Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 March	5 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Lambert[edit]

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

This article is poroposed for deletion because there is nothing noteworthy in this person's background that warrants a biography, it really just reads as a secondary college headmaster's CV and we don't want this type of information clogging up wikipedia for more important articles.

Nathrogers7

Keep Fixing nomination--discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and without being transcluded to a daily log as per WP:AFDHOWTO, to which the nominator had previously been directed. As for the article itself, the subject appears to meet notability standards per WP:GNG, although there is room for improvement. In particular, he has received coverage in major Australian media over his resignation as principal and his decision to rescind that resignation per The Daily Telegraph and The Australian, which has yet to be included in the article. --Finngall ^talk 23:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - This person is not notable. If he's involved in some controversy then the story should be included in the page of the institution.Acnetj (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Merge to The Scots College. The only significant independent coverage on him is for a kerfuffle or two regarding the school itself. SunChaser (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Merge to The Scots College. Not even close to WP:AUTHOR. Otherwise, he is just a regular headmaster. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable - he may be notable as an author, WP:AUTHOR but nothing here to indicate that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable person. DaveApter (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - fails WP:NPERSON and WP:NAUTHOR . L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly (very selective) merge to The Scots College. He's already mentioned there. It's not clear what additional details make sense to merge. Certainly not everything. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egine[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. Won a very minor award, not enough in-depth coverage to show she passes WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article passes WP:MUSICBIO. The artist has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works.

There is so much information about her in the internet... [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Also, she has won an Armenian award outside of Armenia. Harut111 (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Harut111 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Comment which does not invalidate their contribution to this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a popular artist with a hit song and significant coverage in secondary sources in English, Russian and other languages over the course of years. Has been featured on TV and won awards. Passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC (1, 2, 9, 12). Lonehexagon (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lonehexagon SportingFlyer talk 02:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - so far no significant coverage has been provided. While there are some mentions, most are of the "Page 6" variety, basically scantily clad photo ops, with very little in-depth coverage of the singer. The "awards" are incredibly minor (none come close to meeting the criteria for WP:MUSICBIO). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After a quick search potentially significant coverage exists in Armenian and Russian sources as well - I can't judge these articles for quality, however, but it seems this article could be sourced (if you don't think it is currently.) SportingFlyer talk 05:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just wanted to inform that the award is NOT a minor one. It simply cannot be one, as it was an Armenian annual awards being organized OUTSIDE of Armenia. Harut111 (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just wanted to inform you that you should read the notability criteria as to what is a major award. And that one ain't. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Hard to tell, but seems the Armenian and Russian sources could qualify for RS. Seems the award doesn't. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:07, 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. – Joe (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manish (band)[edit]

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

The coverage that I'm finding (admittedly I do not speak Japanese) is trivial and a lot of it comes from the record label's website. I don't see evidence that it meets WP:BAND. Enwebb (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is an issue with finding sources, not only because they were Japanese, but also because they broke up in 1998, before the internet era. A retrospective article like this, however, well summarizes their career. The main point is that they had multiple ranking singles and albums, including two top 10 singles and 3 top ten albums, including an album that came in at number 3. It can be hard double confirming all the rankings, since Oricon does not post rankings that far back on their site, but this site has preserved old rankings and is used on Wikipedia: here's their no. 5 ranking single[10], their number 6 single [11], and their no. 3 ranking album[12]. All this easily passes criterion 2 of WP:BAND. Michitaro (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qucipuci1 comment: I was planning to add this weekend more reliable sources. Yes that Barks article is actually written by one of the Being Studio creators and producers Saida Sai (斉田才) if copypaste this japanese characters he's regularly active on Twitter. As stated preiovusly by Michitaro, Oricon doesn't include anymore older rankings from 1990s which is unfortunate and gives me more difficult job to find sources. I sometimes rely on geocities, although this allowance of source hasn't been confirmed by Wikipedia staff.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the above, seem to be a mainstream band, with chart success, and lots of Japanese sources (I don't read Japanese either). Not many references on Google because they are old, but the references here indicate there is probably lots in Nihongo. Seem to be on a mainstream label. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note both the people who wrote songs for them are famous rock band Wands, Uesugi Show and the other one. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:06, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Misbah Qur'an Learning Software[edit]

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

Nothing special about it. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Need more references than it has currently substantiating its notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 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 no consensus. – Joe (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uunsi[edit]

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

No coords are given for this supposed Somali town, and it doesn't show up in Geonames per se. I did find this relief agency map which shows a "Uunsi Weyn" SW of Doolow, but it's not entirely clear what the feature is and I am reluctant to write an article based solely on a dot on a map. I cannot locate an actual settlement based on the map I linked to, and the name from the map doesn't show up in Geonames. Mangoe (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Uunsi", BTW, apparently simply means "incense" of some sort. Mangoe (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uunsi actually means "Funny" in Somali according to google translate, and is also a general term for frankincense. This article is older than that map mangoe mentions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've had issues with UN agency maps before but I've taken actual mention in text from their reports as sufficient evidence of existence if not location. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so it's possible that it is a settlement of some sort, but it's hard to tell, some other humanitarian sources mention Uunsi Weyn and indicate there is a well (or maybe two?) and that is is a "settlement/village". (these are spreadsheets and doc files and impossible to link, try googling "Uunsi Weyn" with quotes and look on page two). This would seem to marginally support a rename I suppose, I don't rightly know how citable these things are. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename to uunsi weyn. 92.9.152.17 (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:14, 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) 15:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agricultural Development & Training Society[edit]

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

Unreferenced and non-notable organization. A WP:BEFORE doesn't turn up anything significant. MT Train^Talk 12:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have to agree with nom, there doesn't appear to be any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS here to substantiate notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:25, 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. – Joe (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SEMrush[edit]

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

An interview, refspam of mentions does not notability and WP:CORPDEPTH maketh (amusing that the article says it "collaborates" with reuters because reuters mentioned them once in an article..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note on finding some stuff on google books, but they are simply brief descriptions of how to use the product rather than about the company Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found sufficient independent coverage to meet WP:GNG: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], etc. London Hall (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like I was saying above, just in general descriptions of how to use the product, not coverage about the company. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article purports to be about the product so WP:CORPDEPTH is not clearly applicable. There are a lot of books on SEO and the product is covered in them. Books are reliable. Coverage is more than passing mentions. ∴ WP:GNG is met. Although I do find if funny that a Wikipedia article is a good SEO move for a product and the product here is SEO, the article is legit. ~Kvng (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng article was rewritten to be about the product

imo the books are a brief summary of the nature of the content in the vein that WP:NWEB describes as trivial, though an article on the product may be barely notable Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is clearly above WP:TRIVIALMENTION. You may see rewriting as a nice dodge but it works well and is a nice improvement to the article in this case. ~Kvng (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I studied marketing at University and this is a product we frequently used. I know that is not reason enough to have a Wikipedia page but its a well known product in the marketing space. I do feel it can be written in a better manner. I am happy to edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geymarfan (talk • contribs) 02:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be adequate RS here to substantiate notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:26, 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 no consensus. – Joe (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vitalii Dem'ianiuk[edit]

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

Written like a bio promotional piece. Do not have WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS. Fails WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I created this article because this person is famous activist and public figure in Ukraine. Maybe I should add some sources? because I have thought that it was enough and all of them are reliable. Also I was already connected this article with other interlanguage links. So there is article in Ukrainian: https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B5%D0%BC%27%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%8E%D0%BA_%D0%92%D1%96%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%B9_%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 Also in Russian: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8C%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%8E%D0%BA_%D0%92%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 Анастасия Федоровна (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)talk) 01:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vitalii Demianiuk does have some hits in English Google, so with the assumed issue that there much or more in Ukrainian laguage sources, and the fact there are some in the article, he would seem to be notable.

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rizwan Sikander[edit]

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

I tried to speedy this unsourced blatant spam for an ultra-low notability actor, posted by his talent agency, but the speedy was inexplicably declined. It will only be posted back up again under a new account if speedied, so I'm taking it to AFD. I can find no significant coverage of him online in WP:RS, just passing mentions, plus puffery in TV blogs for his reality TV appearances. At the time of nomination, all of the film and TV links were incorrectly piped with the names of real but unrelated articles, e.g. piping redlinked Techsex with Ansh: The Deadly Part: evidently the article creator pasted the filmography from the article on subject's sister, Shama Sikander, to shore up claims of notability. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NACTOR, WP:NMODEL, and WP:GNG, as he's so far only had minor roles. WP:TOOSOON at best. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've shovelled out the worst of the marketing, removed the fake pipes, and trimmed the pile of blog links. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Errrh..no - this is a fluff piece, most of his work is as a contestant on a few reality shows, and web based effort, and a few shorts. Definitely does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:NMODEL. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. DaveApter (talk) 15:00, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legal intoxicant[edit]

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

Article is fundamentally un-encyclopedic since the content is not subject to stable treatment in RS and relies on Wikipedians' original research on what is an "intoxicant" (drinking hot chocolate, mountain air?) and whether it counts as legal or not (seems to be US-biased in this respect). The result is poorly-written and nearly all unsourced. Alexbrn (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research. Edison (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or rewrite extensively. Andrew³²⁷ 13:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to violate WP:OR. DaveApter (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes it is an WP:OR issue, but it should be better referenced to something that substantiates the legal aspect of these drugs, rather than deleted. I think its a notable (and interesting to many) concept. Also it needs to have the legal aspect internationalised. This article could be the start of a great party! :-) Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and/or WP:HOWTO, not to mention WP:NOTMEDICALADVICE. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin-Leigh Konzelman[edit]

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

Unsuccessful in national beauty contest and did some reality tv after without winning. Google gives me social media and some images and Google news offers not a single return. Appears to be non notable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of references to establish notability. --evrik ^(talk) 16:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References and continuing coverage establishes notability per WP:GNG. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we should not confuse human interest and other minor coverage with the type of coverage needed to pass GNG. The latter is entirely lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What references pass the gng please? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Passes WP:ENTERTAINER, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." She has had a significant role in Miss America pageant, The Amazing Race 10, and The Amazing Race All-Stars. Lonehexagon (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am surprised at this deletion discussion. Coverage in CBS, Fox News. 10news.com etc. Should pass WP:SIGCOV WP:ENTERTAINER Geymarfan (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources to pass NPERSON and ENTERTAINER. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:55, 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 keep. Killiondude (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacquelynne Fontaine[edit]

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

Reads like vanispamcruft. Took part in a national beauty contest. Didn't win and appears to have participated in regional theatre since. Google news gives me absolutely nothing despite an unusual name. Straight Google leads to social media and YouTube. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Where were you searching? She gets tons of results on Google News, and appears to have received significant and continuing coverage over many years.^[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonehexagon (talk • contribs)

References

^ https://www.google.com/search?q=Jacquelynne+Fontaine&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjInbTZ4snZAhXnlVQKHRK5DP0Q_AUIDCgD&biw=1372&bih=731

Keep I kind of like the name. Google shows plenty of sources, including reviews of her performances. I have added some of the sources and rewrote certain sections. She easily passes GNG just from the coverage she has received.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Passes WP:ENTERTAINER: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." She had a significant role in Miss California pageant, Miss America pageant, and played Carlotta Giudicelli in the adaptation of The Phantom of the Opera at the Academy of Music in Philadelphia. She also passes WP:GNG with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" including in several newspapers at the time. Lonehexagon (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- substantial references, passes WP:ENTERTAINER, particularly for her stage efforts (not sure about films) Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm actually surprised at this AfD. Clearly enough references to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:59, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Echelons of Fury[edit]

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

Not a notable game. The only sourcing is to price guides, which are not generally substantial coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating this closely-related article/game:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I've searched for other sources online and there are a few fan sites and a review on BoardGameGeek. It's not devoid of sources, but there's not much there, either. Wonder if there's a good merge or redirect candidate. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC) Comment This AfD hinges on whether the two 1990's print sources get the game past the WP:GNG guideline as there are enough sources online to pass WP:V but not WP:GNG in its entirety. I asked User:Leitmotiv, the author of the article, to post photos of one of the sources to determine whether the source gets the article past WP:GNG. The photos have been added at the bottom. My personal opinion is that it doesn't, but I'm withdrawing my vote as having participated in a number of AfD's, providing photos of the source was a courteous move on the part of the author. SportingFlyer talk 02:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has valid sources per WP:GNG. SportingFlyer hasn't demonstrated understanding of WP:GNG. "[Some]" sources adequately meets requirements. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in order to clarify my vote: searching several different engines tend to come up with resales, forum posts, or the designer answering FAQ's about the game. It clearly exists. The best source I found, an independent after-the-fact review, is here: [22] Combined with the other sources, a blog post doesn't get this over the notability threshold, similar to a video game that failed to make any significant impact. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - SportingFlyer hasn't supplied wikipolicy to support his past arguments. WP:GNG requires an article to have notable sources to make the article notable. Sources already supplied meet that definition. Now SportingFlyer is claiming there has to be a lasting "impact" but doesn't cite any wikipolicy to back up his claim. Stop moving the goalposts. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We've already had a long argument about notability here and I have no desire to get into another argument: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Crow_(card_game) The sources supplied so far do NOT make it notable, hence why we're at this AfD in the first place, and no other sources I have found make it notable. The mere existence of sources do not make an article notable. I also did not claim it has to have a lasting impact; this was a comparison, as we do not give every published video game its own article. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SportingFlyer still a shining example of a person with an opinion, but unable to cite wikipolicy to back that opinion up. The source provided is notable per WP:GNG - it says a topic is notable when "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." This book matches that description to a "T". That establishes notability per the headline of WP:GNG where it discusses "General notability guideline"s. The onus is on you to show how the source is not notable by citing specific wikipolicy, which you routinely fail to do over and over again. Quote me something. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop personally attacking me. I know you're passionate about the article you created, and I know you disagree with myself and the nominator about whether or not these sources are significant enough to pass WP:GNG, but what you're doing is not helpful. SportingFlyer (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it from my point of view. I ask for specific policy and you just can't seem to do it, but you continue to argue vaguely about your personal opinion on what makes something notable. If your lack of ability to do something is an attack, then I stand guilty as charged (I'd like to point out it's stating the obvious) - but you're still not supplying any wikipolicy to back up your arguments. Quote me policy, or take your uninformed vote elsewhere. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there are two sources currently in this article; they are the same two sources used at the other AfD; two different users apart from myself have nominated these articles for deletion on the grounds these game guide/price guide/checklist books do not by themselves make something notable (if a source on its own was sufficient for notability, we'd have a lot more articles on this website, and since these books I'm sure cover the game, but also cover a lot of other games in a less-than-discriminate matter, it makes the coverage rather trivial, furthermore they may or may not be a reliable source); and my search for other sources, which I have done in good faith, are reviews done ten years later, blogs, or general game directories such as boardgamegeek, which again is not sufficient enough for notability. If you could find a review from a reliable source, we'd be golden. SportingFlyer (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not citing wikipolicy because it doesn't exist to support your argument. WP:GNG contradicts what you are saying. Just because an article shares sources doesn't mean the sources are bad. That's a fallacy of logic. Also you're leaning towards lying again, because you haven't reviewed the sources in person - if you had, you would understand your latest comments are a complete distortion of reality to suit your argument. Here I am again quoting wikipolicy that backs up my argument and not yours - Footnote 2 at WP:GNG) says I'm golden if my sources are "Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article." Along with the description of a secondary source as I described above, man, what more do I have to prove that I'm following wikipolicy and you're just biased?' Leitmotiv (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won't interact any further, but I don't have any bias. I apologize for doing this, but to the closer, please note Leitmotiv has a pattern of WP:BLUD on articles that he has created that have been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rifts Collectible Card Game Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crow (card game)

Of course you won't argue further, you've demonstrated a complete inability to quote wikipolicy to support your argument. Note to the closer, I WP:BLUD to dismantle arguments with no foundation to support their premise. Takes two to tango though. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Leitmotiv or merge to List of collectible card games. BOZ (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not acceptable for a merge to an article designated as a list. It will be deleted outright. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Leitmotiv: - are any of the sources anything other than price guides? Even after that wall of text, I don't believe price guides meet the GNG requirements on their own. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

power~enwiki - You'll need to show me how exactly price guides don't meet WP:GNG by quoting wikipolicy, which no one has been able to do (everyone abandons their argument without quoting policy). I don't mind being wrong here, but so far no one has been able to back up their words. Furthermore, to correct your original statement/presumption, at least one of these is more than just a price guide - as the cover even states: "descriptions and analysis for more than 550 CCG releases!", as well as a thorough history of the games - which makes them pass the requirements of WP:GNG because it states a source needs to be more than a trivial mention, which it easily passes. An Amazon review even states "Quite useful listing of collectables with some information besides being just a list of CCG" (emphasis is mine). But a book, is a book, is a book and it satisfies WP:GNG. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant page is WP:CORPDEPTH (as this is a product, it applies), which says Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements. Based on the fact that the article contents read largely like a summary of a list of per-card prices, and the 500 page book contains 40000 prices from hundreds of games, I seriously doubt there is substantial coverage in the price guide, which functions as a product directory. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little taken aback power~enwiki. I just described to you in my previous response, how this guide passes WP:GNG (and coincidentally passes WP:CORPDEPTH) and in what manner, but you insist on "doubting" my claim. What do I need to do to dispel your doubt? You go so far as to suggest the article reads as "a list of per-card prices" but ironically not a single price is listed in the article. I'm willing to say your putting forth a disingenuous argument at this point, because the article describes when it was released, the expansions, the number of cards, what the game was about, how difficult the game was, and so on. Tell me where you see card prices in this article, and I'll fall right in line with your argument, but until then you're way off base and reaching. The onus is on you to provide extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims, and sir, I'm telling you, your claim that the guide is nothing more than a price list contradicts the proof I've supplied in the Amazon review, the cover of the book describing its contents, as well as my own review of the book.

The main source of the article passes WP:GNG, WP:ORGIN, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
Every delete voter claims otherwise, but still can't demonstrate how except with doubts and opinions. I expect more from experienced wikipedians with eligible votes.

~ Leitmotiv (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The First Edition set had at least 70 cards though some sources claim 57 cards. - I read this that one guide has 70 prices listed, and the other has 57. It summarizes the price listings. Both the First and Second editions had incomplete card lists supplied by the manufacturer. - trivial, unless you're writing a list of cards and don't have access to a complete set. Also, I agree with SportingFlyer. There's no point discussing this with you. I won't be replying to any comments after this one unless they contain egregious falsehoods. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well good for you if you don't want to discuss it - I'm not surprised, you haven't supplied wikipolicy to back up your argument and you ignore my arguments - you're right, that's a waste of time and a cul-de-sac of a relationship. At this point power~enwiki, your argument has become a Straw man fallacy, you've switched from saying the source is not notable, to the content of the article not worth reading. You've exhibited bias, distorted your argument suggesting this is an article about prices simply because one aspect of it discusses card set quantities (this doesn't concern prices, this concerns collectors trying to complete sets), and you've misrepresented your cause. I seriously don't mind being proven wrong - I understand doubts and opinions, but you do realize that sometimes there are exceptions out there and that things break the mold, but you're acting biased assuming there could not possibly be such a thing. Your lack of imagination is absurd and it discolors your reasoning here. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki pinging you to show you my latest edit at Echelons of Fire that describes gameplay, straight out of the book. I've never played the game before. I don't own it. I don't plan to. I know nothing about this game, except for what the guide tells me. I didn't make this content up. There's plenty of content in the guide for each listing. This should dispel your doubts, but I... doubt it, seeing the amount of bias showed. Leitmotiv (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything that looks like a real review for either. But my only real comment is that if we don't delete these two they should probably be merged together. Hobit (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit The real review is already supplied in the reference. As I stated earlier to others, the citation has "description and analysis" for CCGs. In fact, you can see some quotations used in the articles reflecting that. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yep, Scrye looks to have a review. I just saw the full title and forgot Scrye had actual articles. Move me to weak keep. It's only one review, but looks like 3 pages and there are other sources that aren't so great that we are at least close to WP:N. Hobit (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC) w[reply]

The difficulty I have is that it's not actually a magazine review from Scrye: it appears to be a price list of a bunch of collectible card games which has this game/these games as an entry. @Leitmotiv:, would you mind terribly scanning or taking a picture of the source? There have been three AfD's now which all hinge whether this is a WP:RS, there are a couple other articles which are entirely reliant on this source, and yet none of us are really sure if it's a WP:RS or not. SportingFlyer talk 03:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer Okay, I'm gonna get someone to take a picture of the three pages. Where do I upload it to? You're not wrong when you say it appears to a price list, but you also gloss over the fact that the very cover of the book says it's more than that - but we've already discussed that. The book has a healthy section on the history of CCGs too, by year. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you can do so here: [23] Only have used the uploader a couple times at most, though. Would be appreciated. SportingFlyer talk 08:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer I'm ready to upload. But this upload area doesn't seem the best place to do it. It would have to be under fair use, and it's not going to be used in Wikipedia anywhere, so I have no options there. I uploaded to imgur instead: 1 2 3. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Google has some sources and a few reviews. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deathlibrarian, would you mind terribly linking a source or two? All I found was Boardgamegeek and a couple blog posts. SportingFlyer talk 04:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually looking at the reviews, they aren't from RS. This one and this one. This game actually doesn't seem to have much referring to it. I chekced the factive news databases..... absoltely nothing. However I can't determine if the sources quoted are RS or not, and Leitmotiv says they are, so assuming good faith, I will leave it as a weak keep. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My above comments on the sources still stand. The Scrye guide is a remarkable source. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I was worried I had missed sources in my search. We've had other AfD's on the fact the one source isn't an RS with a merge and a delete so far. SportingFlyer talk 15:41, 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) 15:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Jordan[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor and briefly a county freeholder. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Rusf10 (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not independently notable from her political position. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her designation as the first woman to hold her title as Mayor of the town is notable, especially when combined with other political roles. However, I would add further citation to show wide media coverage of those items that make her notable. Fyathyrio (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)— Fyathyrio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

She is the first female mayor of Moorestown, not first female mayor in the United States (or even New Jersey). Her gender does not give her notability, otherwise we would need an article about the first female mayor in every town everywhere.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being the first woman mayor of her own small town is not an automatic notability boost over and above every other mayor of the same town — every place that has mayors at all will always eventually have its own first woman mayor, so being female can't automatically make every last one of those women a special case. If it had made her the first woman mayor in the entire United States, then that would be a valid notability claim — but merely being the first woman mayor of her own small town, in a country that already had thousands of women mayors before her, is not an automatic inclusion freebie. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of her roles are inherently notable enough to grant her an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing, being female does not give her an automatic notability boost over and above everybody else who's held the same roles, and there aren't nearly enough sources that are solidly about her — as opposed to namechecking her existence in coverage about other things — to get her past WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete All coverage is from local media, and I would agree that at being elected in the 21st century as the first woman in any position is no longer a source of notability. Mangoe (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current local media coverage is insufficient to meet geberal notability guidelines. DaveApter (talk) 14:54, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Ganz[edit]

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

Non-notable county politician and mayor. He also seems to have served on the United States Assay Commission, but if you read that article, you will see at the time he served the commission served no purpose since the US government was no longer issuing gold or silver coins for circulation. I also do not see any of his books passing WP:AUTHOR . I also might mention that this article has virtually no sources. Rusf10 (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A long article with only two sources; topic is not notable per WP:POLITICIAN and is largely an essay and may also violate copyright and/or WP:OR. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you justify your "maybe claims" with something substantive?

Comment Article is not based on his role as politician, part of his career.Djflem (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you remove the WP:POLITICIAN from the mix, he has to be notable for coin collecting under WP:NAUTHOR. But most of the article is unsourced fluff and would probably need to be rewritten in order to incorporate this. I'll go delete without prejudice. SportingFlyer (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: Misconstrued nomination. Accomplished individual: author, numismatics expert, federal appointments, poltician. Djflem (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do not keep articles just because we deem the subject to be "accomplished" — we keep articles only when they can be referenced to enough reliable source coverage in media to pass WP:GNG for their accomplishments. But that's not what any of the sources here are. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are certainly potential notability claims here that could get him a Wikipedia article if he could be properly sourced over WP:GNG for them, but there's nothing here that entitles him to an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists. There's one short blurb about him, which is not substantive enough to carry a GNG pass as an article's only reliable source, but everything else is either a primary source that cannot support notability in a Wikipedia article or an inherently unreliable source: Ancestry.com, his own staff profiles, the sales page of his book on an online bookstore, a review of his book on a non-notable blog, and another newspaper piece in which he's the author, not the subject. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to hand him a free exemption from having to be referenced properly. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a small bibliography of works written by the writer, David L. Ganz. If you would prefer them in ref format, that's also possible.

Ganz, David L. Ganz, Irwin, Robert (1996), The 90 Second Lawyer: Answers to Common Personal and Business Legal Questions, Wiley, ISBN 9780471147244{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
David L. Ganz, David L. (1998), Planning Your Rare Coin Retirement: How to Select a $10,000 Rare Coin Portfolio Full of Growth Potential, Bonus Books, ISBN 9781566250986
Ganz, David L. (1998), The World of Coins and Coin Collecting, Bonus Books, ISBN 9781566250993
Ganz, David L. (2008), Profitable Coin Collecting, Krause Publications, ISBN 9781440227851^[1]^[2]^[3]
David, David L. (2008), Guide to Coin Collecting, HarperCollins, ISBN 9780061341403^[4]
Ganz, David L. (2008), America's State Quarters: The Definitive Guidebook to Collecting State Quarters, Random House Information Group, 2008, ISBN 9780375722592^[5]
Ganz, David L. (2010), Rare Coin Investing: An Affordable Way to Build Your Portfolio, Krause Publications, ISBN 9781440216312^[6]
Ganz, David L. (2012), The Official National Park Quarters Book, Zyrus Press, ISBN 9781933990262
Ganz, David L. (August 11, 2011). "Penny Foolish". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 February 2018.

References

^ "BOOK REVIEW: PROFITABLE COIN COLLECTING BY DAVID L. GANZ". www.coinbooks.org. Retrieved 25 February 2018.
^ Ganz, David L. (2010), Rare Coin Investing: An Affordable Way to Build Your Portfolio, Krause Publications, p. 261, ISBN 9781440216312
^ "BOOK REVIEW: PROFITABLE COIN COLLECTING BY DAVID L. GANZ". NNP at Washington University in St. Louis. November 2, 2008. Retrieved 25 February 2018.
^ "New coin collecting guide". The Star-Ledger. October 10, 2008. Retrieved 25 February 2018.
^ Ganz, David L. (2010), Rare Coin Investing: An Affordable Way to Build Your Portfolio, Krause Publications, p. 261, ISBN 9781440216312
^ "NEW BOOK: RARE COIN INVESTING BY DAVID GANZ". NNP at Washington University in St. Louis. October 3, 2010. Retrieved 25 February 2018.

- Comment-No one is questioning whether or not he wrote books. However, just writing books does not mean someone passes WP:AUTHOR--Rusf10 (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability as a writer is not established by simply listing his books — if that were all it took, we would have to keep an article about every single person who ever published a book at all. We require reliable source coverage about him and his books, not just a list of them. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The strong claim of notability as an author and numismatic columnist is backed up by ample evidence, as listed above. Deletion is not cleanup, nor is it a freebie for anyone with an axe to grind to ignore Wikipedia policy regarding establishing notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To show that a person is notable as a writer, it is not sufficient to list a bibliography of his own works. To get an WP:AUTHOR pass, the article has to be referenced to reliable source media coverage about his writing of books, not metareferenced to the books themselves. So exactly none of what was added above supports notability as a writer at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, his books do not prove his notability. Even if he wrote 1000 books it wouldn't matter. What matters is if people actually read his books and they receive coverage from other sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SStrong delete The extremly subject-specific reviews in minor coin collecting publications do not add up to a pass of the general notability guidelines. Beyond this, Alansohn is being misleading in putting forth this arguement. A review of Alansohn's activities shows he has assumed that merely being elected as a county freeholder in any county in New Jersey, but evidently not to equivalent positions in any other state, makes someone notable on its own. That is why he created this and so many other articles on non-notable people, and so his arguments about Ganz role as a writer amount to a smoke screen to avoid facing the real issue, that this article was created on the assumption that Ganz was notable as a politician and Ganz clearly is not notable as a politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply (Personal attack removed) Alansohn (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The misformatted, end of comment links are 3-basically a set of blogs, and anyway all from one organization. 1-a work by Ganz himself, so of no value. Lastly a local New Jersey publication. We have expectations of significant indepth coverage, not local human interest fluff articles, especially when the subject is a living person. The coverage here is way below what we would expect for a business, and our guidelines on biographies of living people are more stringent than what is expected for articles on businesses. Contrary to the absurd claims of Alansohn, two sources do not an automatic pass of the general notability guidelines make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete This fellow is being pushed, in the article, primarily as a local politician, but it's pretty clear that, once again, it's all routine local coverage. Maybe the numismatics angle provides some real notability (though judging from the above commentary, that is questionable) but that's being used as a coat rack in this discussion for the real reason for his inclusion, which is his local government position. Mangoe (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a lot of routine coverage of his political office but nothing that would pass the notability criteria for politicians and judges. He is quoted a lot on numismatics but, so far, I have not seen any articles about him. He is high profile enough that there should be some if there is anything of note to write. I am open to changing my !vote but, right now, the sources just are not adequate. — His book may qualify for an article under WP:NBOOKS though. Jbh ^Talk 23:39, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Risa Hayamizu[edit]

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

Only notable role is Yankumi from Gokusen. Yet another filmography that pretends to be an article. Stub in JP Wiki. MizukaS (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The article currently needs much improvement, but it appears that she's actually had several main and supporting roles in anime such as Pretty Rhythm Aurora Dream, Kannagi: Crazy Shrine Maidens, Amagami SS, Big Windup!, Rideback, The Tower of Druaga, Welcome to the NHK, and Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, among others. That might just be enough to pass WP:ENT. She's pretty well-known for her role as Zoey in Pokémon, for example. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, she clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER for her notable roles. Dream Focus 00:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreed that article needs work, but the problem isn't notability. She easily passes WP:ENTERTAINER with "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Lonehexagon (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has notability from her roles, meets WP:ENTERTAINER. Sure the article is a stub and needs expansion, but it's already tagged as a stub so no issue there. Canterbury Tail talk 19:33, 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 no consensus. Both keep !votes are extremely weak, but there isn't a consensus to delete at this time. – Joe (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tenor (website)[edit]

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

Non notable company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH as all references are primary sources or a single news item regarding blocking of Whatsapp by the Indonesian government. Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 17:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Tenor is notable in number of ways.

Tenor has been integrated into almost all popular messaging platforms (WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Viber etc). And it have 150M+ daily searches and 300M+ users worldwide. Tenor is one of the most installed (10M) apps in Google Play Store.
Tenor has content partnerships with top companies (20th Century Fox, 21st Century Fox, DreamWorks, Netflix, NBCUniversal, Paramount, Showtime, Sony, Warner Bros., Viacom, Vevo etc.).
If we Google GIF, Tenor is one among the first search results.
Tenor made news when it was censored in Indonesia.
Tenor has raised $13 million (as of August 4, 2015) from notable investement companies such as Redpoint Ventures, Menlo Ventures, Cowboy Ventures and Tenaya Capital: Ref.1, Ref.2
Tenor is developing ways to put GIF's in Augmented reality, first of its kind.

And we could find all type of (primary, secondary..) media reports related to Tenor here.--Joseph 05:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 'sources' that you are mentioning is part of the Tenor website and even going through all of them most of the coverage is primary, passing mention on an article on GIFs or for a single event as having hired someone into the company. This does not qualify as WP:SUSTAINED or WP:ORGDEPTH --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 16:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 06:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 06:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 06:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Hagennos, can you explain how this becomes an India related discussion?--Joseph 07:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was wrongly transcluded by a script --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 07:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Covered by TechCrunch here, here and here. Mr RD 19:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:04, 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. – Joe (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Schreiber[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial references. A lot of single line mentions and a few blogs thrown in. reddogsix (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The forbes article is a feature about him, however, as noted, none of the other references seem to discuss him in-depth. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the Forbes "article" appears to be one of those columnists Forbes runs a lot of, like HuffPost. Not an edited part of the magazine produced by paid journalists. Not a WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 19:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 19:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as PROMO. SIGCOV not found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

probable keep Took a closer look, ran a proquest news archive search. His "Kak" series of books co-authored with Tim Richman may carry him past WP:"AUTHOR. Here's an example of the coverage: Complete Kak! by Tim Richman and Grant Schreiber, Daily News (Durban) 15 Dec 2009: 18.: " This book is the all-encompassing final addition to the best-selling Is It Just Me Or Is Everything Kak? series by Tim Richman and Grant Schreiber. The authors' third collection will serve as the final word on everything that aggravates, annoys and generally gets up the noses of South Africans everywhere. For this expanded bumper edition, Richman and Schreiber have collated their greatest hits from the original two books (Afrikaans music, SA drivers), fully revised those evolving vexations that are always finding new ways to bother us (the ANC, Eskom, idiots), and added a cartload of new aggravations to the list (Twitter, Cope, the BMW X6) - because some kak never changes, some kak never stops changing, and there's always some new kak to deal with..." [24] E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:55, 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! 00:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:04, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Zane[edit]

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

Non-notable YouTuber. Only references are Cagematch, YouTube, and Sportskeeda, all of which either do not establish notability or are unreliable. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable wrestler or YouTuber. His YouTube channel was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrestling With Wregret. Nikki♥311 00:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. - Galatz ^Talk 00:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though I enjoy the YouTube channel the sources simply aren’t there.--64.229.165.48 (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is currently pretty awful. I certainly don't think it should be laid out as a wrestler bio. He is infinitely better known as a YouTuber personality. Sportskeeda, Podcast interview, Podcast with Steemit, Horror Movies.ca covering his movie role in "Parts Unknown", Horror Movies 2, mention in studybreaks.com, mention in LA Weekly, mention in Rolling Stone.com, Full article/interview in KTVN.com. I'm sure there is some more, and this article is trash, but I feel like he may well be a notable figure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:46, 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) 00:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Cameron[edit]

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

A directory-like listing with no encyclopedically relevant prose. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. Significant RS coverage not found. Awards are not significant and / or are scene related; Grabby award does not meet PORNBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. This performer's non-scene-related award wins do not meet the well-known and significant industry award test. Fails WP:BASIC without significant and independent RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actor, Hasn't won any significent awards, Fails PORNBOI & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:PORNBIO. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:03, 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) 00:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Colt (actor)[edit]

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

A directory-like listing with no encyclopedically relevant prose. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. Awards are not significant and / or are scene related; Grabby award does not meet PORNBIO. Significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:NPERSON, and WP:GNG. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:07, 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. – Joe (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Madina Nalwanga[edit]

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

I can't find anything about her other than her appearance in Queen of Katwe, and I don't think that was sufficiently awarded/notable to override BLP1E/TOOSOON concerns. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep slam dunks the general notability guideline woth oodles of very subatantial coverage about her. Even if there wasn't a merge to the movie would be the appropriate outcome. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Even though I don't think an actor should pass WP:NACTOR by starring in just one notable film, winning the Africa Movie Academy Awards is a big deal, the reason I'm making it weak is because the category she won is not a major category. However, I think this article can be expanded better from information online. HandsomeBoy (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - toosoonish - despite the media, has really only starred in one film, she's just at the start of her career. I'm sure she should become notable as time goes by, but here carerrs is not notable at this time. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 21:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Added additional sources to her article. She's been discussed in-depth, including on NPR, ABC News and USA Today. It's not just her role that makes her significant, but who she is and her story. That's why her life is being discussed in depth. She was listed on Forbes as one of the top 30 People Under 30 for their 2018 list. She has won an NAACP Image Award, a Women Film Critics Circle Award, and was nominated for a Critic's Choice Award for her role as Phiona. Easily passes WP:ANYBIO for "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" as well as WP:GNG for significant coverage in secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Lonehexagon (talk) 22:01, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K2-183b[edit]

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

Again, fails WP:NASTRO. Another one of many from the recently-published K2 paper, with no coverage at all beyond the standard catalogues. Lithopsian (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like K2-187b, this is another planet from Exoplanet Explorers. Its unique for being one of the shortest-period Sub-Neptune planets as well. In addition, there are two more candidates in the system that were not mentioned by Mayo et al and orbit between K2-183b and c. ProtoJeb21 4:00 pm, 4 March 2018 (EST)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect as non-notable in the Wikipedia sense per WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect. Not enough information for an article, even a stub. This belongs as an entry in a table, not as a standalone article. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:43, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Nicholson (anchor)[edit]

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

All the sources that are not written by the subject herself are variations of a bio that states that she's a former TV reporter and anchor who now owns and operates a public relations firm. None of the sources provide significant, in-depth coverage. The shows she has hosted are not notable, insofar as they do not have their own Wikipedia article. Mduvekot (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When the most recognisable source in the article is The Sun, then we've got serious problems. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mduvekot is correct, as is usually the case. In other words, inadequate sourcing to establish notability.104.163.148.25 (talk) 02:10, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expected Goals[edit]

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

unclear topic notability Enwebb (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An non-notable article. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See WP:NEO. This is not a notable phrase, only a recently-invented "statistic" that has limited acceptance and dubious usefulness. It needs be widely accepted before we put it in an encyclopedia. It's not even in Wiktionary yet. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my responses at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Postillion#Deletion_discussion_about_Expected_Goals --Postillion (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The theory is interesting, but there is no way this article is notable. Maybe this article and articles like it could be merged under an article called "List of Association Football Formulae" or something like that? Birdsgeek Talk 16:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be a significant level of coverage on this metric across a number of academic papers covering its usage in a number f different sports. To be honest, don't see any reasonable deletion rationale above. Would be useful if other editors could comment on the sources in the text. Fenix down (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I know this looks like a no-brainer to close as delete, but as User:Fenix down points out, there's been no discussion of the sources and that should happen before this is closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it is a term that is now in common use (BBC Sport, FourFourTwo, The Guardian) Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, common term widely used throughout sport. Plenty of coverage to pass WP:N. --Jimbo^[online] 22:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:N. Avaay
An interesting case: the entire article probably needs some WP:TNT as it's relaying a lot of information from academic articles, et cetera. As to whether it's notable, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, and while Expected Goals is a relatively new statistic, it's certainly one that is being used more often from an analytical approach to soccer, and as Jmorrison230582 noted has been discussed by several major news outlets. I'm going to vote Keep or at the very least draftify but this article needs some major work. SportingFlyer talk 21:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:35, 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) 00:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Sino[edit]

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

Résumé-like WP:BLP of a film producer, not referenced to any evidence of reliable source coverage about him. Instead of any proper referencing at all, this just linkfarms a bunch of primary source weblinks that cannot support notability, such as promotional press releases from his own company, the self-published websites of his company and his collaborators, and his profiles on public relations platforms like ArtistDirect (and the majority of them are dead links, to boot.) Not a single one of the external links here represents media coverage about him that can support notability in a Wikipedia article, and nothing claimed in the body text is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to show media coverage that can support notability. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to add insult to injusry the article is deceptive. Sino is not a "movie producer" but seems more like a music-video producer, a position that almost always means the individual is non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There isn't a source in the article so I looked for some. I couldn't find any examples of this artist being discussed. I checked out the entry in the Russian Wikipedia entry and none of those sources were acceptable either. Does not appear to satisfy notability guidelines. Lonehexagon (talk) 20:59, 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 keep. Killiondude (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Baxter (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Lacks sufficient independent sourcing, and subject seems mainly known for appearing on an Australian TV show. Coretheapple (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's one of the Sharks on Australian Shark Tank. Being a t.v. star along with his business deals make the grade for me. Keep FloridaArmy (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perhaps it is the gig on Shark Tank that gains him the coverage, but the coverage exist and is easy enough to find. Examples include [25], [26]. -- Whpq (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- insufficient coverage for a BLP. Being on Shark Tank is not enough for notability, and there's nothing better. A promotional CV at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been greatly improved and expanded, and the number of citations has more than doubled, since this AfD was posted. There is clearly adequate significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to more than pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. SunChaser (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. We are to attempt to find sources not comment on the state of the article. See WP:BEFORE, sections C and D. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's been a "Shark" on Shark Tank since it debuted, appearing on all 3 seasons. He's received a lot of press coverage about his investments, entrepreneurship, etc. You state that he is "mainly known for appearing on an Australian TV show"; I don't see the problem with that as it's run for 3 series and is fairly well known, please elaborate. He's a judge/Shark on the series, not a one-time contestant or something. Melonkelon (talk) 21:39, 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) 00:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajinikanth (journalist)[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:AUTOBIO of a journalist, referenced entirely to YouTube copies of him doing journalism about other things rather than to reliable source coverage about him. As always, Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN -- a journalist is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists, nor to create it himself in defiance of our WP:COI rules. He has to be the subject of coverage written or created by other people, not the creator of his own sources, to get over WP:JOURNALIST, and even if that can be shown the article still has to be written in a neutral and encyclopedic tone rather than as a résumé. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would add that WP:BALASP and WP:PROPORTION are unmet, as the article focuses on several areas of triviality, including his being "responsible for producing 4 news bulletins a day." and his efforts at managing "a big team and (being) responsible in initiating day to day work from them." This appears to be little more than a WP:RESUME, and there does not appear to be any WP:SIGCOV of the subject beyond the mere recognition of their own WP:TALENT Spintendo 17:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:33, 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) 15:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Anand (actor)[edit]

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

I originally PRODed with the concern "UPE article created in violation of the terms of use by a CU confirmed sock. Excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM." The PROD was removed by another sock and I missed it. My concern stands. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an violation of our WP:TOU and WP:NOTSPAM. The article was first created as Sandeep Anand by Poras Wagh who could be the master. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:54, 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. Essentially nobody put forward an argument for keeping this article. If anyone wants this userfied, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter and Irene Ludwig Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. No reliable independent references whatsoever. Dial911 (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the German page is well-developed but no help in references as it is just the home page for the foundation; however, I found a couple different sources online talking about the death of Irene and a contract signed with the city of Cologne. [27] [28] also [29] I can't really make a determination about source quality due to language issues but this isn't the most well-fleshed out AfD. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 18:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Peter Ludwig himself was a highly notable art collector, per obits and other coverage in The New York Times [30][31][32], The Economist [33], The Guardian [34], Los Angeles Times [35][36], etc. We really ought to have an article about him, based on the existing German Wikipedia article, which could then include some of this content about the continuing activities of his and his wife's foundation, as well as mentions of his various funded museums (and links to those which already have articles in English Wikipedia). As to the current AfD, I suspect the foundation is notable, based on the content of the corresponding German article, although the sourcing in that article is not as extensive as we like to see in English Wikipedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Can't find any information on the topic and existence of a German wikipedia article doesn't mean anything. But I do agree an article on Peter Ludwig himself would be appropriate.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:32, 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) 15:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the Road (The Dubliners album)[edit]

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

I believe this fails WP:NALBUMS. At any rate, there are so many Dubliners compilations featuring tracks from the Transatlantic era (http://itsthedubliners.com/dubs_dc_01_tra.htm), I doubt this one is somehow more notable than all the others. Thegreatluigi (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 20:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found. Not worth a redirect as nobody is likely to use this title as a search term. --Michig (talk) 19:35, 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) 00:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James O'Dea (activist)[edit]

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

Not sure how this has survived. It's a completely unsourced BLP that's been tagged, without any response, since 2015. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete searches on his book produce nothing (except a single, brief announcement in the local events listings of a small city newspaper where he was giving a book talk at the local Amnesty International meeting,) fails WP:AUTHOR. His name is very common, but searches in a news archive on "James O'Dea" + peace did produced only a sole mention of him, in an op-ed by a fellow activist in The Guelph Mercury. Fails WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxbow, New York[edit]

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

Unclear what this place is or why it's notable. According to the Geographic Names Information System, The Oxbow is a locale, which according to their official definitions is a place that was the site of human activity but was not a populated place; while populated places are considered notable, that doesn't extend to all places that hosted human activity. I can't find any other sources to confirm this place's existence or determine what kind of human activity happened here; the closest I could find is a few references to an "Oxbow County Park" in the area, but that seems like it would be a different topic. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 17:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe that is accurate, and without the presumed notability it would have to pass WP:GNG, which it doesn't. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be ~~a distinct bend in a road at a junction~~ a junction of roads with an unusual pattern. No RS coverage found. Oxbow County Park is a disc golf course in another part of the same county. This is a database entry with no evidence of passing WP:NPLACE. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability. Sounds like the kind of place local high schoolers went to have keg parties in the 70's and 80's. ;) Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Speculation above about it being a curved road seems incorrect. Use Google maps to look at "Oxbow Road, Kirkville, Madison County, New York" or similar, and you can see a couple oxbow lakes as in completely cutoff sections of a river flowing into Oneida Lake, left behind when the river changed course. Oxbows are more known for the Mississippi River. Oxbow Road runs by very loopy stretches of the river/streama and these oxbow lakes. The Cicero Swamp and this area is very flat, swampy. --Doncram (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at a map of the place (42°59′19″N 75°34′24″W / 42.988611°N 75.573333°W / 42.988611; -75.573333), especially Google Maps satellite view. The roads look like an upside down oxbow. Somebody at a predecessor of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency noticed it and now it's in the GNIS database as a locale of human activity. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. Right. From Google maps view of that place, it looks like it is named for the curve in E. Hill Rd., which curves around a hill. --Doncram (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because It does not appear to be a notable oxbow. But if kept, it needs a disambig hatnote. Keeping would require a hatnote because the fact that it is in New York makes this article liable to confusion. The Oxbow is a painting associated with the New York-centered Hudson River school of painters. The Oxbow, is a view of The Oxbow (Connecticut River), a hatnote would be needed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:32, 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. This was close, befitting of its no consensus outcome last time. The inherited/"not everyone who..." argument from those calling for deletion carries more weight than usual here, as the sources are sparse. Still, there are items of more than passing interest by the media, beyond just the May 2016 items. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Senecal[edit]

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

Anthony Senecal was apparently Donald Trump's butler, the only reason this is an article at all is due to some one off news coverage in 2016 entitled "10 things you need to know about Trump's racist ex-butler who threatened Obama on Facebook"." I seriously doubt this coverage (repeated by several outlets) is in any way passing our guidelines for reliable sources and notability. And in any event, a single blip of news coverage does not satisfy WP:GNG. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's plenty of sources to expand the article. The sources and his notability would not exist if he had not been a famous man's butler, but so what? lots of sources here and elsewhere - not just due to the Obama statement. SPECIFICO talk 17:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you can find two or three substantial independent reliable sources not related to the WP:BLP1E event that would be enough for me, and anyone else. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the google results per the link in my previous comment. SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did and there is nothing, nothing at all, everything is basically attack articles against Trump that occasionally mention him, or copies of that report I mentioned in the nomination. Try "Anthony Senecal" -Donald -Trump on your news search. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how all the articles that mention him are attack articles on Trump or that he is what we would mean by "incidental" in meeting GNG. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think more to the point is finding one that isn't. Without this one blip of news, he is just one of the ~600 non-notable people Trump has employed as a 'butler'. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough RS about him to develop this article and justify keeping this stub, and we do keep stubs. Whether any of them are "attack" articles or not is irrelevant. (Not all of them are.) Sources do not have to be neutral. NPOV policy makes that very clear. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search [37] shows that most of the coverage is from May 2016, but not all. He was mentioned by the NYT in March 2016 and interviewed by the Today Show in November 2016. He's not the most notable person in the world, but he is a unique personality, associated with the most notable person in the country, and he did make quite a few headlines. I wish we had a little more biographical information. --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is still all from the 2016 presidential election season, there is literally nothing which is not a 'sensationalist' report about Trump that he is mentioned in. I realise the NYT is generally a good source but I think there is a WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS issue with this article. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTNEWS, no one has talked about this guy since 2016. Everyone who knows or as ever worked for Donald Trump does not inherit notability from him.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not helpful to raise straw man arguments. Not "everyone who knows...." has been the subject of several hundred RS articles and mentions in books. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only RS source that is in my opinion even worth considering is the NYT one, but if you have some others then show us the links. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd respectfully suggest that you make additional comments here only when you have direct responses to the specific statements of other editors. We already understand how uncomfortable you are with this article, for whatever reason. I pointed out that there was a straw man argument for deletion. Your reply did not address that concern. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to vote keep on my own deletion nomination if you can address the policy concern I have raised. My comment above is specifically in reply to your comment that there is "several hundred RS articles ... books", if this is accurate then show some links and get this dealt with. Note I am particularly interested in what you have found in books, since the main issue is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E, so some lasting coverage in sources that aren't news media would negate those policy concerns. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note I withdrew this AfD on 5. mars 2018 kl. 17:42 diff but this was reverted due to Rusf10's delete vote. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies the general notability guidelines by virtue of press coverage, and once a person is notable they do not lose that notability with time. While it is true his notability was attained through another person, that disqualifier is negated by the fact that sources exist that are chiefly about Senecal (rather than his famous employer). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that notability is not temporary, but an individual cannot become notable from a single event per WP:BLP1E. All coverage about this person was in the context of a set of Facebook posts he made. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above keep votes. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources about him provide the in-depth, continuing coverage in reliable and verifiable sources needed to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTNEWS. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." There was no continuing coverage for this individual, disqualifying him per WP:BLP1E. All coverage about him was in the context of a single event, and the event itself is not notable enough to have its own entry. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked through his article and noticed several sources listed to the same articles. I combined them, and you can see there are actually only 3 sources: Vanity Fair, Salon and Time. They do talk about Senecal at length, which could be enough to pass WP:GNG for significant coverage in secondary sources if he continued to be discussed. However, I'm voting delete because that seems to be a one-off event per WP:BLP1E, which states a person isn't notable "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" (all three articles are from May 12-16, 2016, a period of 4 days, and discuss him only in context of his posts about Obama) or "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" (that's the case here) or "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." I haven't seen anything to indicate that this event is significant. I don't think this would be considered significant enough even for an event article like The Facebook controversy of Trump's butler since it was only a blip in the news for a few days. This seems to be exactly the type of article that WP:BLP1E says shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a clear violation of not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Generally notable, clear sourcing. MB298 (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree he only became known because of his association with Trump. I would also dismiss the coverage of about gossipy things he says about Trump (that counts as coverage of Trump, not Senecal). But, there's ample coverage of Senecal's personal beliefs, that are separate from Trump's. Being a former mayor of a small city does help a bit (though it wouldn't be enough by itself). --Rob (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources about his term as mayor at all. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a source to say he was mayor: The New York Times. It doesn't say much about his time as mayor (just a tidbit about a panhandling permit requirement). That's not a lot. By itself, it doesn't prove notability. But, as I said, it adds something.. --Rob (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes GNG, and is clearly of historical interest. This isn't a reality star or viral star that is what BLP1E is meant for. GuzzyG (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested to know how this is "of historical interest"? Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not understand how someone of such close prominence to a president of the united states is going to be studied? Look at Joshua Fry Speed. GuzzyG (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't understand the historical significance, he made viral comments about Obama two years ago and no-one has mentioned him since. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. None of the sources mention any kind of historical significance or impact from his actions. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- while notability is not inherited (i.e. from Donald Trump), there's enough sources here to establish stand-alone notability here. An acceptable stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Deb, CSD A7: No credible indication of importance. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luv africa blog[edit]

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

No evidence (beyond self referential) of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted - for the second time today apparently. Deb (talk) 16:43, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HOLLA (mobile app)[edit]

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

Notability concerns for this mobile chat app. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk|c|em) 16:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Centibyte ^(talk) 20:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for notability reasons. 2600:1700:F381:2660:B12C:CFB8:3DA9:2D37 (talk) 05:45, 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. – Joe (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daharro[edit]

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

Yet another geonames unverified populated place in Somalia; I couldn't verify it either. Lands in some fields a ways north of a place that is definitely there and has a different name. Mangoe (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Aboorey. 92.10.229.24 (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A rename/rewrite would be in order, it's a different village in a different place, but at least it exists. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk|c|em) 16:18, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmer Jamil Khan v. Federation of Pakistan[edit]

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

fails GNG.. this one is clearly WP:WI1E.. no notability .. cited Dawn source does not even mention "Ahmer Jamil Khan" Saqib (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:28, 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 speedy delete - simple nn bio case. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HR Aaqib Hameed[edit]

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

A speedy delete was removed by a new account (two edits) so I am nominating it for AFD as non notable. Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note this was previously deleted as [[38]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st reference from a notable & ranked website is added the tag should be removed Gpstudio13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that is enough to establish notability, so lets keep the AFD going to allow others to chime in.13:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I also note serious copyright violations that copies at least three sources word for word.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC) The article is written with the help of those references and it is not a copyright issues as news are mostly same with matching words Gpstudio13 (talk)[reply]

It is if we copy it word for word.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK If I re write that article into my own wordings then I hope no issue of copyright and tag will be also removed it notablity is enough Gpstudio13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean these were not your words?.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that I have got whole content from news and just reformatted it .Now I have written the whole article myself Gpstudio13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The person is notable in the province and article is frin . I think it should not be deleted Hammad61 (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is about a person that is working for peace in pakistan . I suggest that AFD should be removed and article should be locked Baberjohn785 (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock, I suggest deletion, and salting.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stalersteven. The article is now done so I request you to remove AFD Tag from it ... Gpstudio13 (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said he still needs to pass our notability requirements, which the new sources do not do (and I would hope you can figure out why I say this).Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no sources to indicate the subject is notable. All I can see are a bunch of social media mentions and videos. MT Train^Talk 14:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. I suggest the titles be salted. --Saqib (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think a speedy delete as both created by a banned user and the fact that the "second" speedy delete tag was removed by one of his socks.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I have marked it for speedy deletion. Let's not waste time the time of community members on such AfDs. --Saqib (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt variant spellings: I see nothing to overturn the previous AfD consensus from 3 March 2018. Fails WP:BASIC. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afroz Khan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable model and actress, winner of a non-notable beauty pageant Mrs Asia International 2013. No sign of passing WP:NACTOR and there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to support general notability guideline either. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither her roles as an actress of beauty queen add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 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. – Joe (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Wolfe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Claims of significance are ;being a local mayor, county-level sheriff, unsuccessful congressional candidate and Vietnam veteran. He may also have been a bishop for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. None of these roles grant presumed notability or are very significant. I have searched for sources but found nothing that in my opinion is anything substantial, reliable, independant and not run of the mill routine coverage. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I checked all of West Virginia's local politicians to find this article. Articles about county level politicians are not generally kept without some other significant role. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to me to pass WP:NPOL. "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Mayor is a major local political figure and I found plenty of coverage of his time in office and policies he implemented. Also some coverage of his time as sheriff. Small city of 50,000 people. Seems enough. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What part of routine coverage of his office is supposed to represent significant press coverage? Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by routine coverage but I saw articles about a fee increase, his reaction to the city's being named the fattest in America and being a setting for a Jamie Oliver program, a comparison of shooting deaths during his stint as mayor as opposed to successors, the selling off of a fire station, and other articles and coverage about his tenure in office and place in the city's history. Seems entirely notable and worthwhile to include in a pageless encyclopedia. I'm not sure what you consider routine but I find history and political evolution worthwhile. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that seems quite reasonable. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing particularly notable about him. Press coverage is pretty routine for a city of Huntington's size.Bitmapped (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every mayor of everywhere could always claim to be a major local political figure, but every mayor of everywhere is not automatically accepted as notable just because he exists. To get over the bar, a mayor of a city this size would have to have enough substance and sourcing that he could credibly claim to be more notable than most other mayors of cities this size — because there's literally no mayor of anywhere who couldn't show the amount of sourcing shown here. Bearcat (talk) 03:45, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsaan Ul Haq Kahlon[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't able to find any evidence of notability. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page has been created second or third time I guess. fails GNG. delete and Salt. the creator has some COI, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irfan Nazir Kahlon. --Saqib (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree about salting.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete an unsourced biograpghy of a living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any mention of this person in RS. Article seems to be a copy of a description on facebook. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. samee ^talk 16:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a search and couldn't find a single source. I don't see any reason to keep this article. Lonehexagon (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not notable, no references. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:12, 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) 15:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Nazir Kahlon[edit]

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

Thus may need a speedy delete, but cannot link to the original speedy delete. Second time this page has been created, with no effort made to provide any sourcing. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Protect from further recreation? FloridaArmy (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page has been created second or third time I guess. fails GNG. delete and Salt. the creator appears to has some COI, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahsaan Ul Haq Kahlon. --Saqib (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree about salting.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete unsourced biogrpahy of a living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any mention of this person in RS. Article seems to be a copy of a description on facebook. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete non-notable. samee ^talk 15:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not notable and no references. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:14, 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. promotion piece, also essay, WP:OR, no independent sources or evidence of notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SHIROLE[edit]

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

Unsourced puffery. Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like POV and OR. MT Train^Talk 12:03, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neha Bansal[edit]

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

Non-notable actress and producer, no significant coverage in reliable sources and no sign of passing WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:24, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dhundh Lenge Manjil Hum[edit]

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

A non-notable film, no significant coverage in reliable sources and no sign of passing WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:12, 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) 15:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Brother Goose[edit]

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

doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, zero library holdings, appears to be self-published (not necessarily a problem but difficult to get noticed), trawling thru 1st 10 pages of a gsearch ("Tales of Brother Goose brett moore" brings up the usual bookseller, wikimirror, blog/individual sites, none of which are useable, did find a review (yaay!), from kirkus (oh..), that was not published in their journal so may have been a paid review? (booo!:)), nothing else. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Kirkus review (not a valid source for notability,) states that this satiric book is not funny. but User:Coolabahapple's Nom statement is not merely accurate, it is funny.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The book has an ISBN, but it is not catalogued by the Library of Congress, so it doesn't meet the threshold standards. There are no good reasons that this book should be an exception. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable book with no RS MLKLewis (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable book by non-notable author; article appears to have been started as PROMO when the book was published.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dream City Mumbai[edit]

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

A non-notable film, no significant coverage in reliable sources and no sign of passing WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep at least for now. There are many films that have articles prior to being released. I think the nomination should be postponed until release. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reason already stated. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmmapleoakpine: Other stuff exists is not a valid keep argument. If other articles have similar problems, then they will be dealt with in due time. As per WP:NFF films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date so can you provide a single reliable source about the film or it's release date? also according to some Youtube videos the production was started back in 2015 but there are no details of it have been released until now and no evidence that it will be released in future. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In looking once again, I see the trailer came out 2 years ago. I think it is fair to say this film is not going to be noteable. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:39, 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) 15:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spider's Den Cave[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2010. Created by a long-gone WP:SPA. Searches turned up nothing except this article (and the entry in List of caves) and a couple of WP:MIRRORs. Nominated for deletion in 2010, but only step afd1 was completed. Fails WP:NGEO and WP:VERIFY. Narky Blert (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything about it. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as FloridaArmy - nothing I can find. SportingFlyer talk 05:23, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. After recent edits depth of coverage is established. Kudos to everyone who participated in improving the article. (non-admin closure) Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Padelford Riverboats[edit]

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

I don't think the company is notable. Only 10 mentions at Google news (including Chicago Trubune), but no depth of coverage. Also the style of the article is quite promotional. Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent source. Numerous articles about the company and its founder already cited in article. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a close case; mention in the largest newspapers in St. Paul, Minneapolis (and the entire state of Minnesota); Minnesota Public Radio, one of the premiere public radio radio services in the United States; the Chicago Tribune; and the New York Times. And we are to conclude that a search on Google News trumps these actual news sources? Kablammo (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of good coverage; my own Google News search uncovered more than 10 sources, as it apparently also goes by "Padelford Packet Boat". SportingFlyer talk 05:27, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RedSeer Management Consulting[edit]

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

Contested A7. Fails WP:NCORP Cabayi (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:48, 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 redirect to Affix. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adfix[edit]

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

A mere dictionary definition. A template still in place recommends transfer to Wiktionary; it has been in Wiktionary all along. The term does appear elsewhere (example, example); but I haven't read anywhere that there's any more to it than that it's "prefix or suffix". So it's merely a name, and no article is needed. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a rare term for an affix, then how about, um..... redirecting to Affix? – Uanfala (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fair enough. -- Hoary (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Affix per WP:NOTDIC – specifically, synonyms should be merged. Cnilep (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed smell like a synonym of "affix"; but rather amazingly, it turns out not to be. It means "prefix or suffix"; whereas "affix" means "prefix or suffix or infix or circumfix [or, arguably, one or two other odds and sods]". (As it happens, infixes and circumfixes don't arise in English; elsewhere, they're important.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:28, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CIMR[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to have sources after a Google search. Coin945 (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any independent WP:RS either for this unsourced page. There are some mentions of a preaching programme but that's not enough to establish notability. ww2censor (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Canada issues the CI** callsign, not Ireland. Actually, the UK and Ireland don't issue callsigns at all, period. The way this is written, this appears to be a pirate station, which wouldn't be notable under NMEDIA anyway. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:34 on March 4, 2018 (UTC)
Delete. To be fair, a station in another country can still use an initialism that begins with the letter C as its name. Yes, this station's name looks like a Canadian call sign, but that doesn't inherently make it an impossible name for a station in Ireland — stations in Ireland can still brand themselves with a name that looks like another country's call sign format, so its name isn't in and of itself a deletion criterion. That said, "temporary licensed" stations are not granted an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NMEDIA, especially when there isn't even a reliable source present to support that there was a temporary license at all. One of the biggest problems here, in fact, is that as written I'm hard pressed to identify whether this is an active station that operates today, or a defunct station whose article just never got converted to the past tense, again precisely because of the lack of any reliable sources. To be eligible for an article, a station like this would need to be referenced to reliable source coverage about it — even a permanent licensed station still requires some evidence of reliable source coverage before it actually passes NMEDIA's criteria for the notability of radio stations. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can reference it properly, but nothing here entitles it to keep a completely unreferenced article just because it exists or existed. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 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 keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Commercial, Herne Hill[edit]

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

Not a notable pub. The only independent reference is a paragraph blurb in a listing of many London pubs, and I don't think it is a credible reference for the claim that the pub is "of special historic interest". power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the page for the pub has been substantially improved as of 9.30am 25 February 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantabrigian7 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Commercial, Herne Hill is an important historic landmark, dating back to the development of the local area around Herne Hill rail station in the late 19th Century. A page for this pub is therefore important in this wider context of documenting the history of the local area. Cantabrigian7 (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New independent references for the pub have been added, including the fact that it is locally-listed as being of architectural or historic interest by Lambeth Council. Cantabrigian7 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Commercial continues to be a fine London example of an inter-war pub (often rebuilt by breweries to increase size and appeal more to families and particularly women), of which increasingly few examples remain. Cantabrigian7 (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article was created in its entirety by user cantabrigian7 who appears to develop classic pub articles. It is well referenced but I don't think it is notable, the references mainly providing information about the subject but not saying why it is notable. It isn't a listed building of national significance but has been locally listed. Szzuk (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The pub is a) Locally-listed by Lambeth Council as a heritage asset of architectural or historic interest, b) Cited by CAMRA as one of only 133 pubs in Greater London with a pub interior of special historic interest, c) has a documented history dating back to 1876. Cantabrigian7 (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article quality, sources, and local historic recognition suffice. --Doncram (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage and historic significance. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate notability. Andrew D. (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources are sufficient to determine notability. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:40, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

America can't do a damn thing against us[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Sourcing points to the fact that this is WP:OR, as Iranian Mullahs (Ayatollahs) and politicians are prone to use the phrase "can't do a damn about us" with US, Obama etc. So it's just a phrase used in political rhetoric , does not warrant a place in wikipedia. Elektricity (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It simply passes the GNG. See [39] and [40] for example, let alone Farsi sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: On 25 February 2016 this article is shown at wp:DYK part of main page. According to DYKrule, all of paragraphs in the article must have Inline citation. In any case, America can't do a damn thing against us is supported by relaible sources such as 1 and 2. Regards! Saff V. (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It passes GNG based on the citations, in particular the "Foreign Policy" article. However, the article name is inappropriate as a description and should perhaps be something like "America can't do a damn thing against us (Iranian slogan)" Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - citations very clearly establish that this article passes GNG, and should therefore remain. Would not oppose a page move to a new title, however. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:58, 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. Noting the comments that CSD G7 applies but I’ll close this as a formal AfD closure. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Heart of Texas[edit]

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

I am the producer of the film and the creator of the wikipage. I have been asked by the family involved in this film to no longer distribute the film and do my best to delete references to it. It has served it's purpose and the family is now asking to move on with their lives without being continually asked about the loss of their daughter. Thank you very much. [email protected] (talk) 07:31, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator hasn't actually stated a valid reason for deletion per the terms of AfD but the movie doesn't appear to have ever attracted enough coverage to meet the terms of WP:GNG. I couldn't find any sources indicating notability beyond routine coverage. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The film appears to be notable. It won awards. At least two books discuss it in depth. It received substantial newspaper coverage. Do we do sympathy deletes? FloridaArmy (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the creator of the article can request deletion if there are no substantial edits by other editors and I'm not seeing them Atlantic306 (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL1, this meets criteria for speedy deletion under WP:G7: as the only author with significant contributions [email protected] is requesting deletion in good faith. For evidence that they are the only sig. contributor, see diffs [41] [42], in edit history you can see only their account made major non-reversion additions, the rest was clean-up and removing promotional language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElfLady64 (talk • contribs) 22:52 , 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete under G7. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:45, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Novotný (actor)[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable performer. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. Awards are not significant and / or are scene related. Significant RS coverage not found. Adult Erotic Gay Video Awards (same as Grabby Award) does not qualify under PORNBIO. The conviction listed does not amount to encyclopedia notability either. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actor, Hasn't won any significent awards, Fails PORNBOI & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:57, 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 Userfy. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User:Prince of Thieves/List of Syriac place names

List of Syriac place names[edit]

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

WP:NOT issues. This is a list of city names in a foreign language, with no sources. It possibly could be moved to some other Wikimedia wiki, but I don't know which, or how best to do so. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, or send it to my userspace. It is undoubtedly a WP:NOT list, but as a decent list of Syriac language place names, I think the information itself can be used elsewhere. Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially delete per WP:USEENGLISH and WP:PLACE#Use English, but I would not object to moving it to user space. In principle, established English names should be used both for article titles and within the text of articles. Syriac translations of these English titles may be useful for some editors or readers, but their use in article space seems like a WP:YELLOWPAGES rather than an encyclopedic list. Cnilep (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the rational of the nom and above editors. If Prince of Thieves would like it sent to their userspace, no issue with that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:55, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vajau Ka[edit]

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

A non notable film. No coverage in reliable source. The only search results are either pirated song download websites, or films database (which cant be used as source for the same reasons of IMDB). Fails notability criteria for films, as well as general notability criteria.

Not that it matters, but: the article was created, and contributed to three different socks of the same person. Basically, the article was created to mention the now deleted, and salted "Rohit KaduDeshmukh" special:diff/824099010. The actor was a two years old baby in the film, and surprisingly got mentioned in the lead of the article as "child actor". —usernamekiran(talk) 05:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 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) 00:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alisa Cooper[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable politician. Served as county freeholder and as one (of three, at the time) commissioners on the New Jersey Casino Control Commission. No coverage outside of an article in the local newspaper. I don't see her passing WP:POLITICIAN Rusf10 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't do a source search, but not notable as it stands. SportingFlyer talk 06:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched for her and found very little that is notable. Here is here profile for the state of New Jersey - [43]. She just has the title, but not much else that would be notable. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not quite noigh coverage of her. She's quoted some and got some note for her campaigns and liquor board role but doesn't seem to be enough. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of Alansohn's attempts to create a special standard of inclusion for New Jersey politicians. This article was deleted back in 2007, which shocks me, because in my experiece it seems like even the most sub-standard articles were being kept back then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Alansohn had no significant involvement in the current version of this article (and I wasn't actually aware of the previous discussion until after I nominated this). That version of the article was a copyvio. But reading the old AfD certainly gave me some insight, it looks like nothing has changed in all those years.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm an inclusionist, but I did a search for more sources, and I don't see anything that could indicate notability according to the Wikipedia Guidelines. Lonehexagon (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm an Inclusionist too, but this appears to fail WP:NPOL and WP:NPERSON. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:56, 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 and redirect to Die Kuranten. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dienstagische Kurant[edit]

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

I found no indication that this German-language website is notable. The article is also extremely misleading. The website uses the name of the Tuesday edition of the first ever Yiddish-language newspaper, published 1686 to 1688 in Amsterdam (assumed years by issues found). Our article attempts to mislead readers to think that their news source has been 332 years around. Not really. We do have an article on the original Dienstagische Kurant, under Die Kuranten. I suggest first deleting our promotion article then creating a redirect to Die Kuranten as the correct replacement. gidonb (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect I couldn't find any secondary sources for the website, which has barely been updated in the last year and doesn't appear to be an active periodical? SportingFlyer talk 06:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions as "Miscellany for deletion". gidonb (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete and redirect. Have not been able to find much at all regarding the website in my BEFORE.Icewhiz (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom. Yoninah (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, this is somewhat promotional and the disengenuous connection of the contemporary and 17th century paper fails WP:V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No refs, a bit spammy. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:53, 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. Michig (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dundas Public School[edit]

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

Autralian primary school with no evidence of any notability (primary schools are very rarely notable) and no references. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 03:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. primary schools do not have inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Dundas, New South Wales . Primary schools are not inherently notable, and fails WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm actually surprised that this article has been here since 2009! No ref, fails GNG. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:51, 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) 15:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sibanye Heritage Rangers[edit]

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

Non-notable South African youth organization with zero mentions at Google News. Bbarmadillo (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable topic doesn't meet WP:GNG MLKLewis (talk) 20:45, 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. There are now three entries on the disambig page. Killiondude (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Booth (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. feminist (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In what way unnecessary? There are two articles on people called Christopher Booth. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A WP:PTOPIC exists (Christopher Booth), with only one other topic with the same name (Chris Booth). Both articles are linked to each other, so there is no need for a dab page. feminist (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary disambiguation page as there are only two meanings and they already link to each other. JIP | Talk 13:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are ~~now~~ now three related entries. Jrfw51 (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Taj Exotica Hotel & Resort[edit]

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

Non-notable resort. DMacks (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The article is only one sentence long and, needless to say, fails all Wikipedia standards.TH1980 (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just with English language sources alone, under its previous name, the Tag Fort Aguada Beach Resort, very in-depth coverage in the 2003 book Weighing the GATS on a Development Scale: The Case of Tourism in Goa, India [44] and Vogue names this property as "arguably India’s most historic and glamorous hotel."[45] Being only one sentence is not a reason to delete an article, not less speedy delete. --Oakshade (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The article does nothing more than provide the location/address of the business. MT Train^Discuss 06:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current article state is not a valid reason to delete an article. --Oakshade (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Neither editor iVoting "d" show any indication of WP:BEFORE. I prescribe a week at a beach resort in Goa to reduce symptoms of curmudgeonliness and failure to follow prescribed BEFORE procetures.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A major beach resort in the Taj group. I have added sources and added it to the proper category, proper category can attract editors to make additional improvements in future. There is, I think, enough keep, not only on the page but in searches using keywords. I used: Taj + Exotica + Goa, but there are undoubtedly better keywords, and using date perimeters would also help get past the deluge of Taj coverage in gNews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:32, 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! 08:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a WP:MILL hotel with WP:MILL coverage. Not all hotels are notable, and I don't see what makes this one notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't like repeat relistings but here's hoping for some kind of consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces. This is the place to concentrate significant data on the affiliated hotels. Topic can be searched so a redirect is in order. gidonb (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep given additional coverage under the old name. This pulled the resort over my notability line. gidonb (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding a lot of coverage of the hotel under its original name. Noted as the first major hotel development in Goa and for its proximity to the fort and covered as a significant development and resort with historic significance in the development of Goa's tourism industry. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to keep per availability of new information. MT Train^Talk 08:48, 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 delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Stoll[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NACADEMIC, the subject of the article hasn't had a notable impact on research, received a major honor, or been appointed or elected to any prestigious post (as far as I can tell). Per WP:GNG, there are no independent sources discussing this person, apart from trivial mentions in passing, where they are not the subject of the news article. DferDaisy (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 22:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything that would indicate a pass of WP:PROF either, and no media coverage to speak of. But I'm surprised to see that this was (re)created by an experienced content creator. @Philafrenzy: Is there something we're missing? – Joe (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claim by Joe Roe that there is "no media coverage to speak of" is simply false: there are some reliable media sources discussing Stoll's role in the founding of Arrogen Veterinary Forensics, a forensic science lab dedicated to fighting crimes committed against animals last year. [46] [47] [48] The founding of this lab was also reported in the peer-reviewed journal the Veterinary Record, in which Stoll is also mentioned by name. [49] I am neutral on whether this article should be kept, however. Every morning (there's a halo...) 02:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Everymorning: But that's coverage of the company (which I think definitely is notable), not Stoll. He's barely mentioned. – Joe (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear failure of academic notability guidelines. On the issue of the company he works for, it takes a little bit because of the wording, but he is not even the head of the company.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PRMD Music[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and notability guidelines for organizations. The sources I can find are all routine release or contract announcements. While some of their bands have articles the label does not inherit notability from them. Jbh ^Talk 02:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 02:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 02:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 02:51, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Reynolds[edit]

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

Not meeting minimum inclusion requirements of WP:NACTOR. Couldn't find anything substantial from independent and credible sources to establish notability as per WP:GNG. Hitro talk 08:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to WP:Draftspace. Reynolds isn't there yet, in terms of WP:NACTOR, and none of the sourcing currently at the article convinces me that it's likely to be otherwise. Maybe this can be revisited in 1–2 years, so draftifying can be considered... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Save: I have created plenty of pages for actors and actresses who have had very small careers, but have been on the verge of starring in potentially big projects (Rhenzy Feliz and Teagan Croft are two examples), this one is no different. If you must however, we could save it.(Voicebox64 (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I came close to deleting this but am relisting out of an abundance of caution and a desire for a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline but she does have a lead role in two series. I'm a weak keep. Let's see what comes of the YouTube produced series. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since WP:NACTOR was used as a requirement link by the nominator, I decided to take a look at exactly what the guideline suggested as "criteria" for article notability.
First is Significant roles in multiple TV Shows. She is credited with the lead role in at least 2 shows. The guideline doesn't define what exactly "multiple" is, but in my opinion, 2 is sufficient.

Second is Large fanbase or significant cult following. Her Twitter account has over 20 thousand followers and half a million on Instagram. Not Obama or Trump numbers, but that would be a significant following of fans.

Third is Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. That's very subjective and can be interpreted in many ways, but her fanbase would think that she has made a contribution, so I think she passes this test as well.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NACTOR ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions") as she's been a lead role in Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything, Youth & Consequences, and R.L. Stine's Mostly Ghostly: One Night in Doom House. Additionally, her personal life is often being reported in the news, further demonstrating interest in her as a person. Lonehexagon (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I am still not convinced that the subject has had significant roles in multiple notable TV shows. The YouTube thing, Youth & Consequences, has aired just one episode 4 days back. It is still not determined whether Youth and Consequences is notable or Sophie Reynolds has a significant role in this show. Hitro talk 11:00, 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. Michig (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Downdraft table[edit]

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

A very short stub article consisting of little more than a basic definition. Hopelessly miscategorised, as the category Category:Workstations is for computers, not for physical material work. Seems to have been created mainly to advertise products. No edits since 2015. Only one single incoming wiki link. JIP | Talk 13:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep I've expanded this a bit, though it is still stubby. Part of the problem is the system of supporting articles is rather bad. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding plenty of coverage of this subject on Google Books. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:DEMOLISH attempted. WP:NODEADLINES. A WP:TROUT for apparent WP:BEFORE violation. ~Kvng (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - may be a stub, but quite notable, as can be seen in a Google books search. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:49, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ballihagagari[edit]

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

Another unverified (by geonames) Somali gazetteer dump, pointing to a location that is so blank that the only significant features in the aerials are shadows of clouds. Mangoe (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it exists, there have been alot of these, none of them are actually there. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment like most of these articles, I appreciate the AfD and the rigour; given the difficulty of verifying these, along with the fact the place may have a completely different name in the local language, I have no comment on what we should do with them. SportingFlyer talk 18:12, 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) 15:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Chadwick[edit]

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

Fails notability. Two of the three references are based on interviews. Also created to promote the subject by a COI editor. MT Train^Talk 15:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like he should be notable but I couldn't find anything. Are some of the assertions hoaxes? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 3 refs in the article none of which indicate notability. 11 edits in total since the article was created 3 years ago, I can't see many edits ever being added, COI tag because the article author works for his company. Szzuk (talk) 20:18, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bummit[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Kioj156 (talk) 16:00, 24 February 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 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Refs don't support notability. The article reads like what it is, a large, worthy and useful student union hitch hiking group that isn't notable. Szzuk (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sounds like an interesting organization but would need much better referencing to even consider notability. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:44, 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) 15:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Holiday Venture[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Kioj156 (talk) 16:08, 24 February 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 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Refs don't support notability. EmyRussell (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minimal content and refs do not meet WP:GNG. DaveApter (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only primary sources, not notable. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:46, 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! 10:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Film Unit[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Film Unit. Kioj156 (talk) 16:16, 24 February 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 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selective merge to University of Sheffield Students' Union where it is already mentioned as not significant enough for a standalone article Atlantic306 (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing worth merging, a film club. Szzuk (talk) 15:28, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Expo[edit]

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

Unreferenced dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons to Vote for Democrats[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Reasons To Vote For Democrats

Articles for deletion/Reasons to Vote for Democrats

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

This might qualify for a brief mention in an article about satire in the 2016 election if one exists, but the book itself is a one-joke wonder, and a clear knockoff of the much earlier and identical 50 Reasons To Vote for Donald Trump (on which we, rightly, have no article). Guy (Help!) 14:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the previous AfD related to SIGCOV, and once something's notable it's always notable - but I don't think it was ever notable in the first place, the significant coverage was mostly routine, and there's no lasting impact. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing has changed since last keep - except for more coverage. The book clealry meets GNG with SIGCOV which is continuing. Furthermore the book passes WP:NBOOK(1) with several RSes covering the book in depth (arguably in a more verbose fashion than the book itself). Nom's oppinions on the literary merits of the book are irrelevant - what matters notability wise is coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SportingFlyer is incorrect, there was impact: This book produced a fad, a spate of copycat blank books with satirical titles like Reasons to Vote for Republicans. I just added a brief, sourced, section on the copycat books to the page. There certainly was WP:SIGCOV, more than enough to pass WP:NBOOK. I remember at least one satirical review, set up like a regular book review - but blank.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we really call those others books copycats of this one, when this was a copycat of previous books that did the same thing? Reactionary might be a better word to use. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was citing The Guardian, which made that assertion. But I take you point, it was not a new gag. More to the point, however, this satirical "book" passes WP:NBOOK and WP:SIGCOV with flying covers. It was a thing, media attention was significant and international. [50], and even somewhat sustained [51]. And once notable, always notable. WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a policy-based reason for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. In these Clickbait times, I bet that each and every dress ms. Melania Trump has worn after her husband became POTUS, has more WP:RS coverage than this "book". That hopefully doesnt mean that Wikipedia will end up with an article on each and everyone of ms. Trump's dresses. (Though personally, I think each of her dresses are far more interesting than this "book". At least the dresses cover something...;P ) Huldra (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is as "funny" as A History of the Palestinian People..an ancient joke which hasn't gotten better by being repeated. We had The Great Book of Lesbian Humor, in the 1960s, and Everything Obama Knows About the Economy, in 2011. Also all blank books, and all, AFAIK, self published and utterly non-notable. Huldra (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it even a book, though? SportingFlyer (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has an ISBN, referred to as a book by RS. It would be gross WP:OR to claim otherwise. Perhaps this is a coffee table book, but those can be notable as any other book given coverage. Being self published has little impact on notability (which is coverage based) - it does perhaps affect our own use of the book as a RS (we typically require a good publisher for vetting the book contents).Icewhiz (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.createspace.com (The publisher of this masterpiece) is a self publishing place. Anyone with money to spare could do the same, say publish empty books on "Reasons to Vote for Republicans", or "Reasons to vote for Bibi Netanyahu"), To say that that merit an article is really just too stupid, IMO. Huldra (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly anyone can createspace a book. The book existing is not a sign of notability. Coverage satisfying NBOOK(1) and GNG is what matters - not editor opinions on the merits of the book.Icewhiz (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So each time there has been a lot of coverage on, say UFO sightings, or Melania Trump's latest expensive outfit, we can start an article about it? I hope not, Huldra (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... googling "melania trump dolce gabbana coat" gives 4,150,000 results...and we still dont have an article about it....Huldra (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article was deemed a Keep already on 7/2017 because "the book passes WP:GNG through sustained news coverage". The Nom presents no counterfactuals other than his personal opinion, and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. Did the Nom do a WP:BEFORE? Against his opinion weigh WP:SIGCOV by the BBC, the Guardian, the Washington Post, The Hill, and Business Insider, all already cited in the article, plus many sources so far un-cited, such as Fortune^[1], the Los Angeles Times^[2], The Weekly Standard^[3], and the Huffington Post^[4], to cite a few among many. XavierItzm (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Something of a stretch to describe that as sustained, other than by assiduous PR. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:BOOKCRIT. "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." The existing article and users above have shown that this clearly meets that standard. Cait.123 (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't we write a general article about this type of joke book to which the various titles could be redirected? E.g., empty book. Until that exists, ~~delete~~; simply because there's not more to say about any of these except "it's an empty book", and the reactions to it are ephemeral routine politicking. Sandstein 23:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This class of books is not always empty - beyond the cover there is often some text inside beyond the title. For some of these, the emptiness is a strong stmt regarding the subject - and coverage rises wel beyond GNG. Note we have several silent musical creations List of silent musical compositions, e.g. 4′33″. Deciding what is andnwhat is not an empty book would furthermore entail WP:OR.Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Empty book which I have now started as a list article, and will continue to add to. Sandstein 11:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Sandstein; there's apparently enough of this that some article on the phenomenon of intentionally-blank books under a joke title is needed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a book, it is a bunch of blank pages. Just because it received a short twitter-storm mention does not make it notable. If that was enough for notability than we would have an article Dieter F. Uchtdorf mentions of being a pilot in General Conference talks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Gonna give this another week and see if we can get something resembling consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Johnpacklambert argues "This is not a book". That is WP:OR, unless he can provide a RS for his statement. This is very much a book, having received reviews, having an ISBN, and having reached best-seller status. XavierItzm (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book became the number one best-selling book on Amazon.com which is no small feat. Furthermore, in the "Trumpcentric" post 2016 election media world (Donald Trump generates a lot of press via his Twitter account, etc.), Trump mentioning the book is notable. In addition, when you look at the sources of the article they are all mainstream citations (Los Angeles Times, The Hill, BBC, etc.). Granted, the book is essentially a satirical prank that didn't have much impact, but the book did in a round a bout way point out that the Democratic party has no main message/theme/plans right now (even Michael Moore has said about the Democrats that they have "no message, no plan, no leaders"[52]). Of course, this is nothing new, but it has gotten worse (Will Rogers famously joked: "I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat.").Knox490 (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources are run-of-the-mill news articles rather than substantive coverage for notability. Reywas92^Talk 07:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would also in principal support the merge proposal, but I think Empty Book already has all that is worth including there. On another issue, I am thinking that the article on Empty Book would be helped by more generalized discussion of the phenomenon. I have to wonder if anyone has ever written an article such as "online book sales and the rise of the empty book."John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the coverage out there is on individual books that are notable. Empty books as a phenomena receives less coverage that the individually notable books.Icewhiz (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
oppose merge; article should be kept (my iVote to keep is above) for the same reasons that we keep any notable book: because it got an enormous amount of WP:SIGCOV over an extended period of time, including multiple, full book reviews in significant publication. (c.f.: The Roger Kimball review in The Weekly Standard: [http://www.weeklystandard.com/shooting-blanks/article/2007663 Shooting Blanks: "this brief, but comprehensive, inquiry... covers all the bases: There are chapters on Economics, Foreign Policy, Civil Rights, Education, Homeland Security, Energy, Jobs, Crime, Immigration, and (perhaps the weightiest section) Values. Knowles has covered the waterfront.... his extensive bibliography... has done his homework: He has drawn on a wide and bipartisan range of works, from Saul Alinsky's classic handbook for community organizers, Rules for Radicals, to Peter Schweizer's critical investigation into the Clintons' finances in Clinton Cash—and many other books.") Satire book inspiring full length satiric reviews from public intellectuals. This is what notability for a book looks like. E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin L. Crawford[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable county executive. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, was previously at AfD in 2008 and closed as no consensus. It seems WP:POLITCIAN was less clear at that time. The only coverage that exists outside of the local newspaper is an obituary. Rusf10 (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG SportingFlyer talk 06:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since 1) six of the currently-provided sources are independent of the subject, 2) five are news organizations, 3) none of the deletionists have put any effort into locating other WP:RS, the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" criterion of WP:POLITICIAN has been met. As most sources about the subject are likely behind paywalls, the deletionists are also guilty of source availability bias. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is not significant coverage of the subject, the coverage is very routine and not in-depth. The current sourcing of the article consists of the following: 1. A New York Times obituary- people rarely become notable upon death so there should be coverage during his life. 2. An article about naming a county building after him in the local newspaper 3. Election results in the local newspaper 4 & 5. Basically the same as #2 6. A press release 7. A primary source. There is no "source availability bias", the only source I was unable to read was the third which I'm sure was just election results.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Crawford passes WP:GNG and subparts 2 and 3 of WP:POLITICIAN. He was a major figure in the history of Broome County, New York, an area with a population of more than 200,000 (greater than 27 countries). He has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. A search of the Newspapers.com database turns up more than 10,000 hits for "Edwin L. Crawford". Coverage includes: (1) Edwin Crawford, 68; Ran Counties Group, The New York Times, 10/1/93; (2) Leader of county government lobby group dies, The Ithaca Journal (Associated Press), 9/28/93; (3) Edwin L. Crawford: Cancer takes life of a Broome County 'pioneer', Press & Sun-Bulletin, 9/28/93; (4) Crawford Fighting For Political Survival, Binghamton Press, 9/7/76; (5) Crawford Piles Up 10,000-Vote Plurality, The Evening Press, 11/5/69; (6) Broome honors first county executive, Press & Sun-Bulletin, 11/11/15; and (7) Crawford In Chairman Race, Lacks 26 Votes, The Sunday Press, 12/18/66. Cbl62 (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The scope and breadth of sources about Crawford provide the significant needed to meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 21:29, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja (singer)[edit]

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

Suspect sources, doesn't appear to meet WP:Notability (music) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 19:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 19:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kishore Jayaraman[edit]

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

I think it fails WP:NBIO, doesn't really state his impact or contributions. Seems like a business executives profile and nothing more (WP:PROMO). I already removed a LinkedIn link. Given its deletion and draft history thought I would go AfD route. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 19:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kishore Jayaraman is a key figure in the South Asian energy and aerospace sectors. His opinions and views are featured frequently in reputed and leading news sources. [53]Eddyconrad (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Eddyconrad is the article's creator and is likely an undisclosed CoI editor. The article was previously turned down at AfC because of lack of demonstration of notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promo 'cruft on a nn individual. "...business leader with expertise across varied industries ..."! Etc. Sourcing is WP:SPIP and / or passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Kagan[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur. Affiliated with one blue-linked entity, AppSumo, which is only marginally notable itself. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP, or not independent of the company. Not notable as a podcaster either. Created by Special:Contributions/Theo_Buckley currently indef-blocked for abusing multiple accounts. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:33, 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) 15:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mackmin[edit]

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

Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough, but I can't see how this person meets WP:AUTHOR or any other criterion of notability. Yes, he helped found a poetry magazine – on which we have a very poorly-referenced article – and his name often comes up in conjunction with that. But where is the in-depth coverage in independent sources, or any indication of notability independent of the magazine? The only sources in the article at present are his publisher and his magazine. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Apart from being the founder of a magazine and has been given coverage [54][55][56], he has produced works that have been the subject of a number of reviews [57][58][59][60][61], the article may possibly qualify under WP:AUTHOR #3. Hzh (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The references show not indication of notability:

not really a page at all
self-published source, does not count towards notability.

The article fails at WP:N. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Where he is mentioned the coverage is either not significant or the sources are just intra-industry aggrandising. I can't see enough to suggest notability from RS. The book reviews don't lend much, if anything; you can pay for reviews off Kirkus for instance. Cesdeva (talk) 01:35, 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. Consensus can change, and citing the result of a previous AfD without going into the reasons behind that close are not very effective arguments for keeping an article. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Estate of Jack Slee v. Werner Erhard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A non-notable failed lawsuit that set no precedent. It may look like there is a lot of sourcing, but taking a deeper look, there are not enough good sources to meet WP:GNG. If this were a notable case there would have been secondary coverage of the outcome of the case but there is only one source that mentions the outcome (many years later). Several refs are to partisan websites etc which fail to meet WP:RS. Most of the cited references deal with background about est, and the only ones relevant to the case itself are primary court documents about the appeal (not even the original case). The appeal was also rejected. NerudaPoet (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NerudaPoet (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it appears that the appellate decision is unpublished (and therefore may not be cited as precedent), the underlying lawsuit (and the events that led to the lawsuit) apparently recieved significant coverage in the sources cited in this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable lawsuit with very little significant coverage of the underlying lawsuit iteslf other than a few local news stories at the time. Most of the refs that adress the topic are primary source court documents.RecoveringAddict (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - This article was a speedy keep in 2010 at AfD. Notability is not temporary. Carrite (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See my comment below. BTW - is there any such thing as a 'Procedural Keep'? DaveApter (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a clear consensus here yet. I note that this topic is related to Landmark Worldwide, which is under discretionary sanctions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Speedy keep in 2010. Not sure which biased sources the nom is alluding to, but there are many references cited talking about the background and importance of the case at the time, even if the outcome didn't make legal history. SportingFlyer talk 07:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that the 2010 AfD resulted in a Speedy Keep in no way prejudices the current debate. If anything the reverse, since the previous one was aborted before adequate discussion could take place. Six Keep votes appeared within 16 hours of the proposal (the first within 3 minutes) - surely a highly suspicious pattern - at which point the discussion was closed. No reason was given for the speedy close, and the only one suggested in WP:GLOSSARY is: "when the nomination has been faulty (e.g., a bad faith nomination - ie 'for disingenuous reasons such as making a point or vandalism')". No evidence was provided to suggest any such motivation. DaveApter (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Notability is not established by the refs. Of the 34 references, 13 are background about est or Ehard, and nothing to do with the case itself; 4 are from a source which does not meet WP:RS and 2 are brief passing mentions. No sources have been produced for the 25 years since the appeal case closed. The following Wikipedia policies and guidelines are relevant:

Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE
For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. WP:SPIP
While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user... WP:NTEMP DaveApter (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was continued coverage of the trial, and it continues to be talked about to this day by sources: [62] Also, that is not the test. There was continuing coverage of the trial at the time. The coverage was not routine, either: the sources are not press releases, public announcements, or even tabloid journalism, but rather newspaper articles at the time of the trial. And while people can challenge notability, you're even challenging a snow keep, whose suspiciousness I don't quite gather, as snow keeps happen often, and there were some problems identified and corrected in the snow keep. Apparently this is a contentious article for some reason - would you mind commenting on how your last edit was on Landmark Worldwide, which is apparently tied into this article and under discretionary sanctions? SportingFlyer talk 16:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response See WP:COVERAGE - the only press citations are news items at the time of the announcement of the suit. There wasn't even reporting of the court proceedings or the outcome. And there has been almost no discussion or analysis of the case in reliable sources in the subsequent 25 years. One single comment would not establish notability even if it were in a reliable source, which your linked blog post is not. DaveApter (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Almost all the secondary sources given here give background on est or discuss the filing of the suit. The trial itself, its outcome, and alleged impact and basically not covered at all by these secondary sources. It's probably due to this lack of sources that only the last two of 20 paragraphs of the article are about the trial itself and its outcome, which is quite odd. When all of the trial sources are court documents (primary sources), it's a good sign that there isn't enough coverage in secondary sources for notability. As the nom correctly notes, literally the only secondary source I see mentioning the trial, its outcome, or aftermath, is a brief mention from Lewis 14 years later (2001). That's it. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and looks like it might have been written by someone with an agenda. MLKLewis (talk) 21:05, 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. Michig (talk) 06:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paweł Stasiak[edit]

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

Singer who's best known for being a member of a band without its own article, and whose only highlight as a solo singer is his participation in Poland's Eurovision selection, where he came last. Fails WP:MUSIC. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 00:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per article over at Polish Wikipedia which is quite extensive. Just my Polish is bad-ish. The band has an extensive article over at Polish Wikipedia as well. Anyway, I won't mind if the article is recreated at a later date either.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing the en.wiki article, not the pl.wiki one. At its current state, the one we have on here doesn't suggest any encyclopedic relevance for the subject. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 00:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Speedy Keep - After improvements made. Has had charting number 1 song which is referenced. Has been acting as well. WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC.BabbaQ (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plus he has competed in Dancing with the Stars in Poland. Clearly notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not him having the #1 song, it's his group Papa Dance (which is what this article is mostly about anyway), meaning that we'd be better off moving his page to the group's and leaving the redirect. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 11:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not to do Papa Dance's article as well? I think, it should solve a problem with Stasiak's solo article here. Serecki (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If he has no relevance as a soloist, the sparse infos about him can be merged into the band's page. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 15:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This artist has been in the news since the 80s. He was a lead singer in an extremely popular boy band that broke apart and got together again. He's been on television as himself more than once, including Dancing with the Stars and the popular show Father Matthew (Ojciec Mateusz). He's gone on multiple international tours and has sung more than one hit song. His personal life is constantly reported on in the media as a former boyband member, from his hair to his love life to his weight. He recently fell in love with Sweden and reinvented himself as Pablosson, which has also received international attention. I added several references to his article. I'm surprised this person was nominated as a quick Google News search of his name being reported on in hundreds of articles since at least the early 2000s. I added several citations to his article, and it easily passes WP:MUSIC (1, 2, 4, 5. 6, 8. 10, 11, 12). Lonehexagon (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess putting articles up for deletion is the most effective way to improve them drastically! At this point, the page can clearly be kept. :) ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 19:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a moment to review WP:BEFORE. It is your responsibility to check for possible sources before nominating an article for deletion. Lonehexagon (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Polish, which is the language 100% of the sources are in, plus we judge based on the state of the article on en.wiki and not on other wikis. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 21:42, 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.

^ http://fortune.com/2017/03/10/amazon-bestseller-reasons-to-vote-for-democrats/
^ http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-trump-book-joke-20170417-story.html
^ http://www.weeklystandard.com/shooting-blanks/article/2007554
^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-urges-twitter-followers-to-read-a-completely-blank-book_us_58f4b9d6e4b0bb9638e4e869

[1] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=Jacquelynne+Fontaine&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjInbTZ4snZAhXnlVQKHRK5DP0Q_AUIDCgD&biw=1372&bih=731

[2] "BOOK REVIEW: PROFITABLE COIN COLLECTING BY DAVID L. GANZ". www.coinbooks.org. Retrieved 25 February 2018.

[3] Ganz, David L. (2010), Rare Coin Investing: An Affordable Way to Build Your Portfolio, Krause Publications, p. 261, ISBN 9781440216312

[4] "BOOK REVIEW: PROFITABLE COIN COLLECTING BY DAVID L. GANZ". NNP at Washington University in St. Louis. November 2, 2008. Retrieved 25 February 2018.

[nj.com-5] "New coin collecting guide". The Star-Ledger. October 10, 2008. Retrieved 25 February 2018.

[6] Ganz, David L. (2010), Rare Coin Investing: An Affordable Way to Build Your Portfolio, Krause Publications, p. 261, ISBN 9781440216312

[7] "NEW BOOK: RARE COIN INVESTING BY DAVID GANZ". NNP at Washington University in St. Louis. October 3, 2010. Retrieved 25 February 2018.

[8] ttp://fortune.com/2017/03/10/amazon-bestseller-reasons-to-vote-for-democrats/

[9] ttp://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-trump-book-joke-20170417-story.html

[10] ttp://www.weeklystandard.com/shooting-blanks/article/2007554

[11] ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-urges-twitter-followers-to-read-a-completely-blank-book_us_58f4b9d6e4b0bb9638e4e869

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]