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Holton[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not news and there's no sign that this murder will ever have the kind of coverage we need to build a proper article. The content of the only reference provided doesn't even match the content of the article at present. Pichpich (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I do agree Wikipedia isn't a newspaper and there shouldn't be pages like these. However, we do have some good coverage I guess. I have added few references, have a look before further voting. Thanks Blazing Sceptile (talk) 23:57, 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 keep. Consensus is that the sources unearthed by KingAndGod are sufficient to be able to improve the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overcast (band)[edit]

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

Appears not to meet WP:MUSIC. Editors have made claims that they are pioneers to their genre, but they've made no effort to assert that with sources. No inline cites, only three at the bottom which are of minimal value, though reliable.

No evidence to keep is presented here; perhaps people have just had no effort and the article just sucks, but I doubt it. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 22:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

commnet I remember this band was a big deal in the 90's New England hardcore/metalcore scene. Having said that, we need actually sources to establish notability, and unfortunately for this case, their name is so generic that it makes the usual googling more difficult. There is this though: [9] Yilloslime ^T_C 04:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient sources to assert notability per WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 00:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They are often regarded as pioneers of the metalcore genre. Significant coverage of reliable sources ([10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]). KingAndGod 18:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance the most promising of those sources would appear to be the first two, as they are books rather than random web sites, but I can't find any information about the publisher of the first, Zonda Books, not even a web site, and the second is published by PediaPress, which simply publishes Wikipedia content, so this is a circular reference. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep metalsucks, sputnik music, allmusic bio are reliable sources and also terroriser (referenced on their album article) so passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SputnikMusic is borderline. I have never seen Terroriser used for any article I've edited before. Does most everyone agree it's reliable here? dannymusiceditor ^oops 20:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the sources that have been found, this squeaks by on WP:GNG. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - For a group this influential (or that is, at least, is frequently claimed to have significant influence), it's pretty odd that detailed information about the band's history and sound is hard to come by. The members get talked about but the project itself seems to be only mentioned briefly. Still, coverage by reliable sources such as Allmusic make it appear to me that the article is worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Osborne[edit]

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

I'm not sure why the group nom of Newark City Council members didn't include the lot, but in any case this fellow got missed, and as a local politician with no claim to notability beyond his position, and nothing beyond routine electoral info, I don't see the notability. Mangoe (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails WP:POLITICIAN. I didn't forget this, but didn't nominate it with the others to try to avoid wikilawyering that I was afraid would happen since he is elected at-large as opposed to by a ward. In my mind this makes no difference and I should have just bundled it anyway since the wikilawyering about the bundle that I hoped to avoid is going on anyway (even though all those are membersof the same city council elected in the same way).--Rusf10 (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just nominated the rest of them see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mildred C. Crump & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos M. Gonzalez (2nd nomination)--Rusf10 (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. City councillors are not automatically deemed to pass WP:NPOL just because they exist, the way state or federal legislators are — to be eligible for an article, a city councillor must either (a) serve on the city council of an internationally prominent global city on the order of New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Toronto or London, or (b) be reliably sourceable to a depth and volume and range of media coverage that plainly marks them out as significantly more notable than most other city councillors in most other cities. Newark is not a city that gets its councillors in the door under condition A, however — so its councillors would have to satisfy condition B, but the sourcing here does not demonstrate that Eddie Osborne does so. Bearcat (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To a degree, we've used Global city as a proxy for determining whether a city is sufficiently large to presume that notability exists for city councilmembers (note that Gamma-level cities are not seen as large enough). Otherwise, the expectation is that councilmembers are expected to receive significant national or international coverage of their work. --Enos733 (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of the absurd over-coverage of living New Jersey politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tony Daniel. Delete, but redirect per WP:ATD to be useful ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Tenth[edit]

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

Non-notable comic strip, fails WP:GNG. PROD was removed by creator 10 odd years ago with no rationale, and article hasn't improved since then. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some details to Tony Daniel. It looks like his article contains more information about the comic than this one does. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No refs, as nom says. Szzuk (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tony Daniel. Plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zul Fahmi Awang[edit]

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

Currently fails WP:NFOOTY; has not played in a fully professional league Eagleash (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:57, 29 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) 08:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 03:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It appears he's currently playing for a professional team, but not in a professional league: as such, he fails WP:NFOOTY. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article is not bad, but he technically fails WP:NFOOTY. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone would like the article userfied, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Elrich[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a city and county councillor. As always, politicians at this level of office are not extended an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist, but must be referenced as the subject of enough press coverage to be deemed significantly more notable than most other politicians at the same level everywhere else. But that's not what the sources here are showing: apart from a light smattering of specifically campaign-related coverage, this is otherwise referenced to glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not to sources that are about him for the purposes of properly demonstrating his individual notability. This is textbook reference bombing: trying to load the article with as many sources as possible so that notability looks "obvious", even though he isn't the subject of anywhere near enough of the sources to actually get over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. Nothing more than a local poltician, like hundreds of thousands of others. I agree with nom's WP:REFBOMB call. Narky Blert (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment Late here, so not going to comment on notability, but I agree on refbombin, and will run a TNT operation just so my nuking skills don't get rusty. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new article writer for Wikipedia who is trying to learn how to do it. This is my first article and I am hoping to write more. I have spent months researching the subject of this article and just as long trying to learn how to code it and load it in. I have tried to follow every requirement. It is sad to me that an at-large council member who has passed hundreds of laws over a period of more than 25 years in a county with more than a million people might not be considered notable by wikipedia standards. Especially since the article I was asked to edit to reach my ten edits was about a drummer in a band. In addition, there are other council members with wikipedia pages. Today I was planning on cleaning up the sources where I have duplicates but I am having trouble figuring out how to do that but I am working on it. If you want to know which sources focus only on him please read the Contrarian article. Many of the Bethesda magazine articles focus more on him. As we get into a situation where there are fewer and fewer newspapers in the world, you will find you need more and more smaller sources if you are to follow the rule of no original material. Montgomery County is a huge suburb of Washington DC. In the past few years, two local newspapers have gone out of business and we no longer have a newspaper. So the only coverage we get is occasionally from the Washington Post. It is notable that this council member has had so many Washington Post articles mention him. This is evidence that he is significantly more notable than other politicians of the same level. The metro area of the Washington Post is huge. In addition, in the current world climate, more and more people will be interested in what you are considering lower level politicians. It would be nice if they could find information about the people who run their government from wikipedia rather than elsewhere. I would appreciate any constructive criticism that can help me make the article acceptable. In the meantime, I will keep working on cleaning up the citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12A23B34C (talk • contribs) 14:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The county's right next to DC as it is, so getting coverage in the Washington Post is not, in and of itself, enough to make him a special case — it still represents local coverage of the type that all county councillors are simply expected to receive in their local media, not wider coverage that's expanding beyond the purely local. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully,an article solely about the leadership style of a politician in a County of 1 million in the Washington Post (citation 12) which covers a metro area of more than 6 million and has a national reputation, is notable. I understand that a lot of citations can be construed as trying to make something notable that is not, however, that is not what is happening here. As a newbie I am under the impression that you cannot write anything that is not sourced. So in the Transportation section, if one article mentions a proposed 98 mile bus rapid transit system and does not define it more than saying how many miles it is...and another article defines it as a type of tram-bus but does not say how many miles it is, isn't it correct to use two sources for that sentence or is that viewed as overkill? 12A23B34C (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more thought about the notability comment above. The contributor mentioned that county council members are politicians so are expected to make laws and thus if they are doing that it is not notable. Then would it not be correct to remove most authors, film stars, film directors etc. Authors are expected to write books. Actors are expected to act and appear in films. They are just doing their job. In addition, I would argue that a lot of books written by authors and documentaries made by directors are not seen or read by a million people, which is the jurisdiction of a Montgomery County Council member. Senators are expected to make laws as are county council members. I would argue that council members are more notable as the laws they create impact residents more directly.12A23B34C (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles about every actor or every writer who merely exists, either — we keep articles about actors and writers who have credible claims to being special, such as by winning or getting nominated for major national awards or by getting a broad range of coverage in publications not limited to a single local area. So actors and writers are already getting treated the same way we treat politicians: they're not automatically kept just because we can verify that they exist as people who are doing their jobs either, but are kept only if they have a strong claim to being notable for more than just existing as people who are doing their jobs. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with Bearcat's comment. Wiki indeed has articles about actors, writers, and other people who merely exist. Sooner or later, they tend to wind up here in WP:AFD. They, including local politicians and failed election candidates, do so because they fail WP:NBIO: insufficient coverage in independent sources. I'm a WP:INCLUSIONIST, but I will cheerfully nominate or argue against the inclusion in Wiki of people like that.

A city just down the road from where I live (UK) has a population of over 1,000,000 (compare DC: 690,000). None of its councillors is notable just for that.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a known bad argument in WP:AFD. Narky Blert (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- County politicians are not given auto-notability. The article is also very promotional, it looks like it was copy and pasted from a campaign flyer.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I do think that WP:POLOUTCOMES should be more explicit about county legislators and county executives to explicitly state that they are evaluated on their own merits, rather than being categorically lumped together in accessing notability. --Enos733 (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Martin (TV producer)[edit]

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill producer. Edwardx (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable TV businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He created Slasher (TV series), I think that is enough. Szzuk (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's the sourcing that can be provided to support the notability claim, not the claim itself, that determines whether the article is keepable or not — no article about a person can ever make any notability claim that's so "inherently" notable that it exempts him from having to have reliable source coverage about him to support it. So if he can be shown to have received reliable source coverage about him for creating Slasher, then he can get an article — but creating a TV series is no automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of valid sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation if and when somebody can do better than this. He does have credible notability claims, but what's lacking here is the sourcing necessary to get him over WP:GNG for them — and on a ProQuest search, I'm not finding anything stronger at this time. I can find a few glancing mentions of his existence in coverage of Slasher, but nothing that's about him for the purposes of demonstrating his standalone notability — and even the Gemini/CSA nominations, which are his strongest basis for inclusion, still require some sources about him, not just user-generated verification on his own IMDb profile, before they actually clinch an article. Merely stating a notability claim does not exempt the person from having to have the reliable sourcing needed to carry an article — he'd absolutely be eligible to have an article that was sourced properly, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any reliable source coverage about him anywhere. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, nothing stops "anybody" from adding information to our articles that's damaging to the subject's reputation, or even outright false — so we require reliable sourcing, not just the making of an unsourced or poorly sourced notability claim, before we can actually keep an article, because that's the only mechanism we have for keeping our articles accurate and non-defamatory. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:RS. There's an IMdB entry and two blogs, making WP:BLP a problem here. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Mannion[edit]

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

Am only finding routine coverage, nothing in-depth except the Forbes article, which does not count (see WP:NCORP etc). Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.. I'd say his tenure as president of the Dodgers makes him notable.. as well as his extensive career with other sports franchises. Not sure why you think the Forbes profile doesn't count. NCORP is about corporations and not people. Spanneraol (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP discusses these Forbes articles in relation to WP:SIGCOV needed to establish WP:GNG, "The profile in Forbes blog is significant and secondary – but not independent or reliable (most of such posts are company-sponsored or based on company's marketing materials)." At the top of the Forbes article about Mannion it states "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own", so it is also neither independent nor reliable. Edwardx (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is still independent.. the author of the article has written many profiles of sports figures.. she's an independent journalist and doesnt work for the people she writes about. Spanneraol (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, per WP:NBASE, "Baseball figures are presumed notable if they ... Have served as a commissioner, president [my emphasis], general manager, owner, coach, or manager in one of the above-mentioned leagues." So, he meets the SNG even if he does not meet WP:GNG. I was not aware of the generous inclusion criteria of NBASE when I made the nomination. Edwardx (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and feature coverage like this from Forbes. Cbl62 (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spanneraol and Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with above. Meets GNG. Calm Omaha (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NBASE and WP:GNG, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems like he has been part of notable companies or at least management, but it would require better sourcing than what is shown currently with a significant reduction of the page. Willie d troudour (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The general opinion is that the article has enough potential to be improved to a satisfactory standard. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsuch Parkrun[edit]

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

Appears to be an event only of local significance. I cannot find any non-trivial coverage of it in a broader area. Google search comes up with only 88 unique results. ... discospinster _talk 19:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi. I understand why you have put in the AfD. My opinion is that the event is notable due to the many thousands of runners who have taken part in the event during its history. , in addition to the roughly 500 participants who race there every week. In my opinion this makes the event sizeable. The event encourages some runners from further afield than just the local area. The run was sourced in a Mayor of London headed website, I would describe this as non-local due to the size of London. It is referenced on the page. I appreciate that multiple sources of the event have come from the local paper, the Epsom Guardian. Whilst a lot of information is sourced from the Nonsuch Parkrun page itself, I believe this should be used as it contains well detailed, undisputed, official information in regard to the result of the page. Given the page has only been up for a couple of days, can some time (e.g a week) be given to help improve the page? Thanks.Froome2017 (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I Love Parkrun, highest ever finish is 7th, waiting for my 100 T-Shirt. Individual events are not notable. Szzuk (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Glad you enjoy parkrun, I do as well. I do think it would benefit wikipedia to have these articles as I feel they are a massive part of the community. Wikipedia's coverage of parkrun is very patchy, considering that around a million people in the uk have participated in it. The fact that so many events take place makes it difficult for individual runs to get major coverage, however some runs get into BBC national reports from time to time. Whilst the page may not meet the strict interpretation of the wikipedia notability guidelines, I think the tens of thousands of participants over its history means it is worthy of a wikipedia article. Froome2017 (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think we'll be keeping this article, it has 3 primary refs and 1 talking about parkrun in general so fails WP:V and WP:N. Individual parkruns are usually deleted due to lack of coverage. If you want to discuss the unfairness you could try a WP:RFC but it is unlikely you would get anywhere with that. If you wish to write parkrun articles I will give you a few ideas which have a better chance of being retained - List of Parkruns, Junior Parkrun, Volunteering in Parkrun. Szzuk (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the spirit of nothing is notable enough, this one isn't notable either, perhaps the thusands of participants over many years every week need to be registered as for profit enterprises like the NBA to be worthy of recognition. Perhaps we shall delete half of Wikipedia. NWWT (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found a reference which in detail talks about Nonsuch Parkrun's most successful runner, Ollie Garrod. Whilst technically as you say the page is 'not notable enough', I hope the number of runners is taken into consideration. Thanks Szzuk for suggesting more parkrun articles, I might write them later on in the year. I would invite all Wikipedia editors to help improve the page, as well as others in relation to parkrun. Froome2017 (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the reasons I have listed above. I think coverage for parkrun in general, given its 3 million registered users is woefully low and I will endeavour to improve it. Maybe it is to do with the amateur/recreational nature of the events. I believe the majority of individual parkrun events are notable due to consistently high participant numbers. For this reason, I think media coverage of the events could be greater, but it is improving. I do not see how deleting this article could improve Wikipedia. Perhaps by the letter of Wikipedia policy this might fall slightly short, but I think discretion can and should be used. Froome2017 (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No consensus yet reached in my view, I would recommend we keep this discussion open another few days. Froome2017 (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cable Sankar[edit]

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

Writer/blogger/director who does not appear to have received much, if any, coverage as a person. Involved with various ventures that have some low notability (the two movies he (co)directed) but I do not believe that lifts him personally above the WP:NBIO hurdle. Provided sources certainly don't, and couldn't find anything to improve on them. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and notability for creative professionals. The sources in the article do not provide significant coverage of the subject and one is a blog. I found a couple of other reviews which mentioned him in passing but nothing which would contribute to notability. I am open to the possibility that there may be more in-depth coverage in non-English press but considering that the material in English still lists 'blogger' as something he is primarily known for I doubt such coverage would be appreciably more significant. Jbh ^Talk 19:50, 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 10:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nuts, Bolts and Bedroom Springs[edit]

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

With all due respect, I still believe that this film fails WP:NFILM. An interview with the film creator is not a reliable secondary source. No evidence that it had national distribution, won any awards, or was significant as a work of art. Rogermx (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roger. It's mentioned by Screen Australia and the National Film and Sound Archive - I put these down as external links - these are the national film bodies in Australia. It was a feature film that was theatrically released.I agree it does not appear to have won awards and by all accounts isn't a very good movie, but feel those things should not stop a movie from getting an entry. Dutchy85 (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ozmovies says The film was never really given a commercial release and so never attracted mainstream reviews. It only enters the record because the Oxford book on Australian Film 1900-1977 used the film as a way of bolstering its listing of Australian films made in 1975. There are 3 other refs apart from that one, 1 trivial and 2 that look unreliable. Szzuk (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lough[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as an as yet non-winning candidate in a forthcoming political party primary. As always, being a candidate in a primary is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source a credible claim that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason, then he has to win the general election in November, not just run as a candidate, to be notable as a politician, and the fact that his candidacy occasioned a small blip of WP:BLP1E coverage, just because of the amusing juxtaposition with his previous occupation, is not in and of itself to make him permanently more notable than the norm among non-winning candidates. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here entitles him to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidates do not get default notability, and nothing else suggests notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- What is so notable about a clown running for congress? Last I checked, we already have 435 clowns in congress.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:25, 31 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. The move can be done outside the scope of this discussion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguished Canadian Planners[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE list with subjective inclusion criteria. This is not a list of people who have been objectively identified by external sources as the canonical list of "distinguished" Canadian urban planners, but appears instead to permit inclusion of any random person in this field who has any plausible-sounding notability claim at all, even if it can only be primary sourced (and even if they don't actually have a Wikipedia article to link to, thus also serving as a WP:COATRACK for sneaking mini-biographies into Wikipedia despite their failure to actually pass an inclusion standard.) Lists of people are supposed to be organized on objective, quantifiable inclusion standards, not criteria that leave room for interpretation or opinion or self-promotion. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and refine the criteria to be "only those people with a wikipedia bio or who qualify for one under inclusion criteria. While not stated, the theme is being named a Fellow of the society (which if these were Profs would make them notable), getting an Order of Canada (which makes someone notable on it's own) and several academics who have been recognized as major contributors to the profession, which if correct makes them meet [WP:PROF]]. Each of these people likely deserve their own bio - and if they don't desrve a wikipedia bio, should be excluded from the list. I work with many Canadian planners and I can see this is not just run of the mill planner bios. Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Firstly, that's clearly not the theme here, because many people included in this list have neither of those distinctions. Secondly, on what basis could a list of "distinguished" Canadian urban planners ever fail to include Jennifer Keesmaat, literally the only Canadian urban planner the general public, outside the field of urban planning employees themselves, has ever actually heard of? Thirdly, even if this were to be kept it would still have to be moved to an appropriate title that avoids the subjectivity of "distinguished". Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to List of Canadian planners. Well why delete the whole thing, if the problem can be resolved by firming up the criteria in line with WP:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria and amending the selection of names to match? – By the way the "active" column should be made consistent, as some of them seem to have been "active" (presumably as planners) from the year of their birth: Noyster (talk), 17:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter A. Shapiro (politician)[edit]

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

Résumé-style WP:BLP of a political figure active at the county level of political office (but no, not in New Jersey this time). As always, this is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass -- people at the county level of office need to be referenced to a depth and volume and geographic range of reliable source coverage that marks them out as clearly more notable than most other county councillors. But the referencing here isn't doing that: it depends far too strongly on primary sources that cannot support notability and glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage about other things, with virtually no evidence of reliable sources that are about him. There's also a probable conflict of interest here, as the article was created by an WP:SPA with no prior edit history and then edited by the subject himself within six hours. And even if he did clear NPOL, the article would still have to be written as a proper encyclopedia article, not as a pile of bullet-pointed résumé sections -- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free alternative to LinkedIn. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:POLITICIAN, only county politicians from New Jersey are given auto-notability on wikipedia! Also, not linked-in.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NPOL; coverage is local and / or routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per K.e.coffman, local and routine coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was keep. If anyone wants to move and retarget the article to The Skeleton Architecture, that can be done outside of the scope of this discussion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Greene[edit]

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

Non-notable person Natureium (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a recipient of a Bessie Award, Greene meets the requirements per WP:ANYBIO. The Bessies are anecdotally regarded as the Oscars for dance. Megs (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As aformentioned, Melanie Greene is a 2017 Bessie Awards Recipiant. I am working on creating this page as part of a college course. If you have any suggestions on how to improve this article, they would be greatly appreciated. EditTinyDancer (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the recipient of a Bessie Award, I feel she passes WP:ANYBIO for "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor." Lonehexagon (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lonehexagon....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I must point out that the subject here is one of about 20 members of an ensemble that won a Bessie Award, rather than an individual recipient. If a Wikipedia article is to be had off the back of that award then surely it should be about the skeleton architecture rather than just one of its members? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:16, 31 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Fujiya[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Looking at current sourcing:

1. press bio on associated orgs site

2. video of her performing, no independent coverage

3. blog

4. dead, url suggests concert announcement

5. concert listing

6. database listing

7. concert listing

8. press release

None are both independt and reliable. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find any significant coverage in English-language media. There may be some in Italian, but that doesn't suggest enough notability for inclusion here yet. Mattyjohn (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Adell[edit]

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

Article about subject that fails WP:SIGCOV. No coverage scope_creep (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a tremendous amount of coverage of his role as television station and radio station head as well as property owner. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FloridaArmy, That about is companies, is there any explicity regarding him. I can't see much outside coverage. scope_creep (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is the founder and owner of his companies. What kind of coverage do you want? Here's one of the many many articles discussing his television station, radio stations, property developments, lawsuits and other interests. You don't want a businessman to be covered in relation to their business activities? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I simply want to see coverage which is not of his companies but about the man himself. There is a crucial and fundamental difference. Otherwise it will be a delete or redirect. The reference you provided is not valid, but that is in the right direction.

Why is it not valid? How aboit all the Crains articles? Or Detroit Free Press coverage? FloridaArmy (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies it is valid. I thought it was a blog. The Crains ref is about his business dealings. If there is no clear differentiation between the man himself and his business interests, why have a seperate article about him. There must be clear differention. He hasn't sufficient standalone notability for his own article. scope_creep (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - several articles about the subject's company are not sufficient to bestow notability on the subject. Notability is not inherited.--Rpclod (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing references about his companies; I am not seeing references about him, nor any sign why there should be references about him. --Calton | Talk 17:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and per User:Rpclod. Fails WP:BIO. I see that a sockpuppet has begun re-adding the poorly sourced fluff that was removed earlier about his car collecting being "avid", along with his parents' names and the hospital he was born in, unsourced. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Admittedly one of the more eccentric local media owners out there (especially for letting a slam-dunk CBS affiliation go based on outrageous demands), but his fame is very localized (and mostly paid for) to metro Detroit, so once you get out of southeastern Michigan you're not going to find much about this subject. At most, a weak redirect to WADL (TV) can be considered, but I wouldn't be annoyed one way or the other if this was turned into a redlink. Nate • (chatter) 20:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that the information and citations offered in this profile provide factual information required to support and meet the tenets of WP:5P1 Further, that personal content on the profile falls within the guidelines of WP:5P5 specifically with mention to improving articles. Tsmith47 (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Tsmith47 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. Coverage is WP:SPIP, passing mentions and / or hyper-local. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:11, 31 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 wasn't much participation in the last AfD, but even still, it was merely two months ago, and barring unusual circumstances, I'd consider that too recent to justify another one. Regardless, there's been a good discussion here so we can call it settled. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of totalitarian regimes[edit]

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

This is a bizarre article, full of original conjecture and POV categorisation with no inline sources. Heliotom (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable topic but poorly written article. AfD is not for cleanup. Szzuk (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- What does nom mean by stating that there are no inline sources. It seems that the entries are each one sourced to some article that calls them totalitarian. Anyway, as usual, we have to look at WP:LISTN, which teaches us that "ne accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources..." That's so obviously the case with totalitarian regimes that I'm surprised this even made it to an AfD. Perhaps nom will consider withdrawing it, esp. given that being "bizarre" is not an accepted deletion criterion. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Notable topic in political science/history although article could do with a cleanup. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not well agreed upon subject, at least not enough for an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i don't think that deleting this article is the right decision,this article is very notable on the history/politics topic.I'm also doing some efforts to improve this article by adding sources and other things.

User:Araukan(talk) 4 april 2018(UTC)

Keep - notable topic. Article requires sourcing. PhilKnight (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Gregoire[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NHOCKEY and coverage appears to be just routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 00:16, 30 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 11:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial Elections in Pennsylvania[edit]

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

This article has no references and does not refer to reliable sources. It is more in the form of an essay than an encyclopedic article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it actually does have sources - this was created by only one editor who probably doesn't know how to use the <ref> tag properly, as there are what, 15 external links? I'm neutral, as the topic is probably notable, but the article definitely needs cleanup. SportingFlyer talk 05:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is clearly notable, the article just needs cleanup. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Patently notable topic. Article as it stands is heavily sourced, but all primary - official state judicial website pacourts.us. Just tag it for sourcing ~~and keep.~~E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voiding iVote after reading this comment [18] on article creator's talk page. Topic is notable, and certainly there could be a proper article on the process of electing judges in the Keystone State. But this was written as a class assignment, and perhaps we should delete and await creation of a proper article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can properly write and properly reference a better article. This is a student essay, not an encyclopedia article, and is not referenced to the correct kind of sources to make a topic notable. It is entirely possible to take a topic that is notable in theory, but write an article that's so far removed from our style and substance and sourcing expectations that blowing it up and starting over from scratch is still preferable to just applying a cleanup tag to the existing article and walking away. Bearcat (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Obviously, there is no clear agreement on whether the sources about this individual are sufficient as far as WP:GNG is concerned. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abneet Bharti[edit]

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

Article was PROD'd and then PROD was removed by User:Inter&anthro with reason: "although the article does not pass WP:NFOOTY, it could arguably pass WP:GNG." I don't believe this article does pass those two at all.

First off, WP:NFOOTY is surely not passed since Bharti has never appeared in a match between two fully professional teams. For WP:GNG, the articles used as references in the article come from SportsKeeda (a lot of them come from here), HardTackle, and Khel which are, in my opinion, not reliable sources and just general blog articles. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WP:GNG This player is a very notable athlete both in his home country and the country where his playing. He is currently suffering from an long injury and therefore he hasn't made any appearance. He was recently also nominated as one of the best young players in Asia by Calcio Mercato, which is a reliable source. Here is the link: http://www.calciomercato.com/en/news/an-xi-of-the-best-u20-asian-players-in-the-world-73344 . If there are some changes to be made, they can be surely made. However, to just delete this page because of someone thinks he has not notable is not appropriate. He is also just 19 year old so I am confident he could pass WP:GNG since he is well known both in Nepal and India, he also has been notably commented upon by couple of reliable sources, which are mentioned in the page. Aksportpro (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence article subject passes WP:NFOOTY, the guideline for the inclusion of notable football players. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nominator fails to mention that there are plenty of non-blog sources in the article, such as this from IBT Times and this from Yahoo Sports. This source as well is pretty in-depth. With such varied coverage I believe WP:GNG is met. WP:NFOOTY is a guideline in hope of achieving WP:GNG, not an either/or so I disagree with Optakeover's opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have concerns about the sourcing in this article. I don't know how football journalism in India works, but a lot of the references cited look like sports blogs or otherwise questionable sources (see Talk:Sportskeeda). There does seem to be some significant coverage, but it's weak. Jay eyem (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - glad it's agreed he fails WP:NFOOTBALL, the issue is therefore WP:GNG - which I don't think he meets. Yes there's lots out there but it's not significant/from good sources. Not enough. Giant Snowman 07:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fails NFOOTY, but passes wider GNG. Significant, non-routine coverage can be found in the following sources amongst others:

first post - lengthy article on the player
IB Times - lengthy rticle on the player that goes beyond routine transfer speculation.
goal.com - article on the player
feverpitch.in - further lengthy coverage of the player.

Would be useful to hear from editors above as to why these sources, many of which are already in the article (and Inter&anthro notes at least one more above) are no good. I'm not seeing a series of wordpress blogs, nor am I seeing simple routine transfer talk and hype (though there is also a lot of that too as can be seen in the article. Fenix down (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG by not being the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources independent both of each other and of the subject. It's very easy for the player's representative to get stuff into online media: that particular representative's website mentions media exposure on their about page. They also mention sportskeeda, a self-publishing site, as one of the websites they use: the Yahoo Sports piece mentioned by Inter&anthro above is taken from and credited to sportskeeda. The firstpost.com and IB Times pieces are the same article as each other: firstpost.com acknowledges it as a press release. That doesn't constitute GNG.
What ought to strike one as odd, for someone apparently notable, is the almost total lack of mention in mainstream media. I don't mean full-page features, but I can't find anything: no namechecks in the squad for U16/U23 matches, if he'd really been called up to those teams, nothing at all on the websites of English-language Indian newspapers with a reputation for editorial integrity, nothing on the websites of English-language Nepali newspapers... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does not meet GNG. A number of the references are press releases or from sources which may not be regarded as independent or reliable. Eldumpo (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, on the basis of GNG (I know nothing of football/soccer). The IBT article pushes me from uncertain into Keep territory. It is bylined by someone who has written other articles; while similar to the firstpost.com (as Struway mentiones, labelled as a press release), it is not identical and gives the impression of the IBT author perhaps borrowing more than we'd like, but exercising his own editorial discretion. Haven't been able to load the feverpitch.in article, and wouldn't know how to evaluate it. But net net, there is enough here not clearly and unabiguously nonindependent from the subject for an article to be written. Martinp (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd probably be prepared to accept IBT as RS these days, depending on what they're writing about, but the Content quaity section of our page on the subject suggests that in 2014, which is when the article about Abneet Bharti dates from, the site was oriented towards producing high-volume clickbait rather than high-quality journalism. Just a thought... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - sources seem OK but not great. Here are two similar brief mentions in more mainstream pubs [[19]][[20]]. The uniqueness of being an Indian player in Europe tips it to the keep side for me. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - per TimTempleton. Sources barely adequate. PhilKnight (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksi Heponiemi[edit]

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

Would have speedied this as recreation of deleted content but there is more information in this one than the last one so it didn't seem appropriate. That being said the subject is still a non-notable junior hockey player who fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. DJSasso (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to meet NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 22:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep doesn't his recent selection of first all-star team (not sure about most sportsmanlike) make it now meet the WP hockey?

http://scbroncos.com/article/aleksi-heponiemi-named-whl-eastern-conference-most-sportsmanlike-player Triggerbit (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is he wasn't a WHL first team all-star, he was a first team all-star in the Eastern Conference--not the same thing. I also don't think the conference "most sportsmanlike player" is sufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As best I can tell, he doesn't meet either WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Was recently named a first team WHL all star, so should now meet NHOCKEY. I was also able to find coverage at HockeyWriters here and here, DUBNetwork, Sun Sentinal here, Finnish source such as this, and multiple short paragraphs on him in The Hockey News such as this, this and here. So I think there is enough coverage to meet notability guidelines now. Rlendog (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above he was named to the conference first all-star which doesn't meet NHOCKEY. NHOCKEY requires league first all-star (WHL doesn't do a league one). Almost all of those sources you point to are routine coverage, prospect lists. Not really in depth at all. There is one there that is definitely better from the Sun Sentinel. But the rest really don't live up to the requirements for in depth coverage to meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's true he's in multiple articles that are lists (or updates) of good "prospects", but that term alone implies they're not yet notable so I'm having trouble viewing those as significant coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG. The Sun Sentinel is the largest circulation paper in South Florida, which includes the home of the Florida Panthers who drafted Heponiemi and this appears to be an article looking at a potential player for the local NHL team so I'm inclined to think of this as typical coverage of an NHL draftee. He's clearly a promising prospect, but sports have many of those who never become WP notable. This might be a good candidate to return to draft space as a case of WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 number of plausible sources in high-quality publications (New Yorker, Village Voice, NY Times, and some books published by reputable publishers), but analysis shows them all to be of insufficient depth to meet WP:NMUSIC -- RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Fried[edit]

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

fails WP:NMUSIC the only sources are 2 affiliaited bios. Could have been speedily deleted but the vague claims to having worked with notable artists could be seen as a claim to significance. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search that isn't user generated Dom from Paris (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: his "work" with Chaka Khan and Ofra Haza only amounts to remixing one single by each singer in the 1980s... any claims to notability are going to rest with his long working association with They Might Be Giants, or his solo career. He is discussed in Kyle Gann's book American Music in the Twentieth Century [21], he has an entry in the International Who's Who of Popular Music [22], there's a mention here in an article in the New Statesman [23], and there may be some more mentions in print media from the 1980s and 90s... I'm not sure there's enough here to convince anyone of his notability, but he is certainly not a nobody. Richard3120 (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mentions in Gann's book are at best passing mentions and the International Who's Who in Music is a paid-for vanity publication created by International Biographical Centre which is one of the most prominent creators of Who's Who scams. the New Statesman is interesting but is really an anecdote where the writer describes meeting Fried (amongst others) at an artists' retreat and does not concern his work as such. His work with They Might be giants seems to have had little impact, I can only find user generated sources that talk about this notably here [24] and their own sources are all affiliated to Fried. Unfortunately notability is not WP:INHERITED. I saw that he wrote the lyrics to a song from one of their albums but this doesn't seem to have been a notable song (as per WP). Seeing the claims in his bio I very much doubt that there was much significant coverage in the 80s and 90s Dom from Paris (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: I'm not overly convinced either, hence my not voting keep. I just mention those sources so that other editors can view them and make up their minds on this AfD nomination. Richard3120 (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, that's why I looked at them to see if they are sufficient to show notability and allow me to withdraw the nomination so I did and posted my opinion. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Surprised there aren't sources that turn up by googling. He was reasonably well-known, accomplished, and respected back in the days I was involved in the industry. He may have the disadvantage of making his splash in the pre-internet age. Admittedly, his press was mostly niche stuff or industry related. If I tried hard enough I might find sources among my older printed materials but don't really have the time to go digging. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the substantial coverage in the American Music book and other sources such as The New Yorker - Volume 72, Issues 30-36 - Page 14 establishes notability. He's been a collaborator with TMBG over 3 decades, has ooened for them, and has also had a successful solo career with his headphone gig and other acts. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi do you have a link for that or may be an extract? What does the article say about him? could you supply a quote? Dom from Paris (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also do you have any RS about his collaboration with They Might Be Giants. I can only find user generated content, also information about the extent of his collaboration. Simply having played with them even over a long period (but I think it was on and off) doesn't make him notable because don't forget that notability is not inherited. Simply being successful doen't make him notable. You might want to check out WP:NMUSICIAN and point out which criteria he meets. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't have time to hunt it down at the mo but any good library in NYC should be able to provide access. He's akso noted in a variety of sources, often as a composer, for example "joshua+fried"+New+Yorker&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjtjdCZ8ILaAhUEMawKHSeLAKcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q="joshua%20fried"%20New%20Yorker&f=false here and in The Cambridge Companion to John Cage https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1139826395 David Nicholls - 2002 "Joshua Fried has used radios andrecordings in a live performance idiom. In his early days of performing in New York's East Village, he wouldrun several radios or prerecorded tracks simultaneously, andtrigger sounds from them byhitting piezoelectric discs with drumsticks; the faster he would drum,the more continuously the sound would .." FloridaArmy (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also "Joshua+fried"+The+New+Yorker&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivwcfL8oLaAhVRM6wKHZdtAKkQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q="Joshua%20fried"%20The%20New%20Yorker&f=false here and Ear - Volume 15 - Page 8 https://books.google.com/books?id=9AgwAQAAIAAJ

1990 "Joshua Fried Tape-loops, the famous musical shoes, and computer-assisted (!) grooves from a formerly steadfast king of analog. Guest vocalist Iris Rose and others will imitate unexpected sounds played over headphones" FloridaArmy (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And from Array - Volume 16 - Page 3

https://books.google.com/books?id=eOQ5AQAAIAAJ 1996 "Joshua Fried premiered a major work at The Kitchen, New York City, November 7- 10. The piece, a collaboration with renowned choreographer Douglas Dunn, employs *headphone-driven performance* — requiring singer/actors to respond instantly to pre-recorded vocals and directives heard over wireless headphones. The collaboration is funded in part by the NEA, New York State Council on the Arts, The Mary Flagler Cary Charitable Trust, Meet The Composer, American ..." FloridaArmy (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I checked out the sources you provided and The Cambridge companion to John cage is a passing mention, In the The New Music Theater it is one line in a book that has literally hundreds of people mentioned so neither are in-depth. The Ear is an announcement for a concert he played and not a review so not useful for proving notability, The Life and Death on the New York Dance Floor book only seems to mention him in the preface as having provided information by email to the author but is not listed as having been interviewed by the author. The Array is a magazine for the ICMA and he is mentioned in the section "Members news" so this is affiliated and supplied by the subject himself and seems to be just a what's on notice. As you say the New Yorker article establishes proof of his notability I really think that a substantial quote from this article is what is needed. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON / WP:NMUSIC fail. Insuffient sourcing for stand-alone notability. A directory listing, not an article, with promo copy such as: "...worked side-by-side with multiple recording artists, on several different published albums. He's also won several fellowships and residencies as well as two large commissions." K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hunted for sourcing as well, and could only find this this hodgepodge of info[[25]], which included a transcript of a Village Voice article[[26]], a one line mention in the NY Times[[27]], and what looks like his own bio submitted by him.[[28]]. He garnered some attention, in the early days of the Internet, but not enough to pass WP:GNG. The other offline sources have been discussed above, so there's really no biographical info that one would expect from a sufficiently notable performer. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beergodey[edit]

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

Another locality masquerading as a town, it maps to empty fields west of Buloburde. Not notable as such. Mangoe (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails V and GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a small settlement about 1.5 KM to the south here. However we don't have any sources to say that this or any other settlement is called Beergodey. The one source cited by the article describes it as a "locality", which just means some sort of place and doesn't imply it's populated, let alone a town. To be notable as a "locality" it would need significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:NGEO and there aren't any. Hut 8.5 20:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 16:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mart Sander[edit]

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

Reason: does not appear to conform with any of the criteria for WP:NOTABLE. most of the citations are from subject's own website(s) or sites of organizations selling his products (recordings or paintings). Many citations are dead. Many do not refer to him at all. A number are in Estonian and it is impossible for a non-Estonian reader to evaluate them. Substantial contributors to the article have included User:Martsander and User:Zanderz, so it appears that the article may be basically WP:PROMO. These two editors have not however declared any WP:COI. Delete. Smerus (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately I had posted this AfD, User:Prince of Thieves reverted it without explanation. Those who know how to do this could warn him that this is unacceptable.--Smerus (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~At the time there was no corresponding AfD page to the tag you placed on the article. I assumed it was a mistake and undid it accordingly. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not know User:Prince of Thieves, I believe he/she reverted your edit in good faith. If you look at the edit history, it took you a few tries to get the nomination template right.ExRat (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~If I was a girl, it would be Princess of Thieves! -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know you two support each other (and see below). --Smerus (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. While I agree that many citations seem to come from the subject himself or someone close to him, this nomination is rather heavy-handed. It should not be nominated for deletion because of that - it should have had a WP:COI template. Sander is extremely well known to the Estonian public. He has been host of Eesti otsib superstaari (the Estonian version of Pop Idol), the host of Tantsud tähtedega (the Estonian version of Dancing with the Stars) and several other television programmes. He has appeared in several feature films (Kallis härra Q and Varas). Created the TV3 televisions series Litsid (based on Sander's 2015 novel), etc. He meets notability many times over. ExRat (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- You say so - but where are the citations for your claims? Who is going to deal with the COI template? As there is already an article Eesti otsib superstaari (for some reason), why can't he be dealt with by a redirect to it? In what way does he qualify as WP:NOTABLE in Wikipedia because he is known to some Estonians? Please specify exactly (if you can) how he meets the notability criteria - that, and only that, is the only context in which this article's qualifications can be judged. --Smerus (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia covers the whole world, so sorry if you don't care about people only known in Estonia. COI issues can be dealt with surprisingly easily for high profile people. And he meets many aspects of notability, including WP:GNG/WP:BIO (by the Estonian sources), WP:ANYBIO (for his long term service to media), WP:NACTOR #1, #2, and #3 (for his film work, large following in Estonia, and prolific long term media ouput), and WP:CREATIVE #1 and #4 (for his long term service to media, and paintings). Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smerus, you seem to be under the impression that English language Wikipedia should only cover subjects notable in anglophone nations and areas. That is incorrect. Any subject, that is notable, even if only in the native country or area, is worthy of a Wiki entry. I am not sure why you are perplexed that an Estonian television programme (Eesti otsib superstaari) should have its own article. In regards to Mart Sander, I am Estonian. I speak Estonian. I am more than willing to go through the article and suss out independent references and citations for the article. In about two seconds, I found a short bio from The Kennedy Center. ExRat (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This 'bio from the Kennedy Center' begins with exactly the same wording as the article does. The beginning of the article, whixh is cited to Saner's website (where these words do not appear) is therefore apparently a copyright infringement of the Kennedy Centre article - i am raising WP:COPYVIO on the article's talk page accordingly. --Smerus (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject is notable and meets WP:GNG. He has been featured in numerous reliable sources, including a BBC documentary. He has been a long term television and popular culture personality, with several well known and well covered TV shows and films to his name, and I would say also meets WP:CREATIVE. There is also the matter of his paintings being exhibited in a national gallery, which on it's own would meet CREATIVE. In short a clear keep, to the extent I thought the nomination itself was a mistake. -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Smerus: Estonian language sources are encouraged, and if you can't assess them then you should try to find someone who can, or use google translate. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Most of the citations I looked at, and used google translate for, didn't even mention the topic of the article. Either give proper citations (even in Estonian) for the claims you make for the subject (eg the BBc documentary), or desist.--Smerus (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go BFI listing, and it's by the Emmy award winning Marina Zenovich (see Marina Zenovich#Estonia Dreams of Eurovision!). Although this is stated in the article and took me two seconds to Google. Prince of Thieves (talk) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But this 'citation' doesn't mention Sander at all - or indeed the BBC. The BBC apparently broadcast this film in 2003, but that doesn't make it a 'BBC documentary', and to refer to it as such is highly misleading. There is nothing on Google or anywhere else as far as I can see linking Sander to this documentary. Sander may perhaps be mentioned in passing in the documentary, (although no citation given supports this) but even so that doesn't make him in any way notable. Please provide concrete evidence, instead of vague gestures. If you can't, editors will draw their own conclusions. Citations which don't support the contentions in the article are worthless and should be deleted. --Smerus (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He actually appears prominently throughout the documentary: AllMove. "The charming, erudite Mart Sander, Estonia's most well-known actor/singer/game show host, has been mysteriously passed over in favor of Marko Matvere, another actor whose English is not as good." ExRat (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a further piece of misrepresentation. He is mentioned as being interviewed as part of the documentary. That is not the same as "appearing prominently throughout the documentary". Please stop these misrepresentations. --Smerus (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've watched the documentary. It isn't a "misrepresentation". He is indeed featured prominently throughout the documentary. Anyway, I've finished with this for now. It's becoming ridiculous. ExRat (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck... The documentary is a citation. You don't need citations to support citations, that's simply recursive. The documentary itself was made by a notable filmmaker, and factchecked by the BBC arena team who then broadcast it, so it's certainly reliable. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it appears the documentary Estonia Dreams of Eurovision! was a BBC production, made for their long-running Arena documentary series, and was broadcast in May 2002 [29]. But its existence alone doesn't prove Sander's notability. Richard3120 (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note User:Prince of Thieves, who has commented extensively above, has as of 22 march 2018 been blocked indefinitely and locked globally. (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver). I presume that means his 'vote' and comments doesn't count in this discussion. --Smerus (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has prominent roles on popular notable television shows such as a judge on Estonian's version of Pop Idol, film roles and music career have coverage in rs as shown by Google news. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does appear to have received a fair bit of coverage (in Estonian, of course), which indicates that WP:ANYBIO is likely passed. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 16:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received SIGCOV in RS. Most of the coverage seems to be in Estonian, but it is not a requirement for the coverage of the subject to be in English. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:23, 30 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tananka Daad Afwene[edit]

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

"Unpopulated locality" = not notable. Searching returns the usual clickbait; GMaps shows a blank area south of another town. Mangoe (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since nobody lives here and it doesn't meet some other narrowly defined criteria we need sources which give the subject significant coverage to establish notability per WP:NGEO. As with most uninhabited patches of Somali desert there aren't any. Hut 8.5 19:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete all. Consensus is for all of the artcles to be deleted. Of note is that the Embassy of Portugal in Palestine article was added very late in the discussion, but this article has the same template-like formatting and very similar information as the other articles listed in this discussion. As such, it makes sense to also delete this article at this time as well, rather than relisting the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Germany in Palestine[edit]

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

Poorly sourced to primary sources and containing numerous factual errors. This is not an embassy, but rather a representative office. I'm nominating several other "embassies" with similar text (and the same purported founding date) with similar sourcing and content issues Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge These articles do not add anything that cannot be found in or added to List of diplomatic missions in Palestine, without prejudice to recreate if expanded. Note the user has recently begun creating all of these since I nominated his all red template for deletion Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 25#Template:Diplomatic missions in Palestine. - Galatz ^Talk 14:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Based on the below added information these should all just be deleted. - Galatz ^Talk 13:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ A bunch of boilerplate entries of suspect content: these aren't "embassies" and they're not run by "ambassadors". --Calton | Talk 17:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per a closer look. --Calton | Talk 13:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I don't see what content there is to merge as most stuff in these stubs is incorrect and very poorly referenced at that. --Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Poorly sourced with dubious sources, they aren't embassies, and it's unlikely there will ever be enough notability to keep them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At first glance it seems that these articles are translations from the French Wikipedia. ~~Since I think the articles may be expanded and improved, I'm inclined to ask for a merge.~~--Jamez42 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Normally I'd prefer to preserve the content, but given the possibility that the information is incorrect and that a redirect for each article is both mislabelling and impractical, I vote for deletion.--Jamez42 (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thee subject certainly is notable, but given the current state of these stubs I think that WP:TNT applies. Instead of improving, starting from scratch may be a lot easier... --Randykitty (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the frwiki entries were created by the same creator, in the past month - and they seem to contain the same factually inaccurate material (frankly - I see this as rising up to WP:HOAX). What is telling here is the lack of an arwiki entry.Icewhiz (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz, thank you for your analysis. I've left a note at what appears to be the French equivalent to WP:ANI, explaining the situation (with a pointer to this discussion) and asking that they review the French articles for the same problems. Note that the creator's already been indefinitely blocked here. Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The Russian one had several hoaxes (despite claims, the sources did not provide beginning year, year of recognition, or sequence of ambassadors), and since some of the others make identical claims and use the same picture as the image for all of them (File:Elbirah1.JPG is used in five articles, and I removed it from Russia), they cannot be trusted. The editor who started them should have noticed that identical content was ending up in multiple places. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I already deleted the Portuguese article because it was word-for-word identical with the German article. Here, for example, is the entire content (minus citations) of the "History" section:
  In 1988, Germany officially recognized the State of Palestine.
  
  This embassy was then opened in January 1989 in Ramallah.
  
  It is located at the address with No. 13, Berlin Street, P.O. Box 25166, in Al-Bireh, Postcode 97300.
  
  Several ambassadors then succeeded one another in this diplomatic representation of Germany in Palestine
  This isn't acceptable. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - One of the many factual errors in all of these duplicates is the "embassy" (all of them actually representative office or other lesser mission) being founded in 1989. Most, if not all, of these were opened following the Oslo accords in the mid 90s and onwards. There was no PA in Ramallah in 1989 - the PLO was still in Tunis, the Intifada was going on, and Israel was in all these cities. Even the boiler-plate copy-pasted info has several red flags. This is besides the question of whether every embassy and diplomatic mission is notable standalone.Icewhiz (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These articles are clearly wrong headed at best, and add nothing of value compared to the List of diplomatic missions in Palestine given the obvious factual errors noted above. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Palestine. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect. Clearly filled with false information, such as claiming formal recognition of Palestine by various countries. BegbertBiggs (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - clearly a massive falsification.GreyShark (dibra) 14:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete all~~ - per HOAX concerns and false information therein. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all - G3 per a closer look. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - They are Representative Offices not Diplomatic Missions.--31.173.188.190 (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as I am not sure if the information is correct. I am generally fond of preserving information and I ideally I would suggested a merge. However the information cannot be verified and the images look very dubious to me. For example, the description says an apartment block in Ramallah and yet it is used in an article about the embassy. Keeping these can potentially hurt the accuracy of Wikipedia.--DreamLinker (talk)
Comment - added the Portuguese article to the bundle. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ugh. Why didn't I see those sources when I was trying to verify this article? I can be a real Friggen idoit sometimes....(non-admin closure) 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 14:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teamwork & Technology: For Today and Tomorrow[edit]

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

Non notable event, seemingly only primary sources and mirrors are available. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 13:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources such as [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] were easy to find. MB 03:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

O P Rai[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:DIRECTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:54, 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) 09:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not meeting WP:ARTIST. -The Gnome (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Alokmarina (talk · contribs) the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Sandhya2012. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:05, 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 merge to Ultraman Fighting Evolution (series). J04n(talk page) 16:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraman Fighting Evolution 0[edit]

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

Only thing I can find on this game are wikias and stores; Nothing reliable. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 13:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a Japanese game. And...? --Calton | Talk 17:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the game is Japanese or Fizzletyboop publication location/language is irrelevant. --Izno (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IGN announcement, IGN release announcement, and IGN indicates it was reviewed in Famitsu. Existence is clearly established. Notability? Not really. Merge to Ultraman Fighting Evolution (series). --Izno (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Izno is right on the money. Merge to Ultraman Fighting Evolution (series) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the series article. The only significant coverage I was able to find was its Famitsu review, although IGN says that the game was also reviewed by Dengeki PlayStation. Regardless, clearly not enough to meet the GNG.--Alexandra IDV^talk 10:09, 30 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 was also a compelling argument to merge, this decision should not preclude continuing that conversation on the talk page. J04n(talk page) 16:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zion (The Matrix)[edit]

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

Made up of entirely unsourced plot summary, fails WP:NOTPLOT. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the Keep arguments in the last discussion were either not based on policy or did not provide sources that prove notability. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Selective merge~~ to a page about the extended universe of The Matrix, though I'm not sure what that page is. The page is filled with unsourced fancruft, but it's a term that should redirect somewhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep no merge target has been suggested, and the article is improved and makes a clear claim of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive coverage in numerous sources including Philosophers Explore The Matrix; The Matrix Revealed: The Theology of the Matrix Trilogy; The New Yorker; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, an article in the New Yorker specifically about the article's subject would be a game decider. But here's what I found: Here, Zion is only mentioned when the action is described; nothing incisive. Here, the only mention is a brief description of it (i.e. "the metal subworld of Zion—caverns and corridors in grim blue and black, as cold and wet as a New York subway tunnel in winter"). And here, in a focused analysis titled "Revisiting The Matrix", there is not one single mention of Zion. The search then disintegrates into irrelevancies such as a New Yorker profile of Cornel West, where it is mentioned in passing that he appeared in two sequels playing "a Zion Elder." It's not easy for me to argue against sentiments of passion and obvious love for the subject but none of this establishes independent notability, sorry. -The Gnome (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, cut the in-universe cruft, then maybe split later if something worthwhile can be written about the topic. Regardless of how many scholarly analyses of the Matrix trilogy have been produced, this is still a fictional location about which nothing has been said, at least in this Wikipedia article, but in-universe plot summary. If Andrew Davidson or anyone else want to actually expand the coverage of the real-world background, influence, reception, etc., well ... they can still do that if the article is merged into a larger list about the Matrix universe, and then maybe once enough sourced content (but no OR, please...) has been added it could be split off into its own article in the future. (Although I honestly don't see that happening.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep contra Hijiri above, GNG only requires discussion of the topic by published sources independent of the fictional works in question; it does not require coverage of its "real-world background, influence, reception, etc." Let's not slide goalposts around because some editors feel that IDONTLIKEIT trumps SOFIXIT. Newimpartial (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: Good grief ... you can't be serious, can you? We have other criteria for standalone articles than (a liberal interpretation of) GNG. If you want to GOFIXIT, then fire ahead (at least if you are able, as you seem to claim to be), but don't accuse other editors of not understanding the policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of Hijiri's opinion about that, that is a strawman argument. You are refuting Hijiri's statements, not the justification for deleting it, that it has no independent notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your strawman, ZXCVBNM, I see at least a half-dozen published non-primary sources. That is independent notability, per policy. Newimpartial (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A half-dozen published non-primary sources, saying what? GNG, which appears to be what you are referring to, is a guideline and not a policy, and it emphasizes significant coverage, which is not the same as simply parroting in-universe plot information gleaned from primary sources. If you seriously do not understand WP:PLOT (which is a policy) and WP:GNG (which you are misquoting and referring to as a policy), then your !vote will almost certainly be discounted by the closer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, Hijiri. NOTPLOT specifies that WP article should not be confined to a summary of plot information, to be appropriate to an encyclopedia. What it certainly does not say, is that only sources discussing "real-world background, influence, reception, etc." count for WP:N, which is what you asserted above. As long as the work is discussed in reliable sources, and that discussion is not limited to summaries or trivial mentions, then it meets GNG. If the resulting article doesn't meet PLOT, then the answer is SOFIXIT. Newimpartial (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the only sourced content that can be added to the article is plot information, then the topic fails both GNG (a guideline that requires significant coverage) and NOTPLOT (a policy that requires articles on fictional topics include real-world information). I already stated in my initial !vote (which I get the impression you didn't read before jumping in to !vote against) that there is a possibility that sufficient sources exist to create an article that conforms to our policies and guidelines, while you have somehow managed to support keeping despite an apparent belief on your part that such sources don't exist. You can't tell me to SOFIXIT when you yourself are agreeing with me that sufficient sources probably do not exist. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial, first of all, are you sure you understand the meaning of WP:SOFIXIT, or are you confused by the initials? That guideline is meant to encourage contributors to be bold, and act, in improving or trying to improve Wikipedia, as best as they can, or as they see fit. It is not a command to fix all things wrong! Second, and more importantly, that guideline does not lay the burden of fixing something wrong on the editors who bring that wrong to the community's attention! If the contested article about Zion needs more sources to establish its subject's independent notability, then those who believe in the subject's worthiness should simply get off their ass and try and find some sources (instead of, for example, calling other people "fucking idiots"). I hope you understand. -The Gnome (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And said editors, notably Erik, have done exactly that. But like Hijiri you appear to be mistaking the current quality of an article for its notability. Where at least two independent, reliable sources exist for a topic, notability may be presumed, as in this case, and contra your current WP:BLUDGEON. Newimpartial (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as bludgeoning my point, I already stated I'm taking my leave from the voting process. So, that's DOA. I'm focusing on notability; quality of text is a different issue and it's not by itself a cause for the guillotine. My comments above are quite clear but perhaps you should read them again: "If the contested article about Zion needs more sources to establish its subject's independent notability, then those who believe in the subject's worthiness should simply get off their ass and try and find some sources, instead of, for example, calling other people fucking idiots." So, it's all about sources, see. And, by the way, wikilawyering and insults do not get you far here. Trust me on this. -The Gnome (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to put too fine a point on it, Gnome, but the issue at AfD is the existence of sources, not the inclusion of sources in the article (except for BLP); this aspect is fundamental, and is not "wikilawyering". Also, if you believe that not !voting somehow means that WP:BLUDGEON does not apply, that is a tendentious reading, to put it mildly. Finally, I haven't insulted anyone, here or elsewhere on WP, and don't really see why you would imply that I have. Newimpartial (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that you consider editors who don't argue to keep this article "fucking idiots". I do disagree with such editors' stances, but there is no need for that vitriol. I strongly suggest that you strike this out and focus on content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write "fucking idiots" in my comment above; look at the edit history! My comment seems vandalized by a script that changes "trumps" to "fucking idiots"; I will figure out who did that when I have time. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Newimpartial (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize and have struck out my comment. It was a script gone awry. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The script turns "Trump" into "fucking idiot". Some miscreant hacker is out to insult the U.S President, from the looks of it. Where's the Secret Service? :-) The Gnome (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this older Gawker article about the same problem. Fun browser scripts that change words can cause problems.104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First things first, Newimpartial: I accept you were not responsible for the insults. I accept what Erik's saying. Now, about the article. All you need to do is look at the nomination and the subsequent debate: The article has been brought to the stand on account of it being all plot without sources. And that's what we've been discussing ever since. Andrew D. brought forth a bunch of citations ostensibly showing independent notability. I disagreed. And my point stands: Anyone who wants to FIXIT should go right ahead and FIXIT! No one else is obliged to. End of story. Otherwise, so far, and not to put too fine a point on it, we don't seem to have sources that support independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to disagree. From the current state of the sourcing, it seems to me that the racial politics of Zion (the Matrix) would support a reliably sourced article all on its own. Newimpartial (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking independent notability, for not having notability of its own as a subject. Notability is not contagious. Not everything about a notable subject, e.g. The Matrix, is necessarily notable on its own. -The Gnome (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Erik, for the prompt to look up the contested article one more time. The post-AfD changes made by contributors improve significantly the quality and the extent of information in it. They hardly change its status of significant, independent notability. The most I'd offer as things stand is that, instead of complete deletion, the choice of a Weak Redirect to an appropriate section of the Matrix philology. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is more than sufficient. WP:GNG says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.... 'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." It is obvious that there are multiple sources that make more than trivial observations of the setting. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I critiqued some of the proffered sources in my response to Andrew D., above. The rest, such as those offered now in the article, do not IMVHO make the case for a stand-alone article. But I've already taken enough space here. And in view of the discussion deteriorating through the use of insults ("fucking idiots", etc), I'm taking my leave. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable setting per WP:GNG since there has been significant coverage from reliable sources focusing on Zion. I've removed the garbage in-universe content and have added a few sourced observations about Zion to the article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To update, the book Apocalyptic Transformation: Apocalypse and the Postmodern Imagination analyzes Zion and its people in some additional ways. Others are welcome to expand on the Wikipedia article with this source and others. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that Erik has addressed the main issues. Otherwise I would support merging and making the page a redirect, but this content (which seems to pass WP:GNG) is much better suited to being on its own page. ‑‑Yodin^T 14:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can the editors Zxcvbnm, LaundryPizza03, Hijiri88, and The Gnome please review the article in its current condition? The in-universe content has been replaced with out-of-universe content, and this is not the extent of the sources used. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Matrix (franchise)#Influences and interpretations. Part of a larger fictional work, should be treated in context. Sandstein 17:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We would not merge a film article to its franchise article to put it in context. How big does a fictional city's article have to be to warrant standing alone? A general "Influences and interpretations" section can discuss many elements in brief, but a stand-alone article can explore a character, a setting, or a theme in depth. There is bound to be redundancy, but the difference in scope allows for greater focus on the given element. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This conversation is still ongoing...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. Argument By Checklist is a piss-poor excuse for keeping, when the items on the checklist are so minor. Nothing would be lost by leaving in the main article. --Calton | Talk 17:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Yodin. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As written, it's a bit stubby, but it does indicate that the fictional setting has been discussed in film criticism. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RS are sufficient, GNG is met, the rest of the haggling is not particularly relevant, except that per WP:ATD-M if not kept, it should be merged into a reasonable target. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was cheesy keep Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cahill's Farm Cheese[edit]

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

Non-notable (geographical) product lacking sufficient coverage and notability. Both references in the article are broken links and one of them is coming from a PRIMARY source. Therefore, it fails all five primary criteria for establishing notability, per WP:ORGCRITE. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advertising. AirWolf ^talk 13:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.--AirWolf ^talk 13:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A bad-faith nomination by AirWolf as "revenge" for my nomination to delete Leoni Wiring Systems Southeast earlier in March. AirWolf opened an incident report at the administrators' noticeboard but was given short shrift there so now AirWolf has apparently decided to nominate an article I authored. Clearly, AirWolf didn't bother with WP:BEFORE. While the article was certainly out of date, in a very short space of time I managed to find references to awards won and covered by independent sources and an in-depth description in a book. I've updated the article with the references. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The provided sources are mostly mentions-in-passing. As can be checked, there's clear lack of sources coverage about the product. The nomination was in accordance with WP:BEFORE, especially D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability. Sadly, the article fails all five primary criteria for establishing notability. One reference is pure promotion, interview with the business owner (lacks any intellectual independence and objectivity, per WP:ORGIND). Still, there are broken links in remaining sources. Also, this nomination has nothing to do with other nominations. Please, stick to the arguments for deletion and avoid ad hominem attacks as per WP:NPA.--AirWolf ^talk 19:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think other editors will see your behaviour for what it is. You've never edited any articles in relation to Ireland or Cheese, much less Irish Cheese. You've gone over the articles I've created and nominated one for deletion without bothering to look for references. I found two book references and a host of other newspaper references in under 20 minutes. Yes, some are mentions in passing and promotion but they are there to support facts and data and are not the references to establish notability. There are two references (at least) that meet the criteria for establishing notability - the first is the booklet (link fixed - pdf) on Irish Farmhouse Cheese and the next is the book (link in article) Farmhouse Cheeses of Ireland: A Celebration by Glynn Anderson and John McLaughlin. Also, it took 3 minutes to fix the broken links. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly referenced many times in international cheese books, not just Irish ones. Coverage in national Irish press. The article could be improved, but there seems to be plenty of sources to do that from. Mattyjohn (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christos Shelis[edit]

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

Page needs deleting has this player has not played a game in a fully professional league and/or tournament and therefore doesn’t meet the criteria to have a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.80.26 (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2018

I have helped IP create AfD discussion page, see [35]. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pass WP:NFOOTBALL. This player has played matches in 2017–18 EFL Trophy. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the EFL Trophy is not considered a fully professional competition, as it includes the academy teams of some Premier League clubs........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ChrisTheDude: neither is the FA Cup, but playing for two Football League teams in it still (like EFL Trophy) makes you notable... GiantSnowman 12:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict)@ChrisTheDude: I saw his team only meeting one academy team while others are EFL League One or Two. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good point, I was mis-remembering the rules.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, has played in a competitive match between two fully-professional teams (Shrewsbury v Walsall on 7 November 2017, per Soccerbase). Giant Snowman 12:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON but does pass WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 15:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Ramalinga Sowdeswari Amman[edit]

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

I would like to nominate this article for deletion since this appears to be not notable. -CowMilk (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 12:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Although we don't seem to have a specific notability guideline for deities, I want to say that all deities of notable religions are, contra WP:NOTINHERITED, themselves notable. It's the WP version of Pascal's Wager. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Article sourced and establishes the belief in the deity. As stated above, I’ll take Pascal’s Wager.ShoesssS ^Talk 13:13, 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. J04n(talk page) 13:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karanjeet Saluja[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:DIRECTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:14, 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) 10:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 12:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Alokmarina (talk · contribs) the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Sandhya2012. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:06, 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 delete. Sandstein 10:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario's Fire Brigade[edit]

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

This oddity clearly exists, but in a rather ghostly form. Apparently never got dubbed nor even released commercially (according to the ever resourceful TVTropes), so it's probably no wonder that there are hardly any sources around. Still, that makes for a lack of notability. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is copied from MarioWiki word for word, the one ref in the article links to mariowiki. Szzuk (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Owensboro Community and Technical College. Merger at editorial discretion. Sandstein 11:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OCTV-71[edit]

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

Local public access tv stations. The only source is the station's website. This clearly does not meet WP:GNG The article claims that it was originally a low powered broadcast station. I cannot find anything to back up that claim. The call sign W12BJ actually indicates a translator station, not one that has its own programming. The fcc's record's [36] indicates that it is a translator owned by the University of Kentucky which began operation in 1996 (not 1989 as the article claims). Rusf10 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge to Owensboro Community and Technical College. Nom is encouraged to read wp:before. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easy there on the WP:BEFORE allegations. If you're going to throw it out there, please provide some sources, what did you find that I didn't? This is the only thing I found is this [37] and despite it being on a university website, I have doubts about its factual accuracy.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Messenger-Inquirer covers it pretty intensely over the years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small channel owned by a college serving a small locality. Szzuk (talk) 19:00, 30 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 La Salle University#La Salle TV. J04n(talk page) 13:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

La Salle TV[edit]

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

This article is about La Salle University's college tv station. Of notability is not inherited so the tv station should be considered separately from the university. The article is unsourced and a search did not find any additional coverage. The article seems to be mostly original research. Rusf10 (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep channel broadcadts 16 hours a day, has numerous alumni in media field, and has won awards and recognition. Meets notability criteria. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, although I haven't look into each one of them, given the fact we don't have articles on them, the alumni probably aren't notable. Even if they were, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Second, the only award is the Pennsylvania Association of Broadcasters Award for Outstanding Public Affairs Program, that's not a notable award.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least one of the alums in the list on the page is bluelinked; no "looking into" required on that one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not independently notable a Merge would be the appropriate outcome. But a 16 hour a day broadcast station that has produced many media figures and won awards is notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage, I instantly got hits on stuff like Help La Salle student reporters go to L.A. for the Sweet 16 in the Inky, oops, the Philadelphia Inquirer. Out of time for now, but this looks like a reasonable article on a campus/local TV station, the sort of outfit that had a moment in citizen journalist wave of the 70s-90's, I think it just needs sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to La Salle University#La Salle TV where a 2 paragraph section exists. I will do a small improvement, sourcing to that section.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It is an educational channel serving the University. Szzuk (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to La_Salle_University#La_Salle_TV where the subject is already mentioned. Not independently notable and no need for a separate article. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:12, 31 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 10:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Ain't...[edit]

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

Article like as Category! A porno series that appears to not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NFILMS Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable films, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN, refs are unreliable. Szzuk (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS coverage, even for the de minimis claim that these are actual series of related porn releases rather than just generic titles for otherwise unrelated parodies. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:07, 31 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 Granola#Matzo Granola. J04n(talk page) 13:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matzo farfel granola[edit]

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

Unsourced since its creation in 2006, which is no wonder, because this is neither a well known or well referenced subject. A Google search only turns up recipe pages. Yoninah (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a near-infinite number of Passover food substitutes, but few merit standalone articles. There is no sourcing in the article and nothing supporting a claim found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Alansohn.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge I cannot believe this page has been around for so long judging by what it is. I would say delete or it can be merged into granola if enough sources could be found to demonstrate it is worthy of inclusion there, but based on what I see it should just be deleted. - Galatz ^Talk 12:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'~~Keep'~~, but rename to Mazto granola. I have to say I learned something new looking at the article. I did find a a source with farfel here.[38]. Matzo farfel is just broken up matzo, and "Matzo granola" is by far the COMMONNAME here. Somes sources: books[39][40]. Martha Stewart [41] (gotta count for something when Martha...). Multiple news items (around April for an odd reason) - [42][43][44][45] and plenty others.Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Struck !vote per support for merge & redirect to subsection.Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Granola#Matzo Granola, per discussion below.Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(see proposal below)Keep (sigh) and rename Mazto granola. Between granola trivia and the non-Easter bunny living on the front lawn of the Naval Observatory I am enmeshed in a surreal Wikipedia silly season. I bow to sources already on the page, those brought by Icewhiz and the annual journalistic need for something new to say about a holiday that has come every year for the last 3,000.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't doubt that matzo granola exists, and Martha Stewart (who calls it "thinking out of the box") and her proteges are certainly giving it coverage, but it has no history before the 21st century. Gil Marks' Encyclopedia of Jewish Food doesn't mention it. Joan Nathan doesn't mention it. There's no history to speak of in a Wikipedia article. What are we going to write, a recipe? Yoninah (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thats why I said it could be a section under the main granola article. Put together a paragraph and let this page redirect to there.Galatz ^Talk 21:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing we Redirect to granola. [[User:Galatz and User:Yoninah have a point. granola is quite a short article; this is a type of granola (an imitation mthat stay within the narrow dietary restrictions of Passover); and despite the annual spate of article covering this recent introduciton to the Passover diet, granola matzah is a very narrow topic. Redirect is a perfect solution.@Icewhiz, Alansohn, Yoninah, and Galatz:E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)@Icewhiz, Alansohn, Yoninah, and Galatz:[reply]
- I'll agree with a redirect to granola. Yoninah (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have content here. I agree both are short, so a merge is possible - but this should be a merge, not a redirect. Note that the definition of Matzo Granola, which does not use Rolled oats (which are not Kosher for pesach - oats being one of the 5 grains - this would be seen as Chametz gamur) contradicts with the definition of Granola in the granola article which is defined to use rolled oats as the primary ingredient. We would have to modify the lede of granola accordingly (or redirect to a subsection on matzo granola), lest we cause confusion amongst our readers regarding the use of a patently non-Pesachdic ingredient in a food product that is alleged (by the mazto prefix) to be pesachdic. Icewhiz (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Icewhiz: but look how it's done at Farfel. Matzo farfel has nothing to do with egg pasta, but the two are combined in the same article. Yoninah (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, but Farfel (being a stub in itself) makes clear that Matzo farfel is matzo, and contains content on matzo farfel (around 33% of the article). I am not opposed to a merge - but the lede (or alternatively a redirect to a subsection) would have to be modified and content added to Granola. A simple straight up redirect won't do - to the contrary - it would present false information to whomever is interested in "matzo granola".Icewhiz (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I'm getting my terms mixed up. I think the best solution is a subsection on matzo granola in the granola article, just as matzo farfel will (eventually) be a subsection in the farfel article. Yoninah (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree a merge and redirect to Granola#Matzo Granola would to the trick.Icewhiz (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with love This made me giggle way too much; since it's Pesach now to think that an article for such a specific food item existed for so long is hilarious. Waddie96 (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:35, 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 10:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Building and Social Housing Foundation[edit]

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

Highly promotional article with no references. Reads like a copy of various other adverts online. No evidence that as a topic it is relevant or of encyclopedic value. I can't find any substantial independent reliable sources in searching. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- It's not possible to do an adequate search for sources about this organization without knowing that it is now known as World Habitat]. The fact that nominator didn't mention this makes me suspect yet another failure of WP:BEFORE. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

But this is not the article on the World Habitat Awards or World Habitat Day, so I can't see that it makes any difference, there still isn't any viable secondary sourcing. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To indent or not to indent? That is the question.

- Can you consider indenting your replies properly so that other people can follow the conversation later? If you do edit your comment for proper indentation, please indent this one to match. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~My indentations are always like this. Bullet for comment that stands alone, more bullets and colons for dependant replies as looks about right. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you replied to my comment and didn't indent your reply more than the comment to which you replied. Riddle me that, PoT! 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reply was more for the benefit of others coming to the discussion, rather than aimed at you, because you have already done a BEFORE, so you already know about those other articles. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~I will hat this as hopelessly off-topic, but I will read up on indenting styles. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:00, 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 00:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article as it stands resembles website content, authored by someone connected with the organisation, but given its lifespan and activities, I expected the article should be salvageable with 3rd party references. However, I am finding little for this: aside from routine competition announcement coverage, an official is quoted in the Guardian, 2011 and an item in the same newspaper summarised a piece of commissioned research, 2012. Even the organisation's renaming, apparently sometime in the last few months, has gone under the radar, aside from the Blog post mentioned above. Unless someone can identify better, this fails WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Relisted twice and still no refs. Szzuk (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Petelewicz[edit]

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

Biography written by WP:SPA User:Jakubulek (the subject himself?). Does not seem to pass WP:PROF. Article deleted two years ago from the highly inclusionist pl wikipedia (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2015:03:01:Jakub Petelewicz) where it was noted he does not hold a professor title nor a habilitation, which is the pl wiki sufficient claim for notability for academics. Our criteria are somewhat stricter, and I don't see how he is meeting them. Couldn't verify the claim "fellow at United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., and Yad Vashem Institute", through even if he was a fellow at them this is not likely sufficient for notability per PROF3. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete no independent sources which could hint at his notability, beyond biographic blurbs here and there. Academic record is not impressive either. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACADEMIC. Scholars are usually authors of numerous articles in their field of study, nothing extraordinary. Journal editors are not inherently notable either (even if they are the editor of some prestigious journal like Nature, though in that case, someone selected for such a position would probably be notable for plenty of other reasons, as the current editor is). Preparing exhibitions in museums seems also pretty run of the mill. The Polish Center for Holocaust Research is not a "a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society". It is highly specialized, yes, and I assume it holds some prestige in it's own field of study, but that's pretty much it 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC) [Copied from my earlier request at AfD talk] 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per comments above, and the lack of WP:RS. The Times HE article is not admissible, as it contains a passing mention. Not sure what the biography aims to achieve? Nicnote^{say hello!}_contribs 16:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shamai Leibowitz[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E Shrike (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While this does seem to be a single event, his story received a lot of coverage, and made it to books too: Charlie Savage (3 November 2015). Power Wars: The Relentless Rise of Presidential Authority and Secrecy. Little, Brown. pp. 344–. ISBN 978-0-316-28660-2. , Joel Samaha (1 January 2016). Criminal Law. Cengage Learning. pp. 530–. ISBN 978-1-305-85660-8. , and passing mentions in dozen others. I think this is enough to push him over the threshold, given that the coverage in books is enduring, so this is not just someone who was discussed in newspapers, to be forgotten next month. Academics and activists see his story as still relevant, 10 or so years down the road. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- BLP1E doesn't apply at all here. As that guideline says, "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Leibowitz has been the subject of RS over many years. Besides the sources already in the article we find 2009, 2013, 2015, 2017. Also see the books mentioned by User:Piotrus. Finally, consider this GScholar search to see that discussion of Leibowitz is extensive and ongoing in the scholarly community. An easy pass of GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Exceptionally poor nomination. More background is provided in this book and a quick BEFORE search reveals indepth sources and an apparent lasting impact.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sufficient coverage for stand-alone notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Universidad Azteca[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N. No reliable third party sources that describe the organization. Google Books results do not establish the organization's notability. Umhsbrek (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a huge private university. Of course it's notable per WP:SCHOOLS. Furthermore, nom gives zero valid reasons for deletion. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in existing references suggest that it is a "huge private university". Note that WP:SCHOOLS does not point to anything but existing policy such as WP:N and WP:ORG, both of which need to be satisfied for the article to be kept. As I have mentioned in my nomination, there is no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to satisfy WP:GNG. All references used in the current article are either first party, unreliable (like worldwide.edu, which relies on content submission) or trivial mentions. Most of the references are for the accreditation the organization has but they all do not establish the notability of the subject. Please see WP:RS on identifying reliable sources. Umhsbrek (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? It's got more than 16,000 students. As before, you're confusing sources used in the article with notability. They're not related. If you don't yet understand WP:ARTN perhaps you ought to consider holding off on creating new AfDs until you do. Also you might consider reading WP:SCHOOLS. This one is notable. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not only relying the lack of reliable source in the article to establish non-notability. There are no reliable sources outside of Wikipedia. I quote WP:ARTN, "If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable." Where did you find that the university has more than 16,000 students? I can't seem to find it from Google, not even Spanish sources. You haven't shown me a single reliable source that establishes the notability of this university. Searching "University of Azteca" gives me 19 results while "Universidad Azteca" generates 90 results. This is hardly notable. Umhsbrek (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Large private university with full government certification; do some WP:BEFORE, and not just 'well not enough sources in English'; Google Translate can help you with Spanish references. The nine-edit account seeming to know how to do two AfD's also raises some alarm bells. Nate • (chatter) 20:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a private university with 15,000+ students. These are generally kept. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already speedily deleted.. Sandstein 10:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BJMB[edit]

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

Non-notable acronym or neologism of a construction technique. Page seems a subtle attempt by a Chinese manufacturing company to promote its construction methods. Page creator is clearly linked to LF-BJMB (see http://www.cnxzlf.com/about-us/company-profile.html), and has not declared COI or PAID. Whilst there may be some detailed content which, if referenced, could be added to Space Frame, I urge against any WP:REDIRECT which leaves a promotional name/acronym in place unless it can be shown to be a legitimate one in broad use, which I do not believe this one is, based on a Google search for the term. (Pinging Kudpung who initially CSDed this for copyvio reasons.) Nick Moyes (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete veiled WP:artspam. Lacks WP:RS. Possibly WP:CSD#A11--Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete as non-notable and promotional. Searching for the phrase behind the acronym gets seven GHits, five of which are on alibaba and one of which is us. Mangoe (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. It's as blatant as it's veiled. The CSD tag was removed by the now blocked author. The tag should have been restored and we would have been done with it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh. someone might want to check and see if it still has copyvio's. I was not able to do so.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Checked, found, and speedied g11 & g12. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per above, WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:17, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lester Knutsen[edit]

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

Hello. Clicking the blue "Find sources" links above really does not bring much to assert the notability of the subject. The article itself is very subdued. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established with the 2 refs. Googling returns social media and routine from what i can see, nothing on news. Szzuk (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C. G. Haberberger[edit]

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

The guideline Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria requires multiple reliable independent secondary sources to support an encyclopedia article. Haberberger was organizer and manger of St. Marys Colts, a local (youth?) baseball team. The only source provided is a plaque by members of that organisation. This does not qualify as an independent source. I made a significant search effort and I was unable to locate any sources to satisfy Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria. Alsee (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Spanneraol (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No refs in the article, no claim of notability, I googled but nothing was there, he's on 'deleted wiki', whatever that is. Szzuk (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 13:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AQA Holding[edit]

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

This page is about an holding but the article is contrary to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There are no sources. Furthermore the page is full of misinformation: subsidiaries list is wrong (those listed are Air Italy subsidiaries; AQA Holding exists just because has 100% of Air Italy's shares and nothing else), the history is about Air Italy and not about this company. AQA Holding should just be mentioned on Air Italy article and nothing more. Wind of freedom (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wind of freedom the page has no relevance to the actual company and is more just information about Air Italy which already has its own page and all the information is already there. The user who created the page states they want to make the page "similar to the LATAM Group wiki page" which is completely impossible as they are two different scale companies. CBG17 (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CBG17 Perhaps you could clarify if you're voting or commenting because your contribution might be intended as a !vote but may not be counted. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of independent notability, references fails the criteria for notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow for clarification from CBG17
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH; an unremarkable holding company. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 31 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. WP:SNOW keep, notability of the theatre has been demonstrated in the discussion. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy Theatre (Edmonton)[edit]

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

Not notable BrillLyle (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep substantially covered in reliable independent sources including those already cited in the article. Historic theater. FloridaArmy (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm the creator of the article. I can't help but think that this AfD is a way to make a WP:POINT given that the nominator and I have had some serious clashes over OR in BLPs. I hope that's not the case. Ca2james (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding: this fire and its rebuild received significant independent national attention (CBC, the Globe and Mail, and Global news). I think that's enough to establish notability, but of course I bow to the consensus of the community. Ca2james (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources provided are sufficient to establish its notability as a historic venue. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some expansion and referencing improvement would still be welcome here, but this theatre does have a valid notability claim and valid reliable source coverage to get it over WP:GNG — I live in Toronto and have never been west of Winnipeg in my life, yet the Roxy is the one theatre in Edmonton that I could name right off the top of my head if I were asked. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable historic structure. Nixon Now (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Humane Sagar[edit]

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

I fail to see how he passes the subject-specific notability guidelines or our general notability guideline.Has sung for a few songs in fringe-film-albums but no non-trivial coverage other than name mentions.I will say that it is too soon. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep won the television show conpetition Voice of Odisha in 2012 and won a best playback award at the 2017 music awards for his region (state) of India (where the language he sings is spoken). The Google News link shows he's getting plenty of coverage and is very notable. Nom seems to be a WP:BEFORE failure. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And, who told you that Voice of Odisha, a local singing-competition, is a major music competition or winning Choklate Awards, showered by a FM station, one of the so-many similar non-notable awards, with near-zero coverage in RS, is a major music award ! This !vote, (as usual), seems to be a pathetic failure of abiding by WP:AADD and the execution of a new-found tactic to dump whatever GHits are retrieved by the subject.By the way, the manner, in which you have vaguely phrased your !votes--where the language he sings is spoken--and refraining from using any edit-summary speaks volumes about your capabilities at executing WP:BEFORE and understanding of other relevant guidelines.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Fails WP:BIO. Many of these UPE article use a similar pattern, when trying to establish notability. Can you guess what it is? scope_creep (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is UPE? FloridaArmy (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The paid editing crowd. scope_creep (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is pretty WP:TOOSOON. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "film and album singer"? OK, so I looked this guy up. He is an upcoming singer who participated in a local singing competition. Based on what I could find, he was one of the singers of a compilation album (which had many other singers). He has done a bit of playback singing for films, though none of these films seem to be notable. There doesn't seem to be any indication that he is a "leading singer of Ollywood" though. At best he an upcoming singer who might achieve notability in a few years.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Spencer[edit]

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

One source bio written promotionally. The rolling stone ref is from 2015 Legacypac (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve I've cleaned it up and added some references - he seems pretty notable, with multiple secondary coverage in WP:RS. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the coverage added by Mighty Glen is enough to establish notability for this rapper. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been improved with the addition of multiple reliable sources so WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel N. Cohen[edit]

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

Person of only local or at best regional notability. The Order of Canada does not confer sufficient notability as more than 150 of them are given out each year. Article creator seems to have created articles on six members of this family. Softlavender (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: Additional note: article was created and written by a sock farm; see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Keevaymusic. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as creation of sockpuppet, without prejudice against recreation if somebody else is willing to take it on. The Order of Canada is a notable distinction that counts as a valid notability claim — the number of people who receive it annually is a standard that's applied to lower-level distinctions like the Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal, not to the OC, so he does have valid grounds for inclusion. What's more determinative here is the sockpuppet problem — for denial of attribution reasons, we have to delete content created by sockpuppets of already-banned editors, and then permit recreation by somebody else. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creation of sock farm; see also Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G5. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The OOC is good, but the rest reads like WP:VANISPAM... a family history that is not particularly interesting to a general audience, and largely unsourced.104.163.147.121 (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creation of a sockpuppet. scope_creep (talk) 10:42, 31 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 10:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph H. Cohen[edit]

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

Person of only local or at best regional notability. The Order of Canada does not confer sufficient notability as more than 150 of them are given out each year. The largest contributor to the article seems to have created articles on the entire Cohen family. Softlavender (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: Article was created and written by a sock farm; see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Keevaymusic. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creation of sockpuppet, without prejudice against recreation if somebody else is willing to take it on. The Order of Canada is a notable distinction that counts as a valid notability claim — the number of people who receive it annually is a standard that's applied to lower-level distinctions like the Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal, not to the OC, so he does have valid grounds for inclusion. What's more determinative here is the sockpuppet problem — for denial of attribution reasons, we have to delete content created by sockpuppets of already-banned editors, and then permit recreation by somebody else. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creation of sock farm (G5 criteria). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. scope_creep (talk) 10:43, 31 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 10:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harry B. Cohen[edit]

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

Person of only local or at best regional notability. The Order of Canada does not confer sufficient notability as more than 150 of them are given out each year. Softlavender (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: Article was created and written by a sock farm; see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Keevaymusic. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creation of sockpuppet, without prejudice against recreation if somebody else is willing to take it on. The Order of Canada is a notable distinction that counts as a valid notability claim — the number of people who receive it annually is a standard that's applied to lower-level distinctions like the Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal, not to the OC, so he does have valid grounds for inclusion. What's more determinative here is the sockpuppet problem — for denial of attribution reasons, we have to delete content created by sockpuppets of already-banned editors, and then permit recreation by somebody else. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, only around 7,000 recipients in 50 years of this high ranking award, a recipient is definitely notable, with appropriate sources of course, nevertheless, agree with Bearcat that article needs to be deleted, then can be recreated later. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creation of sock farm. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creation of a sock farm. scope_creep (talk) 10:40, 31 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. This is a bit of a conundrum in that it is now attributed to a banned user. If a user in good standing requests it I would be happy to userfy it to them for the purpose of rewriting it J04n(talk page) 13:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Cohen[edit]

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

Person of only local or at best regional notability. The Order of Canada does not confer sufficient notability as more than 150 of them are given out each year. (Also, note when searching that there are hundreds of thousands of people named "Martha Cohen".) Softlavender (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: Article was created and written by a sock farm; see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Keevaymusic, and the subject is a relative of that user, so this is a WP:COI case as well. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC); edited 02:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creation of sockpuppet, without prejudice against recreation if somebody else is willing to take it on. The Order of Canada is a notable distinction that counts as a valid notability claim — the number of people who receive it annually is a standard that's applied to lower-level distinctions like the Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal, not to the top-level OC, so she does have valid grounds for inclusion. What's more determinative here is the sockpuppet problem — for denial of attribution reasons, we have to delete content created by sockpuppets of already-banned editors, and then permit recreation by somebody else. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, only around 7,000 recipients in 50 years of this high ranking award, a recipient is definitely notable, with appropriate sources of course, nevertheless, agree with Bearcat that article needs to be deleted, then can be recreated later. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Canadian speaking here. The order of Canada is a BIG DEAL. I have been around many decades and have met perhaps one or two people who got it. Notability is clearly established by the OOC and the sources. I guess this is here because of the sock issue. However notability seriously could not be clearer!

Honrary Phd from U Calgary.
Large obit at Calgary Herald.
Edmonton Journal profile.
CBC obituary

That's enough for me.104.163.147.121 (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG has stated that the Order of Canada does not confer sufficient notability. Honorary degrees (especially in one's own city) confer no notability whatsoever. Everyone gets obituaries, they confer no notability; those are merely from the city of Calgary (where she lived), not in regional or national news. What confers notability is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The write-up from Edmonton (the capital of Alberta) is still only regional coverage. In my opinion there's still no indication that she had anything but local or regional notability. Softlavender (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that DGG is wrong about that. Bearcat (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like you but disagree 100% with your interpretation this. Three of the four items above are RS. The order of Canada is serious. Notability is extremely clear, even if you want to hack away at good reliable sources for some reason. They are also not exclusively local: CBC is our national network, and the Calgary herald and Edmonton Sun are essentially provincial rags. If I go by what you are saying, then someone who:

has multiple awards,
received the order of Canada in 1975,
received the Diamond Jubilee medal from the Governor General
received the golden Jubilee medal from the Governor General
had a school named after them and
had their death reported by multiple in-depth independent reliable sources

is actually not notable. So my question would be, after all those awards and articles, what does satisfy notability? Would getting a fourth award from the Governor General f Canada do it? You are also not correct in saying everyone gets obituaries. Her obits are significant in-depth of the type that are reserved for notable persons. Nobody paid $43 to get these published. Sorry, but your interpretation here is entirely of base. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CBC Calgary is the local CBC affiliate, not national CBC. The obits are local. The school is local. The OC is often given out to people of only local or regional notability (the same goes for the Order of Australia). Softlavender (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy says we differentiate between local and national reporting? 104.163.147.121 (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, we do not deprecate "local" reporting as less carrying of notability under GNG than "national" reporting is. For city councillors and local poets winning local poetry contests and local bands playing their local Elephant and Dildo, sure, local coverage counts for less — but for national distinctions like a writer winning a Giller Prize or a person being named to the OC or the mayoralty of a city that's large enough to make its mayors "inherently" notable under NPOL, we do not deprecate local coverage as less valuable than other coverage. Incidentally, the higher levels of the OC are rarely awarded directly — except for the Governor General, who automatically goes in at Companion rank even if he or she was never previously OC at all, most Officers or Companions have to be promoted from within the rank of Members rather than being directly appointed at Officer or Companion status. So the rule for the Order of Canada has been and is that as long as it's possible to reliably source some content about what they did to earn the distinction, rather than relying solely on their inclusion in a list of OC members as the article's sole source, then all OC ranks are valid notability claims and no rank is deprecated as less notable than the others. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Bearcat. I had a similar situation with a prolific sock years ago, and deleted all of his creations; occasionally, another (uninvolved) editor asks for their recreation, which I'm happy to oblige. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Order of Canada has several ranks, corresponding to the ranks for corresponding orders in the uK and Australia: the lowest rank, Member, is not considered here to confer notability in the UK or Australia, and by analogy should not for Canada either. Like the other two countries, it is awarded for contributions "at a local or regional level, group, field or activity". There are two higher ranks in Canada, Companions and Officers. By analogy, Companion would imply notabilit , and Officer might or might no--the other systems have more than three ranks and the lower 2 do not. DGG ( talk ) 15:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I don't think you are correct. As the OOC Wiki page says, "The Order of Canada (French: Ordre du Canada) is a Canadian national order, admission into which is the second highest honour for merit in the system of orders, decorations, and medals of Canada. It comes second only to membership in the Order of Merit, which is the personal gift of Canada's monarch." 104.163.147.121 (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. on the basis of creation by a sock farm--we can safely assume that one or another of the incarnations of the sock form has been previous banned, and creating articles for pay, as was presumably done here, is a violation of the terms of use. Normally, an honorary Doctorate does confer notability, so the article could probably be rewritten. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, could you point out the policy that says sockpuppet product must auomatically be deleted? I can understand the revulsion that is properly directed to such pages, but wonder why we would delete notable ones. Thanks.104.163.147.121 (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article was originally created by a sockpuppet (I'm not 100% sure what that means), I believe it's well demonstrated that this person is notable and the article should be marked for improvement as opposed to being deleted. In fact, I'm not sure it even really needs to be improved any more. I edited the page and removed everything I think was promotional or not reliable and added more info and citations. In addition to more recent online sources, I found some older newspaper sources from when she was more active [46] and from her honorary doctorate.[47][48] She received the Order of Canada for unending community service, and a Prime Minister’s Medal from Israel. Even ignoring the awards, she passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (she was the first woman to sit as head of an Alberta educational institution, her work was widely covered while she was alive, her death was widely covered, two buildings were named after her, her art collection made headlines when it was being sold, two years after her death she was listed as one of the top people from Alberta, etc.). I believe her awards qualify her for WP:ANYBIO for "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." I think the honorary doctorate for her work, ongoing coverage after her death and the fact that two buildings that were named in her honor help demonstrate that "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". Lonehexagon (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"created by a sockpuppet" means someone abused multiple accounts to create the article; the thinking here is that they were also doing it for money. It would also appear that one or more of the editors was blocked, meaning the pages were made/improved by a blocked editor. The editors above are arguing for deletion as sockpuppet product and product by blocked editors is very frowned upon, so it is not a straightforward notability question. However (and I cannot find the policy to cite at at the moment) it can be kept if a registered editor (you, for example) volunteers to clean up the offending product. Why don't you do that? 104.163.147.121 (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I just did that. What else would you have me do? Lonehexagon (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes I guess you did! I am a bit foggy on why everyone is arguing for procedural deletion, where it gets delted and then can be recreated. I put the code on pastebin so it can be recreated it if it does get deleted.104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I cannot find a policy anywhere that says sockpuppet product must be deleted. could someone point out the policy? I see the deletion reasons here, which do include WP:G5, creation by a banned or blocked user. But that's a reversible speedy.104.163.147.121 (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do think I'm correct about OC, because of the 3 different ranks. They are not all the same That's exactly how we handled the 2 very closely corresponding countries. I am not sure what you mean by a reversible speedy. When used as a speedy, it can be challenged and removed by any editor except the contributor, but every one of these is also a basis for deletion at AfD. It's routine to bring challenged speedies here. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

if by two countries you mean Canada and Britain, we are not closely corresponding at all. Britain is thousands of years old, Canada a few hundred. We might look alike, but what goes in one cannot necessarily be overlaid onto another. When you get the OOC here, it's a big deal that confers notability. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I mean the UK and Australia as the analogs to Canada. In all three, the lowest class is for purely local people. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Member" class is most definitely not for purely local people when it comes the Order of Canada. Sure, it can be, but it's also the level at which no-brainer national and/or international notables like Jann Arden, Dan Aykroyd, Isabel Bassett, Bobby Curtola, Gord Downie, Joyce Fairbairn, Bill Graham, Brent Hawkes, Norman Kwong, Peter Liba, Eugene Levy, Don McKellar, Loreena McKennitt, Howie Meeker, Marina Orsini, David Onley, Charles Pachter, Eric Peterson, Léa Pool and Tanya Tagaq are sitting, and that's not even close to an exhaustive list of the 1,200+ articles that we have about Category:Members of the Order of Canada.

In reality, Member is the level that almost everybody in the OC starts at regardless of how localized or nationalized or internationalized their notability claim is: with a few rare exceptions, Officers and Companions are not appointed directly to those levels from the jump, but get inducted as Members first and then get promoted from within the order — and because there are limits on the number of Officers (no more than 64 per year) or Companions (no more than 15 per year and no more than 165 living at any one time) who can be appointed, lots of people who probably should get promoted to the higher ranks don't. So no, "Member" does not automatically connote "only locally notable and therefore not notable enough for an article" — the OC simply does not work that way. Rather, the rule is that the OC does count as a notability claim regardless of rank, so long as you can properly source some evidence that they got reliable source coverage for the work they did to earn the distinction and aren't relying solely on their presence in an OC inductees list as the article's only real source. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, trust me, the article very definitely still needs to be improved if and when it gets recreated. Just for the one big thing that jumps out at me right away, every single section that is currently formatted as a bulletpointed list must be converted into prose before the article could even get uprated from "start" to "C-class". It has to be an encyclopedia article, not a résumé. Bearcat (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is the ethical thing to do to delete sockpuppet farm created articles. scope_creep (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which Wikipedia guideline says an article must be deleted because it was created by a sockpuppet? I checked WP:SPI, WP:SOCK, WP:BLOCK and I didn't see anything about that. The closest I saw was in WP:BANREVERT, which said that "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban, and which have no substantial edits by others, are eligible for speedy deletion." However, it continues, "If editors other than the banned editor have made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned editor, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do." From my reading of the guidelines, we should be treating sockpuppet-created articles on a case-by-case basis, just like any other AfD. It is a good article, and the notability/sourcing is not contested. I don't see how it fulfills the goals of Wikipedia to delete a well-sourced article about a notable topic. If the article had major problems, a vote to delete would make more sense to me as it's not Wikipedia's job to fix up articles that don't fulfill the guidelines. But given the demonstrated notability combined with the efforts of legitimate editors who made improvements, why still delete it? As another user said, if someone were going to recreate the article, it would basically be a copy-paste of what is here now. Lonehexagon (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets of banned editors aren't allowed to retain credited attribution for having created the article in the first place. Even if it is more or less a copy-paste of what's already here now, that's not the point: the point is that the article's edit history absolutely, unequivocally must have the sockpuppet's name removed from the edit history — this is absolutely, unequivocally mandatory, not optional — and while deleting it and then permitting recreation by another unbanned editor isn't specifically stated as mandatory in its own right, it is the only mechanism that exists to produce the denial of attribution that is mandatory. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it hadn't went into AfD, it would have been an automatic G5 as the product of a proven sockpuppet farmer, who has been indef's blocked for making legal threats. It has to go. I don't mind recreating the article, although I see you have created a few articles yourself, Lonehexagon. Why dont you have a go at recreating it and I can give you a hand, if necessary? As regards your argument, that it would fundamentally be a cut and paste job, is baseless. It wouldn't, and I could go into the reasons, but I wont. There is plenty of material. scope_creep (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Hindt[edit]

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

Article about a person known for recently reported news. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and the event is not something likely to endure time. CNMall41 (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a WP:COATRACK/WP:BLP1E (and a claim of notability vis-à-vis that one event is tenuous at best). The only other coverage is routine. An article does not appear to be justified. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate your challenges, as this is my first page and I'm learning loads from you. My first steps to further improve: 1) Expanded article to include press coverage of 2nd notable violent incident, this time as an adult. This suggests this page is not WP:BLP1E. 2) New reference added documenting personally-promoting press interview, suggesting this page is not WP:LOWPROFILE ^[1] In a similar vein, before I started this page this person was already listed as Superintendent on Katy Independent School District, and there are existing pages for other Superintendent's in Houston-area school districts, (e.g. Abelardo Saavedra,Rod Paige). I appreciate there is much more to do on this page to make it compliant. I'm highly motivated, but technically slow, so I'd appreciate some time (and further kind advice) before any deletion decision is reached. Thanks --Damian874221 (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just completed a few more edits trying to find balance and context. Thanks --Damian874221 (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite the author's efforts, I'm not seeing evidence of notability outside these unproven claims. Probably not a great idea to focus on something controversial and on-going as your first page? (Says the man whose first page was deleted about 10 years after it was created!) Mattyjohn (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Barry Smith[edit]

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

Promotional article on non-notable person. Softlavender (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the creator 'as been blocked as a sock (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keevaymusic), my presumption is the article will be going the way of the Dodo. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely promotional. Natureium (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing anything that addresses WP:BIO or WP:GNG notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete non notable article w/ promotionalism.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly promotional with no actual evidence of notability through WP:GNG or other criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Created by a sockpuppet evading a prior ban, and I'm seeing nothing here in either the sourcing or the substance that would constitute a strong reason for him to warrant coverage in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MT Finance[edit]

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

An article on a finance company, sourced to routine funding announcements, brief quotation/interview with a founder, and industry award listings. These confirm this to be a company going about its business, but I am not seeing the detailed coverage needed to establish encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:CORPDEPTH. -The Gnome (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. The awards listed, such as the "Best Service from a Bridging Finance Provider at the Business Moneyfacts Awards" is trivial. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Microsoft Store retail locations[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Listcruft, don't need an exhaustive list of every location. Dough4872 01:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose or Merge This list was in the Microsoft Store article (like in the Apple Store article). I think it is a relevant list to have and it doesn't harm Wikipedia for it to exist. If this ends up getting deleted I would propose Merge to Microsoft Store as a collapsed ~~list~~ table. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not need a list of every store location. We can summarize in the Microsoft Store how many stores exist and in what countries stores are in. Dough4872 02:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I have generally opposed this kind of detailed list in store articles (like H&M) especially since such lists are often out of date or don't have citations. I was going to totally delete it from Microsoft Store but didn't see the harm in a list article for it so I am not going to be majorly bothered if it gets deleted. Still prefer merger if it can't exist as a standalone. Maybe the equivalent list should be deleted from Apple Store? —DIYeditor (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDIRECTORY Acnetj (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Clear cut case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Google Maps, which does everything this list does with pictures. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY Google maps exist for that info. NWWT (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was its author asked for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs) 21:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newark Municipal council members[edit]

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

Copy and pasted biographies from four other articles currently at AfD (see:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anibal Ramos Jr.). Assuming those articles are deleted, then this should be too. If for some reason those articles are kept, then this still should be deleted because it is redundant. We already have this article which gives a general overview of the council and lists its members. There is no reason for these biographies to exists anywhere since they do not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Rusf10 (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete with a side order of trout If the other articles survive discussion, then this is a WP:COATRACK. If they do not, rolling them all into one Big-Ball-o'-Bio isn't going to make them more notable. This is extremely WP:POINTy and disruptive. Mangoe (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:COATRACKing a whole bunch of otherwise non-notable BLPs into a "list" article is not a valid bypass around having to get the people over a notability standard as individuals: if it were, then our entire concept of having any notability standards at all would be inherently eviscerated, because then the interminable parade of "Wikipedia is LinkedIn" people who already want their résumés published on here could simply paste their résumé into the article about the company they work for or the list of people from the city they live in or their alma mater, and thus exempt themselves from actually having to qualify for a standalone BLP. So no, if a person does not clear the standards required to qualify for their own standalone BLP, then we do not and should not keep all of the same content just because it's been pasted into an article that's titled with something other than a person's name. BLP applies to all articles that contain content about living people at all, not just to articles that have a person's name as their page title, so a person still has to clear the necessary notability standards for their field regardless of how you title the page that the content is included in. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:21, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Settlemint[edit]

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

A directory-like listing on an recently launched company. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP and significant RS coverage not found. What comes are is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/YA4NCY with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and not being in WP:PLAINENGLISH and filled with completely incomprehensible techno-buzzwords. Nate • (chatter) 01:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree that this fails WP:NCORP. -- Dane ^talk 01:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads as promotional materiel, fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of in-depth sources that focus on the company rather than blockchain, and makes no case for why the company is individually notable as an entity.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, no indications of notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:01, 30 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) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glyptidotea_lichtensteini[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Glyptidotea lichtensteini

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

delete Non-notable subject only referenced in certain list of marine lives. Google search and scholar shows limited results originated from the same source (first reference). Lack of secondary reliable sources. Should belong to wikibio according to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. Xinbenlv (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep Valid species, suitably sourced start-class article, just like tens of thousands of other species articles; WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES etc. A rather sad revenge nomination. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Delete Nomination Elmidae, good to know, thanks for pointing to WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. still learning yet. Xinbenlv (talk) 07:38, 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.

^ Soloway, Mara. "Katy ISD Alum Returns Home to Take the Reins as Superintendent". katylifestylesandhomes.com. Katy Lifestyles & Homes magazine. Archived from the original on March 19, 2017. Retrieved March 29, 2018.

[1] Soloway, Mara. "Katy ISD Alum Returns Home to Take the Reins as Superintendent". katylifestylesandhomes.com. Katy Lifestyles & Homes magazine. Archived from the original on March 19, 2017. Retrieved March 29, 2018.

[1]