Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 March	4 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 keep. Consensus that she meets WP:PROF#C1. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Cherny[edit]

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

A CV for an "associate professor" for a school which doesn't have an article nor even an "edu" domain. Her actual job is as a run-of-the-mill consultant. Calton | Talk 23:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google scholar [1] shows enough citations for a pass of WP:PROF#C1. Her job title and employer might be suggestive for raising the question of whether she is notable, but are not actually relevant for determining whether she is notable once the question has been raised. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:PROF. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - sufficient notability to pass WP:PROF#C1. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fareportal[edit]

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

An unremarkable private company; significant RS coverage not found. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH; likely UPE. Claims in the article are unsubstantiated; for example, the infobox lists the revenue as $4.5bln. Since the company is private, it's unclear where the number is coming from, and if it's true or not. I was not able to confirm this number. Created as part of a walled garden around Sam Jain by Special:Contributions/Draykyle currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also the recent AfD discussion leading to deletion of the article on OneTravel, one of the company's brands. AllyD (talk) 08:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:11, 11 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 guidelines for organizations. I see lost of articles pop up but they all seem to be, or be significantly based on, press releases. Beyond that the article looks like a business directory entry and is irredeemably spammy. Jbh ^Talk 00:43, 11 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 Doll Domination. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Top of the World (The Pussycat Dolls song)[edit]

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

Even though it did chart, the article is notable as a stand alone article. MazurJacek (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doll Domination. Despite charting, there's no legit independent coverage on the song to be found. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect due to lack of decent sources to write an article with. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:07, 11 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supachai Phupa[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG because sources cannot be found. Avaay (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. --Avaay (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --Avaay (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources now found which show he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added many more references. Here [2] (starter for Krung Thai) [3] (Got yellow card playing for Bangkok Glass) [4] (Starter for BEC Tero) proved that he played in Thailand Premiere League games. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of sources added to show multiple appearances in games between teams from WP:FPLs. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:44, 4 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. Thanks @Lerdsuwa: Fenix down (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - article technically satisfies NFOOTBALL as Supachai has played in a fully-pro league and in AFC Champions League group stage matches against of clubs from fully-pro leagues (no evidence of him playing senior international football, U-23 only), but it doesn't appear likely to satisfy the GNG based on its current state. Almost all of the coverage is routine transfer news, match reports or injury reports. The only one that appears close to significant coverage is the FourFourTwo article, and I'm not sure if any non-primary sources are reliable other than Manager Daily and FourFourTwo. Hopefully there are offline sources that could support passing the GNG. Jogurney (talk)
Keep per Jogurney and Lerdsuwa. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:53, 9 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) Bbarmadillo (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Angrnaqquaq[edit]

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

Non-notable artist with 0 links at Google News. Mentions at Google are commercial (galleries, e-stores). Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough mentions in Google Books to indicate her notability. Most are only snippet view so will need someone with access to hardcopies to use as references. Derek Andrews (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A noted Inuit artist with works in the collections of the National Gallery of Canada [5] and the Winnipeg Art Gallery [6]. Her entry in the Canadian Women Artists History Initiative [7] includes a substantial list of print sources about her that can be used to expand the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci (✉) 00:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. freshacconci (✉) 00:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The list of publications available at the Canadian Women Artists History Initiative link above is enough to establish notability. Being in the collection of the National Gallery of Canada plus Winnipeg Art Gallery clinches it. Google books and scholar provide several solid hits as well. This is obviously keep. freshacconci (✉) 00:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the findings above. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP The nominator obviously did not search this out per WP:BEFORE. Many editors above did, and what they found was the same as what I found: numerous major museums include her work in permanent collections. The National Gallery of Canada and so on. She therefore meets WP:ARTIST, end of discussion. Suggest that Bbarmadillo withdraw this nom. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also note this page gives seven alternate English spellings for her Inuit name, as well as an excellent list of her shows.104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a deletion criteria, but her work is fabulous.104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry for the confusion. I should've done more research before nominating. But it looks like the deletion nomination actually improved the article a lot. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 05:22, 4 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 that he meets WP:PROF#C1. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Alty[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Computer science is a high-citation field but I think with five publications having over 100 citations each on Google Scholar [8] he passes WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree, his Google Scholar profile (h-index of 32) indicates a significant impact on his field, as you'd expect of an emeritus prof. – Joe (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment frankly I've always found the citation count criteria to be an extremely poor way of judging notability. If there are other authors who have cited his work and said it is important, that's something else, but how can we write a BLP based entirely off primary sources? If this is kept I will be stubbing it due to it being an autobiography and per BLP, and then where does that leave us? SmartSE (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough citations to pass WP:PROF#C1. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cox (actor)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ENT, no lead roles in animation shows or video games. Just miscellaneous guest characters or supporting at most. References presented are either cast announcements, credits, or passing mentions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing amu lead roles or coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Had a look around for sources; couldn't find anything in the way of significant coverage.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Zameter[edit]

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

Allegedly a 1970s luger; the article history shows some dispute about whether she was Austrian or Italian. The only cited source is a dead link (http://www.eiskanal.com/eiskanal-erg-nt-wch.html), and I haven't found any other reliable source to verify that she actually existed. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added an archived link. The page shows she won silver in 1979; she's listed with an Austrian flag, but the gold went to Delia Vaudan, an Italian. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but this source shows her nationality as Italian. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 07:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, that 2nd source is actually based on FIL World Luge Natural Track Championships 1979. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Grand'mere Eugene: when I tried searching, I found zillions of wikipedia-derived pages.

Thanks for the archived link ... but how does the defunct eiskanal.com measure up against WP:RS? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Eiscanal was a short-lived publishing effort of Treffpunkt-Media GmbH, to provide "Comprehensive statistics" on bobsleigh, luge and skeleton as well as information on tracks and technology, according to Google translation. Seems a bit fly-by-night to me, but I don't know German and cannot evaluate the media group page. If we agree it's less than reliable, it may be a cleanup situation on multiple other WP luge and bobsled articles that cite the eiscanal reference. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First comment withdrawn.

@Chris: the data I got from Zameter was from FIL? The source you cited[9] was http://www.eiskanal.com/eiskanal-erg-nt-wch.html, not FIL. Why do you say it was accurate then? Did you have other sources to verify it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake on this. The only source I saw is eiskanal as you have mentioned. I have also requested FIL to put the Natural Track Championships in for records since all they have is on artificial track. Am awaiting response on this. I have withdrawn my first comment. Chris (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the fact that we can't even nail down the nationality with any certainty would indicate that this person does not meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Bunny[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, sibling of notable one; this is a mere catalog of films in which he appeared, with no reliable sourcing and neither assertion nor evidence of notability. We are not IMDb. Orange Mike | Talk 04:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd like not to since he did appear in some notable silent movies but he didn't have repeated notable roles in these movies, and after 1925 was largely uncredited according to IMDB (which isn't a good source, but explains why he's not in the cast listings in any of those movie articles.) A search brought up basically his gravestone and noted he was the brother of a more famous actor. I'm leaning closer to keep than normal for my delete recs, but most of his films aren't notable, it's a straight IMDB scrape and most importantly I don't know how we recover the article to make it notable. Part of this is recency bias as he's a silent film actor, so not a lot of sources online I would think, but nevertheless. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: according to Eugene Venanzza's Silent Film Necrology, 2001, p. 69 (or what little I can see through Google Books), George Bunny was the subject of:

"George Bunny," Variety, 23 Apr 1952. AMD, p. 56. AS, p. 183.
"George Bunny Resembles His Well-Known Brother," MPW, 10 Aug 1918, 867.
"George Bunny a National Star," MPW, 6 Nov 1920.

I assume that MPW is Moving Picture Weekly. If so, and if someone can verify this, I would endorse keep. In the meantime, I'll keep looking. --Noswall59 (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Noswall59: - yes, MPW is Moving Picture Weekly. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACTOR - "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films". Appeared in 60+ films, with several starring roles. As a part of WP:BIAS, finding online sources for someone who was mainly active in the 1910s to 1930s can be tricky, but there is coverage in Variety and other publictions, as found by Noswall59. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. --Michig (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the research by Noswall59 (talk · contribs). Well spotted! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Strong delete the keep votes confuse lots of roles with major roles. Also they come from people who have shown a willingness to keep any actor article no matter how minor their roles or insignificant the coverage. Wikipedia does not aim to be IMDbm, and we should not try to create a comprehensive database of those involved in film. Bare articles with long lists of roles do no one any good.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comment, he was also the subject of several offline reliable sources. I think Lugnuts was referring to them as evidence for notability, in addition to his film roles. --Noswall59 (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I question the claim of "several starring roles". I challenge Lugnuts to name the specific roles that were starring. Until that is done, I also question that these alleged starring roles were in notable films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He had leading roles in Piccadilly Jim and The Lost World, to name a couple. If you read the sources you would see it noted he had leading roles in the silent era. Keep. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:16, 3 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abrar Hasan[edit]

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

Not notable enough for an encyclopedic entry. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and maybe stubify. The subject appears notable under WP:GNG. The mentions of him in reliable sources are, for the most part, not trivial and directly relate to his role as a lawyer and bar association leader. By my count (and giving the benefit of the doubt for sources I'm not familiar with), there are at least five sources that (somewhat-)substantially cover him. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lawyers need substantial, indepth coverage, which is lacking for Hasan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kevin. samee ^talk 15:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems verifiable he was arrested and released due to protesting the removal of certain judges, and is of at least some importance. Leading up to the event, he was discussed significantly in this article on The Daily Times. He also seems notable enough that he was referred to by name in the title in the Daily Times article about his arrest, though 1,500 people were arrested. He gets 1 paragraph in The Nation about his arrest, and 2 paragraphs in The Independent about his release. I tried to improve his article by making sure the notable part is in the intro. I'm voting keep because that seems to just about pass WP:GNG, and per WP:NEXIST there are almost certainly more articles about him in his own language. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough sources to pass GNG. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shaila Abdullah[edit]

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

Nothing significant about her. Fails WP:NWRITER. Störm (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't pass WP:N. So, delete it. M A A Z T A L K 19:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability tests. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Other good sources exist, just are not currently cited in the article due to its stub status - see, for example, this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TDW's comment above. Definitely needs quality improvement, but that is not to be confused with notability. Montanabw^(talk) 21:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CREATIVE which states, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." Both apply here as one of her books was part of an influential 2014 research study that demonstrated people were less racist towards Arab people after reading a 3,000 except page of her book Saffron Dreams. This study and the impact of her book was reported on in many newspapers at the time. Additionally, this artist has won multiple awards for her books. Her children's books have also been noted as being good for children with special needs. She has a listing in the Encyclopedia of Asian-American Literature. Lastly, the article also passes WP:GNG with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Lonehexagon (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not sure she fails NAUTHOR but given the coverage and sources, it appears to pass GNG and NPERSON. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Human Rights Organization[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG as searches for ""International Human Rights Organization" premi" do not find independent coverage SmartSE (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the title is a common keyword, there is no coverage to find about this specific organization. I could find only one low-quality secondary source. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--How this ended up at DELSORT/INDIA?~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Founded in India' made me put it under the group. MT Train^Talk 17:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you can find only one low-quality secondary source, you might want to recuse yourself for bias and/or conflict-of-interest. Six secondary sources were directly posted in the article. Twelve more added since now brings the total to 18. The IHRO website has a prominent and clearly-labeled press page listing 42 more secondary press references in English, Hindi, Bengali and Tamil. There's no rule that says sources must be limited to English. The "low-quality secondary source" you reference is a student club at the University of North Dakota law school bearing zero relation to the subject, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) NGO holding worldwide membership of 112,000.

Where is one quality secondary source in all of this? All I see is passing mentions or weak repeats from press releases, in articles of terrible quality. I can’t see one meaningful action from this organization described anywhere, nor any source for that magical 112,000 number we see repeated here. The name is so impossibly generic that there is no way to distinguish it from noise. No project listed. No report listed. Lorem Ipsum text still splashed all over the website. There’s no way we should have an article about this. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Internet searches in English will always underestimate results for people from a non-Anglophone country. Premi is found everywhere in common Bengali use. In this example there's a massive confusion of hits with several unrelated pages. Does it have to be pointed out that "common name + common phrase" is a really bad example of a query from which to draw any conclusions whatsoever? If this were an American organization, based on American references, with more than 112,000 members, we would not be having this discussion. The last thing we need is more bias and discrimination.

Comment The creator claim is highly unlikely by definition. UNESCO/ECOSOC Goodwill Ambassadors are limited to a handful, selected for celebrity following and renown, follow an ambitious itinerary, and hold a retinue of full-time staff at their disposal. Far more likely would be an obsessive fan. Your presumption directly conflicts with the privacy rights of all five named Goodwill Ambassadors, and only redoubles the harm presented by a doppelgänger.
Goodwill Ambassador Rohatgi decries problems from fake Wikipedia profiles dating back to 2014. — 📦Datta 08:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC) (@Atshivendu:)
Keep. More notable than, say, the English Tiddlywinks Association, though Wikipedia can surely accommodate both.--Davidcpearce (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any actual evidence for that assertion? --Calton | Talk 16:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to see arguments backing the notability claim. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A global organization with 112,000 members needs to use a Strikingly.com domain for its website? This smells like a hoax. --Calton | Talk 16:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The organization site is hosted on its own independent domain at ihroworld.org. The Strikingly post may or may not be of or by the organization, which is neither here nor there: secondary press coverage holds more weight than choice of blogging platforms. — 📦Datta 17:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulit Datta (talk • contribs)

It's a obvious warning sign that the claims of being a "global organization" are obvious bullshit -- not mention it's being used for the otherwise-source-free claims of some people being their "Global Ambassadors". --Calton | Talk 06:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another source references Times of India. — 📦Datta 08:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, normally I'm all for being forgiven for entities where any sources are unlikely to be in English. But the best that we've come up with is a bunch of press releases and astroturf. This does not notability make. This smells very fishy to me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:13, 11 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. Good consensus here that even if these places wouldn't meet WP:GEOLAND today, there are sufficient WP:RS showing that they did at some point in the past, and that's all we need. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orbitello, Kansas[edit]

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

Also nominating the following in the same county which also map to farmhouses:

Another GNIS/post office synthesis in Kansas, but in this case the aerial makes the issue extremely clear: it plunks you down on a farmhouse. GNIS cites "The Official State Atlas of Kansas, Philadelphia: L.H. Everts and Company, 1887", and while I haven't seen this exact map, I've seen similar maps from the same era, and they tend to label residences with the name of the occupant; therefore this "historical locale" is in fact the same farm as exists today. You can call that a "settlement", but it's not a town, and it almost certainly never was a town, and I don't see the notability of every farmhouse in Kansas or anywhere else in the late 1800s that had a name next to it on a map. Mangoe (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment defined as a historical locale by the US GNIS; a locale is: "Place at which there is or was human activity; it does not include populated places, mines, and dams (battlefield, crossroad, camp, farm, ghost town, landing, railroad siding, ranch, ruins, site, station, windmill)." Probably not notable. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep essentially for same reason stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monroe, Kansas. Once-populated places, even if abandoned, retain their notability. Notability is not temporary.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please go back and read the nomination this time. The problem isn't that it isn't uninhabited: the problem is that it's still a non-notable farmhouse. Mangoe (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume I didn't read the nomination. I did read it, I just disagree with the nomination. I believe the location passes WP:GEOLAND. Nominator seems to agree that the area was inhabited. It may just be a farmhouse today, but it looks like it was a town once upon a time. Likely very small, but enough to hold a US Post Office.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is it's listed as historical by the GNIS, so the fact it's currently likely non-notable doesn't mean it wasn't once notable. There's even a cemetery, at least at one point in time. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info This historical newspaper gleaning confirms names of people that lived in Herman and Pleasant Valley.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info This list of pensioners confirms names of people that lived in Monroe and Pinion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info This historical gleaning confirms residents in Pleasant Valley, Orbitello, and Tower Spring.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paulmcdonald. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all They were all once populated places and notability is not temporary. Smartyllama (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We dont even have articles on many villages with probably close to 1,000 people and headquarters of an LDS stake (which some compare to a Diocese, but they are smaller than most diocese, only having roughly 3,000 members on average) in Nigeria. There is no reason we should keep up the adsurdity of having articles on farm houses that were put on maps by people who wanted their maps to look complete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're missing the information, this is much more than "farm houses that were put on maps" -- These are actual populated areas with sources to prove it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm willing to go with "area" or "locality": the evidence for "town" isn't good enough, and the evidence against it is strong enough. Mangoe (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unincorporated areas are normally kept. Acme, Buckeye, Dillon, Elmo, Holland, Industry, Lyona, Moonlight, Navarre, Pearl, Shady Brook, Stoney, Sutphen, Upland--and that's just one county in Kansas. What is this "evidence against it" you write about?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More references Wilson World August 3, 1916 confirms its existence, as does Wilson World later on November 23, 1916. The Hays Post printed this obituary just this year (February 19, 2018) of a person who went to school there in the 1930s. The Wichita Daily Eagle mentions the town in legal listings dated January 22, 1891. Here's a listing in in the Kansas State Board of Agriculture 1889 Biennial Report. In 1984, the National Gazetteer of the United States of America saw fit to include Orbitello as it has "been determined by the Board on Geographic Names BGN to be official for use throughout the Federal Government." While I'll grant that none of these on their own would necessarily grant notability, they do prove that 1) at least once upon a time it was more than just a farmhouse, and 2) the name has survived and been in use as a "populated, legally recognized place" in third party articles ranging from 1889 through just last month (Feb 2018). That's well over 100 years of recognition at the federal, state, and local level. Way more than enough to clear WP:GEOLAND.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there has been a longstanding consensus that officially gazetted locations are notable. The comparisons to an LDS stake are red herrings, in my view. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, concur with User:Lankiveil. Out of curiosity, I looked the first one on the list up, Orbitello may have been a small place, but it had a post office. There are many places, including a many small places, that once existed, but no longer do (c.f. Category:Former populated places by continent. On a case by case basis it may be possible to merge and redirect some of these (say a former county or village to the history section of the town or county of which it is now part) E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surra de Bunda[edit]

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

unencyclopedic topic, absolutely irrelevant subject, not pertinent to Wikipedia at all RedUser (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul. This group has its own page on pr Wikipedia. Someone who knows the language should try to translate that to this wiki, and then merge this content into that article. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 19:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I wrote this article almost eight years ago because the subject was notable. I am not against updating articles, though, that is always our goal. Unfortunately, the nomination doesn't make any policy based reason for deletion, they just don't like it. Perhaps they are a surra de bunda victim. What will they come for next, café con piernas? I don't like twerking but I don't claim it doesn't merit coverage. Checking to see view stats, I am refreshed to see occasional huge smacks of views (almost 18,000 views on 7 January 2018).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Article's substantive claims border on patent nonsense; the idea that this standard stripper act was invented in Brazil in the recent past is fundamentally silly and effectively unsourced. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are consistently devoid of fun, Hullaballoo. Your rationale only advocates for improvement, a deep dive into the cracks of this issue. I love the idea that this is a "standard stripper act," clearly you may be but among our most knowledgeable editors on the topic, you are in arrears in not sharing this information.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notability usually requires coverage, so for this article to stay we'll need some coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All articles are from a relatively short period in time and are all passing coverage of a fad. There are a number of articles, but so many articles when you search are from June 1-14, 2010. I'm not sure the depth of coverage is there, but it did get picked up on by a number of independent sources doing "what-the-heck" articles, at least in English-language press. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:05, 3 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson Z610[edit]

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

I could not find the specific criteria for speedy deletion which would fit the case. A product listing is no place for Wikipedia. Fails Wikipedia:Notability Mr RD 20:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widespread coverage. It's not a "product listing" but an article about an electronic device.--Pontificalibus 10:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don’t understand why this article should be deleted yet other phones are not. What is different about this particular phone that it should be singled out? MensanDeltiologist (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although there is no WP:OUTCOMES listing for it, articles on reasonably popular electronics kit are usually kept due to published independent product reviews. This is no exception. ~Kvng (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kvng. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brockett Road (Georgia)[edit]

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

This is a non-notable street that doesn’t appear to meet WP:GNG, and a contested PROD. Imzadi 1979 → 19:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to double as a county road. Is it not a major road? I'm seeing some coverage in state government documents, a train accident at an intersection of the road that killed 7 and lots of mention in relation to businesses and crimes along it. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- County roads have to meet WP:GNG to have an article. As for the other, notability isn't inherited, so we'd need sources specifically about the road itself, and not crimes that happen to occur on or next to it. Now if there are articles about how this road is specifically accident-prone, or specifically crime-ridden, and if those sources add up to the "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject", then we have something to work with here for an article. Otherwise, this doesn't merit an article. Imzadi 1979 → 00:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails GNG for roads. Looking on Google Maps, the road only serves a bunch of suburban cul-de-sacs like millions of other non-notable roads. Sounder Bruce 01:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable county road. Does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability criterion. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sourced, clearly lacks WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 18:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our Ways Back to Chaos[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turpentine (band) (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honey Births, a Salt Troupe. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Depending on how the AFD on the band plays out, this could also be speedily deleted. EPs tend to receive less coverage but we actually need something to gauge whether this passes WP:GNG and/or WP:NALBUM; Discogs, Bandcamp, and RateYourMusic simply do not cut it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:22, 4 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Births, a Salt Troupe[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turpentine (band) (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Ways Back to Chaos. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:31, 4 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. Noting that ad hominem comments are deprecated in deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SORAG[edit]

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

Sadly I cannot say this is notable, I would say merge with Paranoia Press. But they do not have an article. Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has reviews from two independent sources, and there is a third that I will try to get access to. BOZ (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

* Speedy Keep Two or three independent reviews is a clear GNG pass. Nom is making spurious, Idontlikedit AfD nominations and wasting our time.Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I used to own a copy, so it is not a case of Idontlike it (though to be honest I really only liked the Zhodoni Scout deck plans), it was (even at the time) a minor publication. It was never notable. Reviews (as far as I am aware) are not usually enough to establish notability, in depth coverage is.Slatersteven (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I love it when editors claim a thing is not notable and ignore the very sources doing the noting. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are in-depth coverage. If you don't think reviews can eatablish notability, then you shouldn't be nominating for deletion. Newimpartial (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then what should I do?Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read and learn. Newimpartial (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either make a constructive suggestions or do not comment on other users on an AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to refrain from asking me questions you don't want answered, then. Newimpartial (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the subject of this RFD, so what I am supposed to do is not relevant. Comment on content not the user.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually an AfD and yes, let's. Newimpartial (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So we have 3 reviews published when it was released, and evidence of lasting notability?Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It need not be "lasting", it just needs to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent sources are notable. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:56, 6 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. The article can easily be re-created should the subject meets GNG OR NFOOTY in the future. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jishnu Balakrishnan[edit]

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

PROD deleted for no reason. Article fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is playing for Kerala Blasters in Indian Super League which is a fully professional league in India and thus satisfies point 2 of WP:NFOOTBALL. Mr RD 19:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Correction, he is on the squad of Kerala Blasters. He has never played for them, nor even appeared on the bench for them. Thus he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just found out he was also selected in Indian Football Team U23 squad. Some coverage: 1, [15], [16]. Mr RD 19:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still fails WP:NFOOTBALL and as for WP:GNG he must satisfy large covarage to suit a note, a youth national team call-up in my opinion dose not satisfy, if so, every player whom may reccive an international youth call up is suit for a note, which has been proven to not be. Therefor as I vote below, the article should be deleted or drafted as the subject could in near-time be making a debut in the pro-league. Avaay (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify - Subject has nor played or been a sub for the team in a pro-league, thus fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Avaay (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:13, 4 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) 12:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, and article can easily be re-created if and when subject meets said requirements. If there is an inclination to do so I have no objection to the article being moved to draft space. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:12, 7 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RadioFaryad[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Notability seems questionable at best, sources either don't work, or not reliable or mention in passing Cabayi (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my prod rationale--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's also practically a copy of RadioJavan--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Castellana III[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman, with no significant coverage online in WP:RS. His NY supermarket chain Western Beef is just about notable enough for an article, but WP:Notability is not inherited, and he fails WP:BIO. Unusually, this article was moved for a time to Peter Castellana Jr., current subject's father, who won an award and had some controversial allegations made against him: [17]. Latest edits include a move back to current title, and a close-up photo of Castellana III uploaded as "own work" by an account whose work to date has a strong whiff of paid editing. The COI puffery can be fixed, but the notability problem will remain. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - more than happy to get rid of this. Deb (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. There are four sources: his company; his holding company; his family foundation; and a passing mention in The Real Deal; together, they add up to nothing. Notability of Western Beef is very questionable too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looking at the history, I just want to add that I moved the page to Peter Castellana, Jr last year because it was apparent that only the father had any claim to notability. I amended the article accordingly and added some references. User:M3diaguide removed many of these and made the article focus on the son again. There is an obvious COI here and it needs to be salted after deletion. Deb (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

God's Stuff[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable children's book or books. Five editions are listed (without any independent source) in our article, but only three of them are in WorldCat. The English edition is held in two libraries worldwide, the French edition in one. For what little it's worth, the English edition is ranked "#12,909,065 in Books" on amazon.com. This is unambiguous (but undeclared) promotion; the article creator claims here to be the husband of the author. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: According to WorldCat, this is the only book that Stirling Stream (Mauritius) has ever published. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no question. Deb (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notably NZFC^(talk) 18:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Sounds like a book about PCP and meth. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. Lacks sourcing. Nothing found in a Google Books search.104.163.148.25 (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's an apparent self-publication, then that's all we need. Minimal distribution and discovery of COI of editor also presents significant problems. On review, this does appear to be merely promotional content, or at a minimum WP:TOOSOON. Montanabw^(talk) 19:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a delete, but, with respect, COI and promotion are not reasons for deletion on its own.104.163.148.25 (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a promotional article on a non-notable subject that does not meet Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. SunChaser (talk) 08:55, 6 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 11:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makeroid[edit]

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

Unsourced crystal balling that reads like a piece of promotion. Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try improving the article a bit, providing sources. After that, you may want to check the page again.TurboProgramming (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me improve the page? I'm going to provide sources but can you change the description language to not something promotional.TurboProgramming (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather wait until after the AFD, as I said it is still crystalballing, and needs some pretty strong coverage to overcome that. Just not finding any real coverage beyond what look like product announcements.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deleting the page, can you or someone help change the text to something not promotional so we could have more and better pages on Wikipedia? This kind of software should be on Wikipedia. Yes, I may have wrote it crystalballing as I'm so new here, somebody can change and help me, right? Maybe you?TurboProgramming (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check the page again? We've reformatted the text, replaced wrong information and removed the promotional language. TurboProgramming (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the policies I linked to on your talk page?Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but why are you still calling Makeroid and the Makeroid Wiki page a crystall ball? It really exists and over 15.000+ users. It's just down right now and will be back up Q2? Those information are real and I'm still editing the page. Please wait and don't delete the page. After all my edits, I'll be back here again. I've recently added References, that was another issue on the page.TurboProgramming (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Currently, Makeroid has been taken down by the developers and under development for their production release." it has not been released and is still under development (ad had to be withdrawn due to multiple bugs). Your references do not establish notability, we need third party RS for that. Also we have this [18], what does it say?Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Clearly this article (and the product) is still in development. It may be appropriate to move this to WP:DRAFTS space and bring it back in through WP:AFC once things are more developed. Let me know and I can help to make this happen. ~Kvng (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please transform this Wikipedia page to a draft, after the official launch, we'll make it official and available to everybody, so noone would call the page cyrstall balling.TurboProgramming (talk)

OK, but we can't do that unless/until other AfD participants agree to it. It still may be deleted. In the meantime you may want to create a copy of this for safekeeping in your sandbox. ~Kvng (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - WP:TOOSOON but may be a reasonable article after time and development in draft space. ~Kvng (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me or is this 100% sourced to primary sources?Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edited sources.TurboProgramming (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And this made a difference how, they all still look primary to me.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources, clearly COI creater and promotional is a solid delete someone unconnected can have a go when this finally becomes notable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are all primary. Go and get famous, get secondary sources written about you, and then come back. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poonam Ghadge[edit]

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

Non-notable actress, can't find any evidence of notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As much as I suggest caution on articles about Marathi-language pop culture due to the poor quality of English-language sources about it, the sources on this (in either language) are so drastically poor that it's difficult to even confirm basic details. I have no objections to it being recreated down the line by someone who can cite less terrible sources though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:48, 4 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sapir[edit]

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

Although there are plenty of references in the article, they don't add up to much. About a third of them are not even about the subject (these are the ones that talk about Albuquerque's development plans). As for the ones that do mention the subject, they are mostly local to Albuquerque, and most of those are from a single reporter at Albuquerque Business First. In all, the only thing we are being told about the subject is that he runs a real-estate development firm that has recently started a project in Albuquerque. And that doesn't come close to being encyclopedically notable. By the way, there are other people named "Michael Sapir". Searching for sources with that name will tend to lead you to either the mutual-fund specialist or a journalist. Neither of them is the subject here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sajidul Islam Pathan[edit]

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

Contested A7. Fails WP:NACTOR. Repeatedly deleted & recreated (this is the 5th version), also needs WP:SALT. Cabayi (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Pinging editors from "What links to...", The Blade of the Northern Lights, Sajid566, CAPTAIN RAJU, The Mighty Glen. Cabayi (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt zero mentions online in WP:RS online in English or Bengali, including in the references cited. "He is working now individually with his teammates and Studying in a School.", it currently says in the article. Tried to find his YouTube video last time I tagged this for speedy A7, and found only a blocked account. This time I can find a few clips from what looks like a student short. Possible WP:Hoax, but either way definitely fails WP:NCREATIVE, WP:NACTOR, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Mighty Glen; notability is not established here, and the lack of ability to find reliable sources says it's not going to happen. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Recreation of deleted content, basically per The Mighty Glen. --Church ^Talk 00:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, per above --nafSadh did say 22:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7. – Joe (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zahid Ali Siddiqui - Web Developer / Designer[edit]

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

No evidence of notabilty Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tickle monster[edit]

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

Concept is simple WP:DICDEF. Mentions in published sources appear entirely to be trivial usage by primary sources in a fictional context (notably children's books). Insufficient depth of coverage to pass WP:GNG. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should definitely be deleted per nom Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. The article has been here since 2013 and has not progressed beyond a definition. Attempts to expand it have never included references to reliable sources. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically WP:OR. Lacks notability as a fictional character._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Whether it should be merged, redirect, cleaned up, or kept independently can be discussed on the talk page. There isn't a consensus to delete here, and I see no reason to relist. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Atlantic Sun Conference men's soccer season[edit]

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

what's the real need for this article if (please correct me if I'm wrong) the pages for the other years don't exist? Beyond that there seems to be little encyclopaedic value for this (even assuming that there were those complementary pages). Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up notable, searchable topic that just needs to be expanded with relevant information. Also, the basis of this nomination seems more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Quidster4040 (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Quidster4040, the nominator provides no valid reason for deletion. The argument provided could just as well be made to create articles for all the other seasons. We can be sure that any NCAA Div 1 season has adequate reliable sources, so time and effort used on AfD is better applied to improving the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it's really fairly obvious, ppl like u condone the clogging up of wikipedia w total garbage - we have enuf junk as it stands. If you truly feel there are adequate sources, blah blah, show them, establish GNG, and volunteer to improve it. I, on the other hand, feel that we are much better off blowing it up - I cannot profess to want to salvage something rather hopeless here. Prove me wrong! Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/redirect there's a lot of really poor quality articles on college soccer with inadequate sourcing. College soccer is one of those weird things that WP:FOOTYN doesn't speak to. Keep if WP:GNG can be established, otherwise redirect to Atlantic Sun Conference. Jay eyem (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, no evidence of notability (WP:GNG failure). Giant Snowman 15:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep Keep if WP:GNG can be established.Avaay (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a reason for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - could be notable, but in it's current state it is just a list of unreferenced stats. Looks like it is still under construction so better to leave that to someone to do in their sandbox. Fenix down (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the proper policy here is WP:SPORTSEVENT as WP:NSEASONS is only for teams and not competitions, and it fails this considerably, as there are no references and only a list of standings; this also means it completely fails WP:NOTSTATS. I typically would vote keep for this sort of thing based on the quality of the nomination, but it's such a clear delete to me. Also note a related AfD: [19] SportingFlyer talk 04:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by PhilKnight, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mariska Ariya[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article. Local reviews for White Fang is about her only sourcing presented, and that play doesn't even have an article. She has very minor roles in major films and appearances in the X-Factor. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. So far only a list of minor roles. No prejudice to future recreation if she becomes a breakout in the future. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:01, 3 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 S.T.A.R. Labs. Hat note added. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Starlabs[edit]

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

WP:2DAB. Based on page views, S.T.A.R. Labs is far and away a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and a hatnote could easily take the place of this page. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and hatnote - This graph says everything you need to know. It is a redundant disambiguation page, and there is no reason to keep it around when it is so frivolous. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to S.T.A.R. Labs and hatnote. This is a pretty reasonable search term for the people who don't know the exact typographical details of S.T.A.R. Labs. A hatnote to the other group would be sufficient. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and hatnote per Pk above. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Box (Ministry album)[edit]

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

No notability given for a long time ({{unreferenced}}). Gleb95 (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I honestly contemplated this one for a bit. Ministry discography would be a good merge or redirect target, but there's not much content here to salvage and I don't see the title as being a search term. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe deletion is the best answer. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:59, 3 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 List of school shootings in the United States#2010s. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Central Michigan University shooting[edit]

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

Non-notable event without lasting impact. Veggies (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of school shootings in the United States#2010s. This should have just been a speedy redirect, no WP:LASTING coverage as Stoneman D. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect." It's been a day. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - And in that day, nothing substantial has come up. This story is over. -- Veggies (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of school shootings in the United States#2010s (it's already there, but it could use some more info). If more information comes out it can be spun back out, but for now there isn't enough to merit an article. ansh 666 21:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Too soon for a news story. Only when or if this has any historical significance, do you create an article, not before.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. Breaking news stories like mass shootings or terrorist attacks always have an entry created, which is then debated for deletion if it turns out to be not notable, like this incident did. There are good arguments for creating an entry early on. I often look to Wikipedia for reasonably verifiable information about what has happened so far in an incident. Facts get verified as we go.EvidenceFairy (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, they shouldn't be created early on, especially since early reports are often wrong and/or full of speculation regarding basic facts. We aren't supposed to create articles based on what people want to read. ansh 666 19:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'll ever be able to stop people creating an entry when a critical incident occurs. I've observed this dozens of times and speculation gets immediately deleted by other users. The goal of Wikipedia is to be encyclopedic, so if you want to stop people covering current/recent events altogether, you'd have to set an arbitrary timeframe. I just don't think it would work. Since it's going to happen, I think it's a better use of time to improve the sourcing and quality of the entry than to try and shut it down, until a decent time period has passed.EvidenceFairy (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect It may be useful to include a summary of the information in an entry about school shootings in general. Existing entries such as List of school shootings in the United States are not time limited, hence they are long and unwieldy. There is notoriety in the pattern of school shootings so far in 2018 because they are getting increased media coverage, with a new protest movement, 2018 United States gun violence protests organized since the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Shooting. A new entry would provide a place to show information about smaller-scale shootings that are referred to in the public debate about gun laws.

If no new important information comes to light and the information in this entry is not moved to another page, I would support deletion on the basis that it lacks enough notoriety to be a separate Wikipedia entry. At the start of the one-day incident there was a chance it could develop into a more significant event. Once the incident was over it became clear that it was a domestic violence incident that, while it tragically cost two lives, does not have more notoriety than what happens hundreds of times a year in the USA.EvidenceFairy (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I have sourced &updated text related to this shooting at List of school shootings in the United States#2010s, a cat that is sufficiently broadly defined as to include this in the list. My personal opinion is tha tthis should not be defined as a "school shooting" because it is in fact a personal, family shooting that happened to take place on campus. Tragic event; parents of a disturbed youth came to campus to take their son home, at which point the youth used a gun owned by his father to murder both his mother and his father. It is an awful, sad, a tragedy. But it is not a notable crime. Article can be recreated at a future date if some significant impact emerges.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of school shootings in the United States#2010s. It's worth a mention, but there isn't enough info to justify a full-fledged article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above hints from the fellow Wikipedians. Though the article prevails in the Spanish language with the title as Tiroteo en la Universidad Central de Míchigan, the incident seems to be non-notable. Abishe (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an incident where a student shot his parents, fails not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect not nearly enough for a standalone article. Lepricavark (talk) 16:19, 10 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 Rafael Nadal career statistics. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Nadal's 46-match winning streak at the Monte-Carlo Masters[edit]

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

No need for separate article, almost the entire content is present in the Rafael Nadal career statistics article. Wolbo (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Rafael Nadal career statistics#46-win streak at the Monte-Carlo Masters. 100 percent agreed to support for merge. ApprenticeFan work 15:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nom. Acebulf (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - most is already in the Rafael Nadal career statistics article and there is really no need for an article about a win streak. It's been here unnoticed for quite awhile so it is best to redirect instead of delete. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Though I'll note this should have been addressed via a proposed merge rather than an AfD. If others hadn't commented, I'd suggest a procedural close and move to proper venue, but considering a discussion is already ongoing, I'm invoking WP:IAR. Smartyllama (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As its already in the career statistics page, we don't really need a separate article for this. Animation is developing 01:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Brand[edit]

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

This is a difficult topic. The article concerns an alleged Nazi murder program that killed hospitalized people. However, when I examined and tried to improve the sources I found that all the information presented is one primary source, in various edited forms: a single brief mention in a 1976 interview with a Nazi named Franz Suchomel–and he apparently did not take part in it or speak to anyone who did, but only claimed to have learned of it from reading a confiscated letter.

That would not in itself be a barrier to this being a notable subject for an article, of course, but I cannot find a single piece of secondary scholarship on the topic. I initially wondered what professional historians have written in secondary sources about this claim: do they believe it, have corroborating evidence, reject it, consider it plausible but unsubstantiated? But aside from transcripts of the interview and the source of Mattila (which does assume that the event happened, but is really not focused on WWII but on the contemporary far-right, and only mentions it in passing) I cannot find evidence of any scholarship on the topic whatsoever.

I initially PRODdded the article; the author contested it and puts a rationale on the article talk page. The author makes a comparison to recently discovered sources on the second world war like the Höfle Telegram and Höcker Album, but both of these have been extensively discussed and assessed in secondary sources as this apparently hasn't been.

I would also be open to considering redirecting this to Franz Suchomel, possibly. Blythwood (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Franz Suchomel (for lack of better landing spot). When I saw the original PROD I searched for any mention of this, and like the nominator I found nothing. Part of the problem is the common English words "operation" and "brand", the latter finding hits in the areas of marketing and commerce. However, searching under the German name reveals nothing, even in the German Wikipedia. This may be a case of something real that has never been investigated, researched or written about. If real, there may be archival materials but that's not for Wikipedia. We need reliable secondary and tertiary sources and the interview and single mention in Mattila are not enough to even verify that there ever was an Operation Brand. Perhaps Suchomel had the name wrong? Perhaps he was thinking of Aktion T4 or conflating a number of other situations. If Operation Brand was real (and on a personal level I have no reason to doubt this) clearly no scholarship has happened around whatever archival material may be out there. Until that happens, this falls under too soon (academically speaking) and failing WP:V and WP:RS. No prejudice whatsoever for recreating once new sources appear. Merge to Suchomel as it could be mentioned in passing in that article (if it's not already there). freshacconci (✉) 14:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP (says the article creator, me). here's a paste of my original UNPROD comments on article's Talk: UNPROD notice

per WP published directions, i will "remove the proposed deletion/dated tag from the article or the proposed deletion/dated files tag from the file." in the same WP page with those directions, it says, "You are strongly encouraged, but not required, to also: 1. Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page...." It also says, "If anyone, including the creator, removes a proposed deletion tag from a page, do not replace it." so, i'm removing the quick delete tag. thanks all for not-replacing it.

as a courtesy, i add these comments:

the quick-deletion proposer, user Blythwood, said this (not on Talk, but on a delete box): "While my search is hampered by the range of possible translations, I simply can't find any secondary-source scholarship about this topic at all. Every cited source is an extract from the same primary-source interview with a single eyewitness (who himself apparently says he only heard about it secondhand) apart from 2) which mentions it only in passing. Wikipedia doesn't seem to already have coverage of it either anywhere (I've searched now for "Einsatz Brand", "Einsatzbrand", "Einsatz-Brand", "Operation Brand" and "Operation Burning".) Given the huge volume of Holocaust scholarship, I'm inclined to believe that either this is just an urban legend or an event that did happen but had a different official name to this one. Either way it doesn't meet notability criteria."

my replies:

re "it doesn't meet notability criteria," i say any ww2 mass-killing progam is notable --res ipsa. further, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is a national institution which strongly vets its publications and considers the historical significance of what resources it presents. i say if the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is considering the item worthy of acquisition and translation and publication and ongoing web-hosting (thus, de facto, vouching for it), their endorsement of the material outranks a good faith but arbitrary assessment of one wikipedian that the item is not notable.

re "my search is hampered by the range of possible translations," i say the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum conveniently provided an english-language summary as well as an english full translation, both of which are among the references. the original german transcript, also from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, is also in the refs.

re "Every cited source is an extract from the same primary-source interview" i say there's a secondary source: Markku Mattila (2002), "Old Arguments, New Thruths: The Picture of the Eugenics Movement Today (in CROSS-CULTURAL ENCOUNTERS: Perspectives on Multicultural Europe, pg. 178)", Retrieved March 1, 2018. The source's source is not listed in the source text, so concluding that it is a direct extract of the primary ssource is an unsupported assumption. further, i would say that the primary source is the 1976 interview itself secretly preserved on recording media. the french-and-german transcript is circa 1976. the info was further processed and edited and included in the epic documentary shoah, released in 1981 --secondary perhaps by then and after such filtering. the material passed to the Steven Spielberg (notable!) film archive. from there, it went to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (notable! except among Holocaust denial kooks) special collection. by the time the (notable and reliable!) United States Holocaust Memorial Museum vetted, accepted, and digitized the material, their digital archive of it could well be considered secondary. the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum-sponsored official english translation document was created 36 years after the primary source interview. it is secondary by the time of its 2012 creation. the USHMM web page hosting a digital copy is a further iteration created a couple of years later. the "primary source" that ~i~ cite is not so primary. plus, in certain historical cases, the words of those who were on the scene are indeed used --as we do for certain incidents which, say, eisenhower or Albert Speer refer to.

re "Wikipedia doesn't seem to already have coverage of it either anywhere (I've searched now for "Einsatz Brand", "Einsatzbrand", "Einsatz-Brand", "Operation Brand" and "Operation Burning".)" i say well *YEAH* it is a new article. that's why you don't find it on wikipedia. i meant to create "Einsatz Brand," "Einsatzbrand," "Einsatz-Brand," and "Operation Burning" sorts of redirects to "Operation Brand" after a while. i hoped to see, perhaps, a REF bot come along and replace my repeating REFs with the shortened forms. i hoped to see a few editors come in and tweak it with positive changes. (certainly, an "i've never heard of it so i'm going to delete it" sort of response was not what i was expecting.) i'm a specialist of sorts of forgotten but still important ww2 subjects and i've written articles before on such topics.

re references, two concessions: i blundered and while copy-pasting i got the 2012 english link where the 1976 original german link was supposed to go, giving an inflated impression of reliance on one source. also, the USHMM summary is circa 2014 and is itself a vettted secondary source of a sort. my phrasing of that summary REF did not reflect this and i've adjusted that.

re "Given the huge volume of Holocaust scholarship, I'm inclined to believe that either this is just an urban legend or an event that did happen but had a different official name to this one," i say now that is WP:OR. Further, the SS-Unterscharführer speaking in 1976 (Franz Suchomel) called it a top-level state secret. he wasn't just some private guarding aa warehouse; he was convicted in the Treblinka trials for war crimes. the translator said he called it "the secret state-secret" and the translator added in parenthesis, "he uses the word secret twice." After this, the translator said "Operation Burning." Maybe you're better at German than the state-museum's translator; here's Suchomel's exact phrase (at least as transcribed in 1976): "das geheime Reichsgehimnis über den Einsatz Brand." naturally, there would be little published about it. there is a lot of holocaust research in the form of rehashing and reinterpreting the same old well-worn stories; highly-secret items by nature tended to remain hidden and to appear sometimes only much later when dug out. the important Höfle Telegram was not found until 2000 and articles did not appear until some time afterward. the Höcker Album was not made public until after 2007. some secret things whose perpetrators actively tried to cover up of course left few tracks, but we don't then delete the articles about them when they first appear because we haven't heard of them yet.

i hope others will add to the new article. aborting it straight away of course kills-off that opportunity and, frankly, corrodes the incentive to dig up material for new WP articles.

Cramyourspam (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I strongly believe that "any ww2 mass-killing progam is notable", per Wikipedia policy we need WP:V and WP:RS. That the mention of Operation Brand has moved from the original interview to a number of archives is interesting but I'd suggest that it's the whole of the material, all the archival material, all the interviews within the Shoah project, not specifically the Suchomel interview alone. The only apparent secondary source is the brief mention in Mattila, and I'm assuming that is based on the same interview. As the nominator stated, Suchomel's information was second-hand, so it's a mention of something by someone who wasn't there, with no further confirmation. If Operation Brande existed (and I do believe it probably did), there is no verification beyond Suchomel's memory. That's extremely weak by Wikipedia standards. In the end, we don't know if it's real, an urban legend, a mistake on Suchomel's part, or something he made up out of whole cloth. In the Suchomel article it can be mentioned as something he claims, with the appropriate redirects if someone is looking for the topic. If newly discovered material confirms the existence of Operation Brand, the article can easily and uncontroversially be recreated once secondary sources are written based on the primary material. Other than that, I can't see how this could survive as an article on its own. There's just not enough there to verify Operation Brand's existence. I understand the desire to keep something you created, and if it can be confirmed, it would be an important article to include, once the sources are there. freshacconci (✉) 15:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Delete) ~~Keep~~ wall of text but I can't see why a comparative lack of sources for a top-secret Nazi death program is a massive issue. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't see why "a comparative lack of sources" is a "massive issue"? You are familiar with WP:RS and WP:V I'm assuming? We can't even verify if this "top-secret Nazi death program" even existed. If it existed and it was top-secret and no one had done the archival work and published the results, there's not much we can do per WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V and possibly WP:HOAX (and for the record, I don't believe it's a hoax per se but an article on something that didn't exist falls under that guideline). I don't really understand your rationale for keep. freshacconci (✉) 17:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying the existing sources in the article do not prove it's existence despite the fact the death-program was mentioned. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two sources. One is an interview from someone (a Nazi) with second-hand knowledge. The second is a single mention, based on that interview. That's it. So no, the existing sources clearly do not prove the existence of this particular death program. There are absolutely no other mentions anywhere, in English or German. Merely mentioning something does not prove its existence. One interview with an unreliable witness and one brief mention elsewhere by definition fail WP:RS. freshacconci (✉) 17:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And to be clear: I'd be more than happy for this article to be kept if the information could be verified and reliable sources could be found. I wouldn't be surprised if such a program existed and if it did, an article would be wholly appropriate. Until those sources can be found, there's nothing within Wikipedia policy and guidelines that could justify it being kept at this time. freshacconci (✉) 17:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat assuming that Franz Suchomel is reliable and although his say so does not prove its existence, it may have been real - perhaps draftify. I don't think it should be merged with the Nazi that mentioned it, I don't even see how that would work. I am against permanent outright deletion but Freshacconci makes a convincing argument, notably that there is only one source for the article, which is inconsistent with the requirement for multiple sources. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I suggest merging it into the Suchomel article is for lack of any better location and given that this program is mentioned in two places, it's not unreasonable to believe that people will come here to find out more. However, I'm not opposed to draftifying and if more sources are found I am very much in favour of the article existing. freshacconci (✉) 18:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is of course an extremely unpleasant subject, but that is neither a reason for keeping nor deletion. The problem is that it is all ultimately based on the testimony of a single witness, or almost so. However, the allegation is of the same nature was other Nazi policies that are well attested. Jews were the most numerous victims of the holocaust, but they were not the only ones. It also applied to Gypsies, imbeciles, and (I think) certain others. I therefore do not regard the allegation as one that is impossibly incredible. If true, it is certainly notable. Furthermore, even the possibility that is might be true means that it should be kept. If there are doubts about its credibility, that can be expressed in the article. I do not regard redirecting to Franz Suchomel as an acceptable solution, as the bio does not cover this. Even merging there (which would be better) is inappropriate. Something like this needs a substantive article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: Absolutely no one here has stated that the article should be deleted because it's "an extremely unpleasant subject". We can only decide on keep or delete based on policy and guidelines, not on whether or not something is believable. Yes, it would not be surprising if this was true. The horrors I have read about the Holocaust and other Nazi atrocities ensures that. However, if there are "doubts about [the article's] credibility" this most certainly cannot simply be expressed in the article. We have one primary source, an interview with an unreliable witness, and one secondary source that mentions Operation Brand in passing. Per WP:RS and WP:V -- which are policy -- this is unacceptable. We don't keep articles based on hunches or "the possibility that [it] might be true". We also don't keep articles based on what we think we "need" on Wikipedia, per WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT, also policy. If sources are found, this would be a great article. If Operation Brand could be verified with reliable sources, it would be a notable topic. What we have now is not acceptable by Wikipedia policy specifically, and the research by a number of editors has confirmed that at this time there are no reliable sources that even confirm that Operation Brand existed. freshacconci (✉) 16:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all that we know about this is "Franz Suchomel claimed that Operation Brand was a Nazi mass murder operation". We have one primary source and zero secondary sources about this topic. We would have more sources if this was a topic sufficiently discussed in the historical literature. At the present level of sourcing, all we can do is mention in Franz Suchomel that he claimed the existence of this operation years later, but there is no proof of its existence whatsoever. —Kusma (t·c) 15:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I agree that this article does not have the type of sourcuing to clearly pass WP:V. Given the nature of the subject, I'd certainly change/strike my !vote if there were scholarly discussion of the operation, even if that sourcing were only discussing it as a claim or possible event. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to endorse this view–uncertainty about whether the event happened is not the issue. Wikipedia has articles on things that probably happened, probably didn't, debunked hoaxes and everything in between, as long as there's reliable sourcing. The problem for me is the lack of secondary source analysis and commentary by credentialed experts. Blythwood (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also endorse this, any reliable secondary sourcing would in be enough in my view, but I don't have the access or expertise to conduct a thorough research into the topic, and the existing sourcing is simply not enough to verify the topic as required by WP:V. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE (from article author) Sorry for the "wall of text" above --I copied a formatted detailed reply from the article's Talk but couldn't replicate the line breaks. My formatting-knowledge-gap bad. I've tweaked the wording a bit to reflect the speculation here on the AfD page that it might have been a rumor. Feel free to undo that it it is a dis-improvement. Hey does anyone have access to his Treblinka trials testimony where he might have spoken of Einsatz Brand with judicial oversight there? I doubt the books are online, but there could be actual hardcopy books in a library university someplace. Cramyourspam (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I re-pasted from what you wrote, preserving the formatting of the original comments on article talk page. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We can't write an article without independent, secondary sources. Mackensen (talk) 20:06, 10 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderworks[edit]

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

subject does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a Google search only uncovers minor coverage - besides this: [[20]] Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing enough coverage out there, or anything to show they pass WP:NMUSIC. Surprised this has been sitting here unrefferenced for over 10 years. WikiVirusC^(talk) 02:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryann Jones[edit]

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

I feel like this article was created as some larger project, given AmeliaMN's profile. To me, this article fails to meet the notability standards of WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. I don't understand the importance of Jones' work and it needs to be better stated. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 07:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing comes even close to asserting notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G4 So Why 13:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmira G Kulkarni[edit]

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

I don't see how she manages to pass our notability guideline.Near rubbish-sourcing.Probable paid-promo-spam.Nothing resembling non-trivial coverage, (other than name-mentions), in RS can be discovered. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Frc Rdl 09:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4 as a recreation of Kashmira Kulkarni otherwise Delete per nom. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PAC Spring Titles[edit]

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

Non-notable list of local high school conference championships. I'm listing this at AfD as there has been dispute at WP:ANI (in particular to articles edited by User:Rhatsa26X as to the notability of Pocket Athletic Conference and similar articles). I'm nominating this for deletion as there is also questionable notability to the parent article Pocket Athletic Conference. --MuZemike 06:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only source given for these local championships is opaque--it's a listing with no clue as to who compiled it, and one suspects this is original research. I'm finding absolutely no coverage. See also PAC Winter Titles and PAC Fall Titles. These can be bundled here. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Björn Thorsell[edit]

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

Player fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Checking resources on eliteprospects.com and eurohockey.com indicate that he never played beyond Swedish Division 1, let alone 200 games in Allsvenkan, or the Elite league. Flibirigit (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he played 247 games in Division 1 during a time period where the HockeyAllsvenskan didn't exist and was the Swedish second division. I'm making the assumption they're equivalent on WP:NHOCKEY grounds, but I could be easily mistaken as it seems silent on the matter (as Division 1 is not defunct). Not sure he otherwise passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does actually cover it. It states "Those leagues not otherwise listed are considered to confer no presumptive notability to players, coaches, officials or executives, and articles about the same must explicitly demonstrate notability under the provisions of WP:GNG, WP:BIO or other valid notability criteria." So unless we changed WP:NHOCKEY/LA to actually include it, the player would need to fall under GNG. That being said there could be a valid discussion to include it based on the reason you stated but as of current it wouldn't be covered. -DJSasso (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it actually is rather complicated; for most of the years he played, the Division I teams played a season of separate divisions where the top few advanced to a tournament called the HockeyAllsvenskan, for promotion to the top level. But it was not the same structure every year he played. So was it the second division of Swedish hockey? Maybe or maybe not.18abruce (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You both make interesting points. My frustration in trying to expand the article, came in not being able to find any stats to verify playing in the elite league. Flibirigit (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The other wrinkle is this isn't a defunct league: it's a league which moved down a level, so you wouldn't expect to see it on the defunct leagues list. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to a withdrawing the nomination in favour of a speedy keep, and discussion at WP:NHOCKEY/LA? Flibirigit (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Right now, he doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY, however, it appears that there's a decent argument that the omission of the league he played in at the time he was playing in is from WP:NHOCKEY/LA is the result of a simple oversight. A wider discussion is probably needed here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks the coverage to pass the general notability guidelines, which all sportspeople must pass.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks the coverage to meet GNG. A discussion as to the league that he played in is moot since all sportspeople articles still need to pass the GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep regardless of the state of the WP:NHOCKEY guidelines and the possible need for clarification there, I think it meets WP:GNG. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can only agree with above, passes WP:GNG. The league he played in and his achievements are covered.BabbaQ (talk) 09:47, 9 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Varnum Poor (Yale dean)[edit]

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

Poor lacks any claim to notability. Determining this took a lot of effort, since there are two other people named Henry Varnum Poor who clearly were notable, one was a 19th-century business journalist and lawyer who founded what eventually became Standard and Poor's. The Other was a painter, frescoest and potter who is clearly notable. This Henry Poor does not seem to meet any notability guidelines, and to make things worse before I started editing the article it was at best misleading if not downright deceptive. He was describe as "the dean of Yale", in fact he was associate dean of Yale Law School. The former description didn't make sense, since universities have presidents, deans head sub-units in a university. However Poor was a coadministrator of the law school at Yale. This is not in any way enough to pass academic notability, and his contributions to the study of law were not significant enough to make him notable on those grounds. To go through the rest of his life, being vice counsel is not enough to be notable, even being ambassador does not make one default notable. Being a defeated major party nominee for US house is not enough for notability. His two New York state government positions do not seem to either rise to the level of notability. Lastly, a resident of Long Island getting a New York Times obituary in the early 1970s is just not enough on its own to show the level of notability we require to create an article. Nothing here suggests notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is mistitled — his Yale associate dean position does not appear to be what is notable about his life — but I think with two major obituaries (NYT and Associated Press) and an entry in a dictionary of national biography he passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- PS possibly this could make a good test case for those who think we should still have source-based notability criteria (GNG) rather than significance-based notability criteria (most relevantly WP:POLITICIAN and WP:PROF in this case). I agree that he doesn't pass the politician and professor criteria; nevertheless his life is well-documented enough to pass GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- well-sourced article + two obits in major papers + entry in dictionary of national biography. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Poor actually seems to be more likely to meet notability by author or military standards than politician per se. On the other hand his work with the Republican Party in 1950 might not have resulted in election to congress, but it seems to have been central to the direction of the Republican Party for the next 18 years, at least the next 12, although he is one of many people in that movement. To be fair this

 "Henry Varnum Poor (January 7, 1914 - October 10, 1972) was a dean of Yale University.[1]
  Biography
  He was born on January 7, 1914. He was dean of Yale University. He died on October 10, 1972.
  References
  "Henry Varnum Poor, Lawyer And Former Yale Dean, Dies". New York Times. October 11, 1972. Retrieved 2015-09-18."

is all the text in the article when I first found it. I did read through the obituary and incorporate much of it into the article before the nomination for deletion, but other than his role in 1960 as head of the New York Housing Finance department, nothing seemed to even lend toward notability, and that alone I am still not sure would pass him. However I think that, plus the broad coverage, does. His I believe second counsin of the exact same name as well as his great-grandfather of the exact same name produce a lot of results. I question a few of the sources as adding to notability, such as the wedding anouncement. However I think points like his getting an obituary in a San Francisco Newspaper are enough to show notability and that this was not just the NYT covering a local figure. I think once this discussion is finished the article should be renamed, most likely to Henry Varnum Poor (politician). The fact that Mr. Eppstein was able to find more sources shows the inadequacy of google as the only place searched. However when I did full google searching for both Henry Varnum Poor and Henry Poor, in that I went all the way to the end of the search results in both cases, processing through well over 200 results, it was hard to think I had not scatched the surface well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mayuresh Pem[edit]

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

I don't see how he manages to pass our notability guideline.Near rubbish-sourcing.Probable paid-promo-spam.Nothing resembling non-trivial coverage in RS can be discovered.Non-significant roles in films. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:23, 3 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gauri Nalawade[edit]

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

I don't see how she manages to pass our notability guideline.Near rubbish-sourcing.Probable paid-promo-spam.Nothing resembling non-trivial coverage in RS can be discovered. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another one of the thousands of articles on actresses we need to delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable for her role in the 1000-episode soap Swapnanchya Palikadle. It has the problem of a lot of our articles on Marathi-language Indian pop culture in that the English-language sources about it are across-the-board pretty dreadful; however, this needs to get addressed with a cleanup tag and some attention from a Marathi-language speaker, not deletion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that particular source not an example of trivial coverage?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It establishes that she had a leading role in a successful, prominent and obviously notable series. No one is arguing that the English-language coverage of Marathi-language topics is dreadful, but the demand that notable people in Marathi-language pop culture have the same quality of English-language coverage as a US or UK actress is systemic bias in action. It needs cleanup from a Marathi-language speaker who can actually read sources properly covering the subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - A detailed reply may be viewed over here.In short, I don't buy your assumptions.I'm quasi-proficient (~Babel 2/3) in Marathi and did not manage to scrape anything non-substantial, barring non-reliable interviews and trivial name mentions.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Trivial mentions and has not done notable work to warrant a standalone article. FITINDIA 13:02, 10 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3-N-G Gang[edit]

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

Non-notable street gang lacking in-depth, non-trivial sources. reddogsix (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. WP:HEY is not impossible here, but presently sourced to the FBI. Sourcing I see in my BEFORE is this book and say around 20, mainly local, newspaper items - e.g. [21] [22][23] [24]. Seems they were noterious due to the murder of a 2 year old. Notability is borderline, and current article qualify and sourcing are not good.Icewhiz (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete routine crime coverage from local media and primary sources such as the FBI are not sufficient for passing WP:GNG. Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:49, 4 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Other Backward Classes in Sikhism[edit]

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

No proof that a list of such origin exists. Cited sources show that there are OBC's among Sikhs but there is no evience of there being any list of such Other Backward castes — Frc Rdl 03:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to have been some edit warring earlier in the day resulting in the list being blanked. As it stands now the list is literally nonexistent. I have re-added the content that was removed so that we can have a debate about the article's merit instead of discussing the merit of an empty list. Acebulf (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that speak specifically about Sikh castes in OBC classification: [25] [26] [27]
Other sources to include in the article [28]
~~Keep~~ (changed to Delete) As it stands, the article needs a lot of work. I will be the first to admit I know nothing of India's caste system, but I've started by adding a few more entries. This will have to continue for quite a while for the list to be complete. WP:LISTN states "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines". As the sources above show, caste scheduled classes and OBC classification for Sikh groups, have been have been the subject of exposes by multiple independant reliable sources. As such it meets the notability for a list. Acebulf (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you know nothing about it then it probably would be better if you kept schtum because it is an extremely complex area and your sources above don't justify a list so much as a mention in the related prose articles (which already exists). - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: What is the relevant prose article which already exists? Acebulf (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhism, Sikh Jat and any number of others. Look, you need to understand that anyone can profess any religion, therefore this would really be List of Indian castes, and that was deleted at AfD years ago. There are a myriad of reasons why such lists will never work, some of which I have mentioned in my reply to you at the related AfD to which you contributed a few hours ago. - Sitush (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how a general list of castes might be problematic, but I fail to see how a group of castes which have government recognition as disadvantaged would be too wide of a scope for an article. Is there something I'm missing here? Acebulf (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. (a) caste has nothing to do with the Sikh liturgy but rather Indian society; (b) any caste can contain Sikhs, so it would have to become List of OBCs; (c) there have been over 1200 changes to the official lists in 20 years, including numerous corrections; (d) the official lists are ambiguous because there is no consistency in caste naming nor any certainty that a caste in one region is the same as one in another, even when they bear the same name; (e) we do not usually transcribe simple lists (see past AfDs about other caste lists, invariably deleted in my experience). I could go on but I get fed up of having to explain the same thing time and again. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think your point is well made and valid, and that you are right when you say that there is no good way to properly restrict the scope of the list. As such I have changed my opinion to Delete. Acebulf (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--This talk-page thread may be of some interest.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per Sitush's reasonings.~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments above or "per Winged Blades's" reasonings! - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 9 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbs & Shaw: The Movie[edit]

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

Clearly WP:Too soon, the creator has a habit of making these. Also, not a plausible search term.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 03:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:00, 3 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poonam Shende[edit]

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

I don't see how she manages to pass our notability guideline.Near rubbish-sourcing.Probable paid-promo-spam.Nothing resembling non-trivial coverage in RS can be discovered. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:28, 4 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel H. Patterson[edit]

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

Non-notable county politician. fails WP:POLITICIAN. Can only be sourced to freeholder meeting minutes and an obituary in the local newspaper. Rusf10 (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The only sources are meeting minutes of a county level government body and a small town newspaper obituary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the over coverage of local politicians in New Jersey is absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 9 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Lane[edit]

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

One term county freeholder, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Only reliable source coverage is a brief mention in article about election results. Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability established. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete a one-term county legislature who managed to finish 4th in a party primary for the state legislature, getting under 10% of the vote. I can not think of a situation where someone would be further from being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barron (educator)[edit]

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

I don't think the local news coverage is enough for this substitute teacher to meet notability guidelines. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question – Regarding the following statement: "In 1988, Barron founded the Universal Church o' Fun. The church had no services and no physical site. However, Barron ran a newsletter, the Universal Church o' Fun Times, which, in 1990, sent out 350 copies per issue." Just curious, would Factsheet Five be considered a reliable source were it to mention this newsletter? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local news coverage of such an individual just does not show notability. Nothing here comes even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 3 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Municipality of Anchorage Proposition 1, 2018[edit]

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

Desired to PROD, but likely to be controversial. For those who are solely concerned about this sort of thing, the article contains no third-party references. Per item D of WP:BEFORE, even among reliable sources, coverage is heavy on opinion pieces. The only real news coverage concerned the proposition making the ballot, which at this point makes it no different than dozens of other initiatives in Anchorage's history. Combine that with the fact that coverage of Anchorage municipal politics in general and the numerous hot-button episodes of LGBT-related politics in Anchorage over the past 40 years is scattershot at best, this smacks of promotion of a current event. Barring unforseen circumstances, nothing of consequence will be known until after the election has concluded. It's quite possible that even that won't amount to something notable. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improve sourcing and keep— Article as written doesn't demonstrate notability, but there's abundant press coverage dating back to at least July 2017, as well as a recent national media piece highlighting it: [29]. Anchorage is half the residents of Alaska, so I'm disinclined to treat "local" as much less significant than state-level in this instance.--Carwil (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Artile is not great as-is. That being said, raw search results from the paper of record in the area suggest that a suitable article can be written and the subject is almost certainly notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyanji Jana[edit]

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

Article was nominated for Proposed deletion and tag was removed with the justification 'because its a accurate page about a personality in India'. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. References are primary sources based on interviews or just passing mention. Also a WP:BEFORE could not find anything. Hagennos^Talk 01:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hagennos^Talk 01:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hagennos^Talk 01:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindustan Times article is about him and not an interview. Wouldn't a merge to his mahor film projwct be more appropriate than deletion if he's not independently notable? FloridaArmy (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The HT articles contents is sourced from an interview as is clear from the contents where it has been attributed to something which he said. Even the films does not seem to be notable enough. --Hagennos^Talk 04:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable actor and producer. The only coverage I can see is this which reads like an interview and was published in 2014. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:42, 4 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William T. Reid IV[edit]

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

no evidence of notability. Content is just a list of trials, none of which is important enough to merit an article. The recognition part is promotional nonsense based on publications created to do just that. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this article as a (properly declared) paid entry working on behalf of Reid, Collins and Tsai. So my point of view is biased. However, I know quite a lot about the matter. My arguments for contesting the deletion: 1) process - the page has been created through the AfC process and was approved by an independent moderator. 2) official posts – Reid held official post, former Assistant United States Attorney 3) notability – mentioned from the various angles an media (Reuters, Bloomberg, USA Today, WSJ). Some of the references were gone after extensive edits – please check the version of the article with “Notable cases”. It’s a pity that this part was removed by an editor who apparently has no law degree. 4) professional notability – Reid worked on important cases covered by media and include into books. As an example InverWorld case was mentioned in two law books including the UN publication on trade law. 5) professional recognition - selected to Thomson Reuters' Super Lawyers in 2005 – 2006 and 2011 – 2017, included into several independent ratings (not editorial view, but judged by vote), has coverage about him and his law firm at professional media (Law360, DragonLaw, The National Law Journal). To DGG, you forgot to inform the author about your nomination. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

A notable case is a case about which we have an article.

A mention is not significant coverage

We have never accepted the ratings you mention as evidence of notability. They exist for the purpose of helping the firm promote their services.

Approval at AfD means nothing more than the opinion of the reviewer that the article is likely to survive AfD. Many do not. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bbarmadillo, please try to not to cast aspersions on other editors' qualifications. Funnily enough, I (the editor who removed the 'notable cases') do happen to have a law degree, but that is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. The cases were not notable, and listing them does not establish the notability of the lawyer, particularly when they were basically primary sources with passing mentions. Also, note that there is no requirement at WP:AFD for DGG to notify you, even though it can be seen as courteous. You have generally been one of the better paid editors around here, but the amount of time your contributions are taking up from volunteers here in order to promote your clients seems to be starting to wear thin for a number of us. Melcous (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Melcous I am very sorry for profiling you wrong. Please accept my appologies. As to the involvent of other editors, I can't agree with you. I asked for your expert advice only once and it was long ago, for the Patrick Sweeney article. I didn't ask you to edit my other articles or contibute to them. I'd like to think of you as of my "guardian angel" though and certainly learn a lt from you. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW,Bbarmadillo, I always try to notify. I use the WP:Twinkle system of nomination scripts. They work right about 95% of the time, Sometimes they go the wrong editor, sometimes either my computer or the WP systems seems to keep them from executing completely. Sorry about that. The best solution to an afd is that someone improves the article so it becomes satisfactory, and that is of course why notifications are important. DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG, including his later comments. This is paid publicity for the firm, exactly the sort of advertisement masquerading as something else ("... not identifiable as advertising to consumers ...", likely to "... mislead consumers into believing [it is] independent, impartial, or not from the sponsoring advertiser itself ...") that is considered "deceptive" – and thus illegal – in the United States under rules laid down by the Federal Trade Commission (some discussion here). Wikimedia projects are governed by American law. We do not tolerate promotion of any kind, and we certainly cannot tolerate promotion that may be illegal. Apart from anything else, it undermines and compromises our reputation for neutrality, and weakens any credibility we have managed to acquire. Articles like this actively damage the project (and by extension, so do the editors who create them).

It should be deleted for that reason; but in case anyone is wondering, there's no indication of any notability independent of the firm, so a redirect will not be needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Justlettersandnumbers thank you for sharing your point of view. Just wanted to clarify one thing. There is an official COI editing guideline and this article fully complies with it. Paid nature of contribution was clearly stated from the very beginning and the article passed Articles for Creation process, as suggested – UNLIKE some other American lawyer articles (yes, I am full aware of WP:OSE, no need to remind me about it) that were created from one-time, zero-history accounts and contain “exactly the sort of advertisement masquerading as something else”. I've seen many of them working on this article and looking for references/guidance. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bbarmadillo, I do know that you followed our internal guidelines when you took over the job of creating this – for that, thank you! But a reader who happens across the article does not know anything of that history or background. We ought to put a big sign across the top of it, "This is not a Wikipedia article, it is a paid advertisement made to look like one", but we can't do that; to leave it here would be to deceive our readers in precisely the way that the FTC does not allow. The only possible course of action is deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of discussion should probably take place at WP:COIN. My view is that stopping the flood of undeclared edits with current measures is a total utopia (the demand for getting to Wikipedia is simply too high, there are too many ways around it and the resources to stop it are scarce). I also think that the kind of discussion/attitude that we have here and the possible outcome of it greatly discourages fair playing paid editors from disclosing their edits and following official processes. As such, it only pushes more editors to the grey area, makes the "hunt for the Red October" harder and compromises Wikipedia even more. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bbarmadillo, I would be very glad to hear your suggestions about more effective measures we could take. Your's is a different Point of view than most of us, and we need additional input. Please use my talk page for that--it's a better place than this discussion. . DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I took a pretty hard look at many of the citations - in part because the article is suspiciously overcited. The National Law Journal and Law360 coverage falls squarely within WP:ROUTINE: You can't scratch your nose in corporate legal circles without attracting a short article in either or both of these journals. The Highland Capital matters are not about Mr. Reid, who attracts only a brief mention as the plaintiffs' litigator, but about their case against Credit Suisse. Similarly for the Fastow article. The Weltwoche article is the only one that comes close to actually discussing Reid himself (and Weltwoche is a credible Swiss magazine) but the article is still 90% about UBS and the reference to Reid is only in the context of the litigation. Overall, Mr. Reid simply hasn't attracted any attention beyond the routine for a capable corporate litigator. Fiachra10003 (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per DGG and Fiachra, being a successful corporate (and involved) litigator is not automatic grounds for notability. II | (t - c) 07:12, 7 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elga Andersen[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO - only shred of notability (at least referenced here) is her marriage to Peter Gimbel and her work on the Andrea Doria (though no mention is made of what exactly she did, so I find it questionable). Kirbanzo (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a significant film actress for whom there are plenty of sources and mentions available in GBooks and others for those who do WP:BEFORE.104.163.148.25 (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are thousands of actors/actresses in WP who never had a role as prominent as Andersen's role in Le Mans. Chris the speller ^yack 03:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete There is a total lack of having enough sources to show notability. There are probably thousands of articles on actresses in Wikipedia that need to be deleted, but we need to start somewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple significant/starring roles in notable films. --Michig (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought. Is there no way we could create links to our sister projects, in this case with the intention of finding out how notable she is in Germany. I have gone to look up an actor from my native country, seen there is not an article, created one, only to have it deleted. For example, as an English Wikipedian I was surprised no article existed on Deidre Costello, the English actress, when I went to start one I found a previous article had been deleted as non-notable. However there is one on Deidre Costello the Irish Camogie player.Bashereyre (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bashereyre: It's quite easy, just use de:Elga Andersen. All the Wikipedias are linked now via Wikidata items, for example-wikidata:Q76399. The wikidata item is linked on the left-hand sidebar, and articles in other languages are also. To make it clear when another Wikipedia has a better article, you can use the {{expand language}} tag at the top of the article. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THank you, PrinceBashereyre (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Probably not "a significant actress", but meets WP:NACTOR/CELEBRITY. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one is pretty obviously notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even a casual glance through the films she's been involved in (Bonjour Tristesse, The Guns of Navarone, Le Mans) should be enough to tell anyone that Andersen is probably notable. It's also very likely that her marriage to an American millionaire attracted coverage in the tabloid press of the day. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added independent, reliable sourcing for the article facts. She was a popular foreign actress and was best known in the U.S. for starring opposite Steve McQueen in Le Mans, and for exploring the wreck of the SS Andrea Doria with her second husband, Peter Gimbel. Yoninah (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for her film roles, and wreck diving notability. She apparently was also rumored to have had an affair with McQueen during Le Mans, and his production company gave her a Porsche. [[30]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:04, 10 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.