Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 March	8 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antoinette Picatto[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress. Yes, I know she was nominated for the Young Star Award for the Best Young Ensemble Cast in 2000 but that just ain't gonna cut it. Quis separabit? 23:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This actress passes WP:NACTOR for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." According to her article, she's had several named roles in notable shows including The Drew Carey Show, Something So Right (TV series), Sliders, Smart Guy and Cover Me: Based on the True Life of an FBI Family. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a note on your talk page about ignoring the basics of notability when voting keep. This article has no sources. Someone is not notable just because they did something-- there have to be good published sources.104.163.147.121 (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:NOTABILITY says they are notable if they pass the general notability guidelines OR one of the subject specific guidelines. She did 24 episodes on one show, but the others are just a one time guest appearance, and thus she doesn't meet the subject specific guidelines for actors that requires multiple notable roles, not just one. Dream Focus 13:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete a biography of a living person that lacks any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only source I could find online was her name used once in long list of names in a NYTimes article. Fails GNG. No sources in article mean it should probably be speedy.104.163.147.121 (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Noting the significant changes since nomination ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Picatto[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently former notable actress, now an accountant. Quis separabit? 23:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notoriety is not temporary per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. This actress easily passes WP:NACTOR for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." According to her article, she's had at least 10 named roles for shows or movies that are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources? If the roles were significant, then people would write about them. Please read and follow WP:GNG when arguing at AfD.104.163.147.121 (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the reliable sources to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This biography of a living person lacks even 1 reliable source, so everything in the article is in violation of our guidelines on biogrpahies of living people, so the article has to be deleted to comply with guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an online search turns up diddly-squat. No notability whatsoever.104.163.147.121 (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep found plenty of reliable sources which I added to the article. She was profiled in the news and as Lonehexagon pointed out, she's had multiple named roles in TV shows, with Kidsongs and the ~~FBI show~~ being her largest roles. Passes NACTOR and GNG Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources added by Megalibrarygirl passes WP:GNG. These days so much press and periodical coverage is behind paywalls that a google search is in no way sufficient to determine notability Atlantic306 (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Megalibrarygirl has shown with her improvements this article clearly passes the notability guidelines. Dream Focus 13:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now passes GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last Drop Mastering[edit]

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

Nonnotable recording studio in San Francisco, unreferenced other than the studio's own web page (although previously it has had ELs for its Myspace page and some business directories). The article appears to be a promotional effort. It was PRODded (by another editor) in 2009, with the comment "Not a notable business. No reliable 3rd-party sources provided, and Google search yielded few hits, and most of them are adverts or myspace and facebook, which aren't reliable sources.", an opinion with which I agree nine years later. The PROD was removed by the article's creator and primary editor with the comment "I have added links to 'Audio Mastering' and Last Drop Mastering clients; will research relevant wikipedia articles that may be connected to the business" ([1]). The edit in question merely added an attempted wikilink to audio mastering, and inline ELs to what appear to be non-notable bands who have recorded at the studio, and did not establish notability. (The inline ELs were later cleaned up by another editor.) TJRC (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP. You couldn't even say this was a recording studio, really... it's an audio mastering studio, which probably has even less notability – this is the place studio tapes go AFTER the recording process is finished to be buffed up, and the process rarely involves the artist or their producer, or anyone connected with the record who might be notable. As such, even the bands who have been mastered here are barely notable, and this certainly isn't one of the big, respected audio mastering studios like Chop 'Em Out (who aren't notable enough for a Wikipedia article either). Richard3120 (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP per Richard3120. PhilKnight (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lvovich[edit]

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

We do not disambiguate by Russian middle-name patronymics, such as Petrovich, Stepanovich, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has it been agreed somewhere that we don't disambiguate in this way? If so then please link the policy or guideline or discussion showing that it has been agreed. I know more about Russian culture than most anglophones, enough to know that Vladimir Lenin has often been referred to as "Ilyich", but not enough to know whether such references are common practice. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference by patronymic is common only in informal speech among insiders (relatives, colleagues,etc. It is extremely uncommon the person is commonly recognized by his partonymic. Therefore we do not have to "agree somewhere" about this: it is a common rule for disambig pages. Ilyich is a good example of the exception of this rule and we Ilyich page about this. I am not aware of other such cases. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. We have articles on first names when there is something interesting to be said about the name (e.g. Mark), in which case there is often also be a list of notable people with that name as part of the article. We disambiguate first names, e.g. Adele (given name) or Adele (disambiguation) when there are multiple people and/or other topics people might be looking for under that name. Sometimes, the two meld a bit into each other, but we don't have mere lists of people with a certain name, when there is little reason to suppose someone would search by it and land in the wrong place. Now apply to Slavic patronymics: it's hard to justify under the first rationale (Mark), since such content could be under the article for the corresponding first name. So if it is editorially interesting towards understanding the name Lev, people with patronymic Lvovich might be listed there (I doubt it, but possible). For the 2nd rationale, that's precisely what we have for Ilyich - it was a patronymic which unlike usual was commonly used to refer to one specific Ilyich, and through him gave the name to various towns, etc. for political reasons. But that seems to be a special case, which doesn't seem to be the case for Lvovich. Put another way, unlike Mark, Adele, or Ilyich, there doesn't seem to be any worthwhile info to keep that could not be ad hoc replicated with a search for Lvovich, so why keep it? Martinp (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhaylovich[edit]

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

We do not disambiguate by Russian middle-name patronymics, such as Petrovich, Stepanovich, etc Staszek Lem (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete with same rationale I gave for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lvovich. Martinp (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Kardashian[edit]

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

Non-notable "internet celebrity" lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. Article appears to have been created by COI. reddogsix (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete no nonability whatsoever. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article screams of NOTINHERITED!, Being related to someone doesn't make you famous or known ..... and being related to someone doesn't grant you an article either. –Davey2010^Talk 01:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Davey2010: - he isn't actually a Kardashian. He just calls himself a Kardashian. Bizarre Gbawden (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah I failed to spot that thanks!, So he's probably not related to anyone and only used that to become known!, Weird person. –Davey2010^Talk 12:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom Gbawden (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article looks like promotion and there is no sign of notability. Dunarc (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lepricavark (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable and no in-depth sourcing. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not inherited and sources do not demonstrate notability in his own right. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability. We need at least to be able to verify in reliable, published sources that this place exist. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Areri Lolammod[edit]

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

You know, if you have to call it a "populated place", that's not enough better than a "locality" as far as knowing what it really is. In this case, it appears to be, yes, another blank spot on the globe, if not someone or other's map. Geonames admits it's "unverified", and I couldn't verify it either. Mangoe (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Im concerned Mangoe is applying Anglosphere standards for a near-governmentless region of Africa. That doesn't sound right to me. 92.9.152.17 (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that articles about places that don't exist with no sources should be allowed, but only if they are outside the "Anglosphere"? It's one world, and thanks to satellite imagery we can check for the existence of supposed towns anywhere in the world equally and without prejudice. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V we need actual sources covering something in order to have an article on it, and yes this applies regardless of where you are. Even the maps associated with the sources cited show it's just a random piece of desert with no evidence of human habitation. Hut 8.5 21:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Nothing there on satellite imagery, no sources I can find. Prince of Thieves (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chib (clan)[edit]

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

Declined prod. Proposing deletion as subject lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate said sources, but were not successful. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No verifiable RS to establish importance, size or notability, though a quick googles search does indicated they are a clan in Pakistan. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. These appear to be a distinct people with a political and administrative history over a region. While I am not that interested in the subject- there are quite a few books that come up in a google book search for "Chib Clan". They are mentioned many times in books on the history of the Punjab region as well as in the writings of British ethnographers such as Sir Denzil Ibbetson. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmmapleoakpine: British Raj era sources, such as Ibbetson, are not reliable. What other sources have you found in your GBooks search? I've never been able to find much of note in all my years of trying, so I'm curious. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: There are lots of Raj era sources here (yes, yes, unreliable for details, but possibly does indicate existence/notability). Regarding non-Raj - there are these [2] [3] [4] - which appear possibly reputable but are only available in snippet view (which has made me hold off from !voting here as of yet).Icewhiz (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh, yes, they exist. No denying that. The issue is whether there is non-trivial independent reliable coverage etc, not existence. I, too, haven't !voted at this stage because I want to do one last trawl and so far haven't found the time to do so. - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also these (which I'm less sure about regarding RSness, though some have multi-page coverage per their index) - [5][6][7][8]. Chibhal (this article and a region) seems connected (and named for them - at least the region per multiple sources here). However, I wasn't able to find anything online that is not snippets.Icewhiz (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two blog posts that are very extensive https://chibrajputs.blogspot.com/ and https://newpakhistorian(dot)wordpress(dot)com/tag/chib-tribe/ as well as a facebook post https://www.facebook.com/manjrajputhistory/posts/1776159562649871:0. While these are not reliable sources for Wikipedia, they contain so much specific information, you can't call them trivial either. I think we have to consider that there must be extensive (and reliable) information out there and should not prematurely delete this article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps also- this museum website could be considered a reliable source: http://www.royalkangra.com/intro.html ? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a non-starter.Reliable sources are a non-negotiable requirement.~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on Winged's comment, caste communities are notorious for embellishing and even outright making-up history etc. That's why we do not allow caste-affiliated websites as sources. Add into the mix that anyone can call themselves a caste, using any name they choose, and it really isn't a good idea. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Henderson (racing driver)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON reddogsix (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to WP:NMOTORSPORT it's clear, but there is little content and less sourcing. I'm an editor involved with the page's WikiProject so I'll try and get to it within the next 72 hours for some major expansion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willsome429 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NMOTORSPORT since he has competed in a race in the big 3 NASCAR series (Xfinity). Royal broil 04:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Show Cause So likely meets WP:NMOTORSPORT by the letter by the single race appearance. However, with Xfinity being 2nd tier and a lot of auto sports being ride-buy situations, one could argue Xfinity is not fully professional (while one could even make that argument for F1 and Indycar (and even Sprint Cup Series), at least those are top tier racing series). Besides that, of the sources provided, few if any actually qualify for GNG, mostly because they are not independent. Most are press releases, from what appear to be sponsors, or what appear to be the series themselves. Even the ones that don't fall under those issues, they look to be very obscure that are either blogs or look to have little editorial review - and of those, most are one sentence passing mentions (e.g., one article just has a bullet saying its was his debut). I commonly follow WP:NSPORT, but this is a bridge too far even for me. Considering this is an active racer, we should be able to find sources online if they are out there. I say delete unless someone can show the sources. RonSigPi (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails the general notability guidelines. If he passes the motorsports notability guidelines as currently written they need to be rewritten to only include people who have received significant coverage, and not everyone who buys their way into a car race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some work on the page. I think there's enough there in terms of content, but then again my experience is limited. I get the fact that some Xfinity situations are ride-buy (this one probably was) but the dude's racked up an extensive road-racing resume that wasn't ride-buy stuff. The sources, yeah, there's not much there besides that. I would appreciate it if the creator of the page, @JRicciMotorsports: would weigh in with his intentions to shed some light on the situation. I'll try and improve it more but it's unlikely I'll find anything else. Willsome429 (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I'm quite surprised to see ride buyers and pay drivers present such a sticky situation, but I guess I can't really blame anyone. When it comes to NASCAR drivers (based on precedent), notability is usually established if they compete in any of NASCAR's three national series (Cup, Xfinity, Trucks), while those in the feeder/regional tiers like the NASCAR K&N Pro Series East are typically not notable unless there is something exceptional about them (like a series championship or something different that would get them past WP:GNG). It might seem odd to outsiders for a pay driver to suddenly become notable by simply buying a ride to run one race, but a national series driver is still technically considered a professional driver. Zappa⚡Mati 03:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ZappaOMati: Just as a comment, its not really the pay driver concept that is an issue for me, its that this was not a top-tier series along with other factors. So if a guy is paying money to drive in a non-top-tier series, can we really call him/her a "professional" driver for WP:NMOTORSPORT #1? That way my pay driver point. I think if he ran a good part of a season (say 70% of the races), then the ride buy would not be as much of an issue. As counter examples, a decent number of Indy 500 drivers of the last decade are ride buyers, but its the Indy 500, not a road race on a 2nd tier road circuit. Paul Menard and Brendan Gaughan can both be called ride buyers, but no doubt they are notable. To put another way, even ignoring the ride buy possibility, running a single race in a 2nd tier series that is broadcast on a relatively little watched cable sports network in a road course race on an oval-based circuit and not finishing the race due to car trouble does not scream presumptive notability. The lack of independent sources seem to back that position. Again, if an Xfinity or Truck driver runs a whole season, then I can see giving them the benefit of the double for presumptive notability. Here, I am just not seeing it. RonSigPi (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:13, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator; apparently "head referee" is an important enough position to be inherently notable. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Hochuli[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited Shawn's father is a notable NFL referee, but that doesn't make him notable. Insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have articles on all the other NFL head referees, aside from Shawn Kemp. Kemp is the other new hire and will presumably have an article soon. Lepricavark (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Creating an article for Shawn Hochuli fixes a redlink in the template for the list of American football referees. As Lepricavark noted, all NFL-level referees have a fairly high profile, and Shawn Hochuli's page will eventually attract information regarding major games he's officiated, notable calls, and other useful information from prominent news sources for years to come.VinnyVideo (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to pass WP:GNG from the sources cited to me based on sources already in the article. Am I missing something?--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Head referees receive extensive attention and Shawn is already getting that coverage; there is and will be more to include. I do think the sentence about his brother's business should be deleted as non-germane advertising. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:37, 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) 00:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SLAppForge Sigma[edit]

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

Not a notable software product. Introduced less than a month ago, and no independent references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not demonstrated. Sources appear to be a press release and a source associated with the company. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "delete" votes tried searching for sources and found little, while the "keep" votes also assert that there is not much information on the topic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pandunia[edit]

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

No independent coverage of this new conlang. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find sufficient coverage in RS. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are references on the Internet; however, it's normal that there isn't much coverage of Pandunia, it's a recently created language and it still hasn't spread much. Even so, I believe that the currently existing references are enough as to keep the article on Wikipedia. Plus, it has a stable community and the language is now much more stable than it has been in the past. Goprake (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - virtually no in-depth coverage of this in any independent, reliable sources. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The current sources don't seem to be sufficient, since they don't appear to be independent – except for a couple of blogs, which don't appear to be reliable. I did, however, find one academic paper analyzing the language. Unfortunately it is written in Russian, and I don't read Russian. Also, one independent source is probably not sufficient to satisfy GNG, but is a step in the right direction. Cnilep (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Finnish book "Keksittyjä kieliä" (2017) by PhD Kauko Kämäräinen dedicates one chapter for Pandunia after the chapters for Solresol, Universalglot, Volapük, Idiom Neutral, Esperanto, Ido, Novial and Interlingua. This is remarkable considering how young Pandunia is compared to the other languages. Neruda (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— Neruda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Searches for that book on Worldcat and the Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog come up with no results, and I can't find any information about the publisher anywhere. Do you have any evidence that it is not self-published? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, some book info: Title: Keksittyjä kieliä, unohdettuja utopioita Author: Kämäräinen, Kauko. Publisher is listed as Kustannus Kääntöpuoli, December 2017, ISBN-13: 9789526829517, ISBN-10: 9526829514, in case that helps anyone. Not speaking Finnish, and having exhausted my weekly quota of a-umlauts, I don't have an opinion. Martinp (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Barcomb[edit]

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

Fails the notability requirements for actors for now since he's so far only had bit parts in low-budget B-movies. No sign that he meets the general notability criterion either as a Google search finds nothing of substance. In the three references provided, his name is only cited as part of a list of actors without any other content. Pichpich (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it seems he meets WP:NACTOR through having appeared in multiple notable films. Amisom (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of these films is quite questionable and in any case, he's never had a leading role in them. The problem is that there's so little coverage of him and his career that the article faces unsolvable verifiability issues. Pichpich (talk) 20:23, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gaadha[edit]

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

Article is about a film that was supposed to have been completed by around 2013 but appears to have never been released. A quick search comes up with a similarly-named film (Krishna Gaadi Veera Prema Gaadha) in 2016, but with none of the same production/cast. I don't think that this film and the other one are the same. The sources named in the article are about the production of the film. As it stands, there is no speedy criteria for incomplete or otherwise undistributed films, so this is getting nom'd under WP:NFF. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and update or redirect to producer-The title of this film had me thinking about the similar sounding Bengali word . On a serious note this film did attarct good coverage (Hindu,TOI,Indian Express) but did not take off (thus got less coverage) — F R ⁺ 16:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but per NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles...". The sources cited (and indeed, the sparse information that is out there for this film) do not mention anything about principal photography. The best I can come up with is that the film production was put on indefinite hiatus. Also, per the same guideline, "...films that have already begun shooting, but not have yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable...", thus my nomination for deletion. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF, The film had faced budget constraints in 2015 and no sources to confirm that it has commenced principal photography since then. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:21, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Perkins alias Morley[edit]

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

Non-notable obscure vassal/servant to a 14th century baron, claimed as ancestor by a non-notable family. Entire article is based on unreliable 19th century family histories and the majority is an examination/promotion of a dodgy genealogical hypothesis from that time that the subject is identical to a distinct man who just happened to have the same given name. Flagged for improvement since 2011. Fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:V, WP:GNG. Agricolae (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Really, only one source is being cited and that source, "The Ancient History Of the Distinguished Surname Perkins An Essay in Two Parts by James Fulton Perkins" is, I think, a web post (https://web.archive.org/web/20050514070310/homepages.rootsweb.com/~sonyapl/essay/perkins_essay_part_one.htm). As this isn't really a reliable source, the article seems to fail WP:V and WP:NPOV at the very least. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging this out - Wow, that is really unreliable! It says the surname Perkins is first found in census rolls taken by the Kings of England beginning about 400 A.D. The only problems with this are that there were no surnames in 400 A.D., there were no Kings of England in 400 A.D. There was no England in 400 A.D. and there are no surviving English records, census of otherwise, from 400 A.D. Other than that the statement is perfectly accurate. Agricolae (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is based on verifiability, and this means we do not repeat sub-standard reasearch as fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thomas Benolt in one of his Heraldic visitations does record "Supstes Petrus Morley alias Perkins" under "BY CHITTING AND PHILIPOTT FOR CAMDEN" "The four visitations of Berkshire made and taken by Thomas Benolte, Clarnceuc, anno 1532; by William Harvey, Clarnceux, anno 1566; by Henry Chiting, Chester herald, and John Philipott, Rouge dragon, for William Camden, Clarenceux, anno 1623; and by Elias Ashmole, Windsor herald, for Sir Edward Bysshe, Clarenceux, anno 1665-66" p. 118-119. This would, however, be a slender reed upon which to base an entire article, though I must say I did "enjoy" reading James Fulton Perkins, cited above. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lest this be construed as establishing notability or even verifiability, this is just a family's genealogical pedigree from 1623. A royal official asked Francis Perkins to prove he had the right to use his coat of arms, and so Francis laid out this 9-generation pedigree, naming Peter as his earliest known ancestor, 300 years before. This may be a reliable indication of what Francis thought his ancestry was, but that can't even be taken for granted given that he was in danger of losing his status as a member of the arms-bearing gentry. It isn't even strong proof that Peter Perkins de Morley existed - many of these pedigrees devolve into fantasy long before they get to the 9th generation. Agricolae (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and others above. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:02, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United's Digital Marketing Strategy[edit]

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

Only has primary sources, and doesn't look notable enough to have a standalone article.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 19:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Manchester United F.C. article appears to fail WP:GNG, also possible WP:SPAM concern. Jay eyem (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 04:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't merge - essentially this article says "big company does digital marketing stuff like all big companies do". I don't think it is notable and I definitely don't think it merits inclusion on the main article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even worth merging, non-notable topic. Giant Snowman 09:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not notable, no coverage of this subject outside of primary sources in any real form. Definitely don't merge with the club article. Although from the look of this it's not spam or paid editing, it is fundamentally completely promotional in tone. Fenix down (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Totally unworthy of mention in an encyclopaedia. – Pee Jay 14:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable marketing spam. Nothing worth merging into the Man Utd article. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see how you can call this encyclopaedic, one or two bits were interesting, I see no point mentioning any of it in Manchester United F.C., I would employ that this is not WP:NOTEWORTHY rational on this. Govvy (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the comments above by other users are entirely fair and this does not meet notability requirements. Dunarc (talk) 15:43, 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 delete and redirect to Non-disclosure agreement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hush agreement[edit]

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

Arbitrary article about what legally is a non-disclosure agreement, but has been coined "hush agreement" by popular press. Also, the title is too broad to just look at this in the context of Trump/Daniels.There are probably hundreds and thousands of "hush agreements" out there for various causes. Although this particular confidentiality agreement has gained some coverage, unless this leads to more severe political repercussions, it is most likely a singular event that does not have persistent impact and may fail the 10 year test. Therefore, propose to delete this article and include whatever may be noteworthy about the "hush agreement" in the Stormy Daniels article. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect -- to Non-disclosure agreement per WP:RPURPOSE as an exceedingly likely search term these days. Concerns about recentism don't apply to redirects, obviously, as they cost us nothing. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect. It's just an appellation used by some press for the Trump-Daniels agreement, not a term in general use. I would oppose the redirect to Non-disclosure agreement. An NDA is an agreement that supports the ability of one party disclosing confidential information to another while constraining how that information is used or disclosed. NDAs are never referred to as "hush agreements". The idea of a "hush agreement," to the extent that term is used generically at all, is to shut up someone who already has the information. No reader searching on "hush agreement" will be helped by being redirected to an article about nondisclosure agreements. There may be some other article where a redirect would be appropriate, but none comes to mind. TJRC (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- It turns out that the agreement between Stormy Daniels and Trump is referred to in the press as an NDA as well as as a "hush agreement." See e.g. [9]. The exact same kind of agreement between other parties is also called an NDA in the press, e.g. here's an example with Weinstein. The conclusion is that even if your technical point about these agreements not being NDAs is correct, it's not important to this discussion. The press calls them NDAs and the press calls them "hush agreements" and that makes "hush agreement" a likely search term for NDA, and so we should have a redirect. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to hush money because widespread media use makes it a probable search term. As between the two possible possible redirect targets for this portmanteau (hush money and Non-disclosure agreement,) I lean towards hush money because it is nearer to the facts of the case in which a well-know man pays a woman to keep mum about the fact that he paid her for sex.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your argument but the trouble is that hush money only talks about bribery and other shady kinds of payments. In the cases at issue here everything's legal. It's not bribery. Thus I'd oppose redirecting to hush money. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no very strong ppinion about which redirect to choose. For the curious, Here's [10] a gNews search on"hush money" ; here's one on "non-disclosure agreement" [11], both very Stormy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge anything useful to the article on Daniels, and possible mention on some more general page about Trump. The term itself is much too generic to have it covered with an article on just one such agreement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Non-disclosure agreement per 192.160.216.52. Agricolae (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hush money. Hush money is indeed a bribe. That article describes it as thus: "one person or party offers another an attractive sum of money or other enticement, in exchange for remaining silent about some ... stigmatic ... behavior" and "The person or party who presents the hush money may be attempting to avoid ...a leak of information to the news media". Exactly what the Stormy Daniels hush agreement is about. Non-disclosure agreement may seem to be a broader category, but those agreements are usually executed before any interaction occurs. The hush agreement is entered into after the event has occurred. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Non-disclosure agreement. Broad enough to cover whatever "hush agreement" may refer to, but not overly broad as to become useless. Money may not necessarily be involved. feminist (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. My preference would be to hush money, but I wouldn't object to it going to non-disclosure agreement either. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gizele Thakral[edit]

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

Non-notable actress, fails WP:NACTOR. The 2 movie roles are only supporting roles. As an Indian model she has done no notable work. In my opinion the subject does not warrant a standalone article. FITINDIA 17:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has played a supporting role in one film so far and being a non-winning contestant in some reality shows is not a claim of notability. Most of the sources are about Bigg Boss where she entered as a wild card so it appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, as her career is only a few years long. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SN Sharma DEEPAK[edit]

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

Nothing here supports notability. If there are sources to be found, they are not popping up in English. bd2412 T 17:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable whatsoever. Ajf773 (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. MT Train^Talk 07:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable individual and the creator who appears to have close connection with the subject should be blocked for recreating same article under verious titles e.g. Deepak Sharma (activist), SN Sharma Deepak, Deepak sharma social activist and Sn sharma. GSS (talk|c|em) 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 speedy keep. Meets WP:POLITICIAN. Somewhat meets WP:SKCRIT #3 as has reliable sources indicating that she meets WP:POLITICIAN (one being a listing on an official Pakistani government website, stating that they are a member of the assembly). Please do WP:BEFORE before nominating pages for deletion. Please also note that sources do not have to be online, offline sources (ie books, newspapers etc) are perfectly acceptable.

With that said, the article does need improvement, just not deletion. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tehseen Fawad[edit]

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

Tehseen is not notable. Not many references on the internet. Spasage (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, as a Provincial Assembly Member since 2013, she meets WP:POLITICIAN, despite the thin press coverage. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:46, 7 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 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Unfortunately, it's a retaliatory nomination after being bitten by 1 and 2. I am not blaming the nom, maybe they got distressed after their stubs were AfDed and they AfDed it on similar rationale. samee ^talk 16:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the nominator took my AfDs personally. I never meant to offend anyone. --Saqib (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So let's 'keep' all deserving articles created by both of you. I'll try to chip in my share and expand with new references, wherever I can. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a clear-cut case. This person meets WP:NPOL by being a member of the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab, which is a provincial legislature. Should never have been nominated for deletion. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Serving in a provincial or state legislature is a clean pass of WP:NPOL #1. Certainly the article needs improvement, but as long as we can properly verify that a person actually held the role they're claimed to have held (as opposed to being an outright WP:HOAX), people at this level of inherent notability are kept and just flagged for refimprove. Also I'm willing to bet that the nominator just searched for English sources, which would obviously be sparse, and didn't invest the same amount of energy into searching for the Urdu sources that would be much more likely available — and, for that matter, we don't require all of our sources to be online ones either: if there are newspapers in the Punjab that cover provincial politics but don't have websites, they're still perfectly valid sources. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a member of a provincial / state legislature, with the requisite reliable and verifiable sources to back it up, notability is met. If this is indeed a retaliatory nomination, Samee, you have my sympathies; I've been dealing with the same problem myself. Alansohn (talk) 21:35, 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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tasneem Noorani[edit]

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

Not elected politician. Fails WP:NPOL. Störm (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Interior Secretary of Pakistan is an extremely high-ranking national position in the Government of Pakistan. Clearly anyone who holds or has held this office satisfies WP:NPOL. Furthermore, he went on to serve as election commissioner for the PTI and got enough coverage just for that to satisfy WP:GNG. An extraordinarily careless nomination.192.160.216.52 (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no policy for such 'default keep'. Better show independent coverage which discusses her life. Störm (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not 'default keep'. It's "keep because satisfies a notability guideline." Do you really believe there are no sources, anyway? Obviously there are. It's not anyone's responsibility to add them to the article just because you decided to nominate it for deletion without checking like you're supposed to.192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On 28 February 2018, I looked at this article and edited it to try to improve it. Added 6 new references to it including references from New York Times (newspaper), Bloomberg BusinessWeek, Reuters News Agency, Dawn (newspaper), The Express Tribune and BBC News. There was plenty of news coverage for the person from many independent sources to establish his notability. It's only a stub article that only has a few lines in it. Frankly I don't blame anybody for the nomination for deletion. In fact I agree with Störm here that he is not an elected politician. Never was as far as I saw. He spent a lot of his life serving in the Pakistani civil service and held prominent positions there. Notability should be due to that service. Our emphasis should have been there, when writing this article. I just wish people who create these articles would spend a few minutes more in searching for news coverage on the subject in the Pakistani newspapers or take time to 'talk to Uncle Google' a little more. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources should discuss the subject independently which is not happening here. If she is politician then she has to pass WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO which she fails. We can't keep because she is 'BPS-22' rank officer (there are hundreds of them). Störm (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you explain why this person fails NPOL according to you? It seems like an obvious pass to everyone else.192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seriously this is not the same 'skeleton article' now that was nominated for deletion on 27 February 2018. I have spent time on it and have added 6 new major newspaper references both international and Pakistani independent sources as I said in my earlier comments above. His notability is due to his lengthy and notable civil service, which I backed up with my references.Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Presumed notable under WP:NPOL due to position. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I generally have a high standard (as we all should) for inclusion, but the article has been expanded enough to barely cross over the line for me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above all. The subject is not a politician and the policy mentioned in the nom is irrelevant here. samee ^talk 16:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above all. Subject satisfies notability as has held several national offices of importance. (Regent007 (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, cabinet-level and sub-cabinet ministers are usually notable. A permanent secretary, even though a civil services instead of political posting, certainly meets the spirit of what POLOUTCOMES describes as sub-cabinet. Chetsford (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Summary execution. Or elsewhere as subsequent discussion may determine. Sandstein 16:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terminate with extreme prejudice[edit]

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

A phrase that gets used occasionally, but there is very little to nothing in the way of coverage about the phrase. The best I could find is this source which merely mentions it as one of a number of lines from Apocalypse Now that have "worked their way into the national psyche". The single source in the article from 1969 NYT merely defines the phrase. We have a Wiktionary listing on this, but it isn't an encyclopedic topic. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 14:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terminate with extreme prejudice this article is clearly a dictionary definition. Deserves a mention on List of military slang terms perhaps. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICTDEF. Perhaps possible to redirect to Summary execution.Icewhiz (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A soft redirect to wiktionary could work here. ansh 666 19:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried some of those last week and they were speedy deleted as empty articles... Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICTDEF. Kierzek (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly merge and redirect to Extrajudicial killing? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summary execution would be a better choice, as the term is primarily a military one, for which Extrajudicial killing does not really apply. Summary execution was my original target as a redirect alternative, which was rejected twice by the page creator, after which I started this AfD. I have no problem with redirecting to Summary execution. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 13:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, extrajudicial killing is a better fit. It may have started out as a military term, but is now more commonly used for espionage. Also, the definition in summary execution specifies "immediately killed", which isn't particularly implied by the phrase under consideration. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

um... maybe redirect to Judge Dredd? Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you were going to redirect it to 'most notable usage', it would be sent towards Apocalypse Now. Either wiktionary or summary execution are probably the best redirect targets though. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there are several possible redirect targets, maybe it should be a disambiguation page instead... -- intgr [talk] 13:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate to Summary execution, Extrajudicial killing, List of military slang terms (anchored), Judge Dredd and Apocalypse Now ? An odd mix but it could work. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dab pages are not for works that just happen to use a phrase or for "not really synonyms". Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say this, but you beat me to it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree, it would be an odd disambiguation page if that was done. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to ~~Extrajudicial killing~~Summary execution per @Insertcleverphrasehere:.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Summary execution? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks; fixed.<blush>--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:21, 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. The "keep" opinions do not identify the sources that they believe make the topic notable. Sandstein 16:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Sepe Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable youtuber and filmmaker, PROD was removed due to the fact that one of his films has won and award, but the award does not seem notable either. He may have a lot of subscribers, but that does not equal notability by Wikipedia standards. ★Trekker (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage and work of filmmaker are sufficient to meet notability guidelines.FloridaArmy (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What coverage? I don't see a single reliable source cited in the article as of now.★Trekker (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am guessing FloridaArmy saw 11 references and thought, "wow, this guy is clearly notable!" It is, however, not always that simple. Passing mentions and YouTube videos are not how we determine notability; if anything, it shows how far from notable this person is.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing does not measure up to what is expected by the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It's close, but sufficiently notable, and the number and quality of results in a search is going up with the nearing release of his film. Someone should improve the sourcing, though. —Kaz (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of his previous films have anything resembling notable coverage either, why should we assume that the new film would change that? We don't build articles with crystal ball expectations. This person is utterly non-notable, nevermind the fact that notability is not inhereted so his movies getting a little bit of covergage doens't matter.★Trekker (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin Films Pvt. Ltd[edit]

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

A firm producing movies in a regional language, with no inherent signs of notability due to lack of coverage. MT Train^Talk 17:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jahnu Barua-Company actually exists and is related to Jahnu Barua, but there is no independent notability — Frc Rdl 09:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. I'm not convinced that "Dolphin Films" is a search term worthy of a redirect - Wikipedia is not a directory. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH; insufficiently notable even for a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At Boshoff[edit]

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

Seems to be promotional. Very little information found in a quick Google search. Welcome opinions. PabloMartinez (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At Boshoff is the founder and pastor of the largest and fastest growing Christian church in South Africa with churches in over 90 cities and an international movement in multiple countries. He speaks regularly in conferences and some of the largest churches around the world. I agree that the article is very flimsy at the moment, which is why I have started editing it. I will keep editing and cite relevant sources over the next couple of days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvnrsa (talk • contribs) 16:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POssible Keep but tag for improvement. If Mvnrsa is correct, he is certainly notable, but Mvnrsa implies he is the head of a denomination, whereas the article calls him a board member. The head of a denomination would be the equivalent of a bishop, whose article we normally keep. On the other hand, typically the pastor of a local church is NN. I lack the knowledge to say which side he falls on. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete Besides being painfully difficult to search, the hits I'm finding are pointing towards the notability of his church(es), not him, and the one hit that had any biographical detail was an "about our speakers" blurb, which is obviously neither neutral nor independent. If there were an article on the church I would say merge/redirect to it, but there doesn't appear to be such an article. Mangoe (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete senior pastor at a non notable church does not make someone notable. It seems there are mentions of him in relation to the church, but no significant coverage. Burroughs'10 (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BJ Snowden[edit]

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

Not much in the way of cites, and most of the hits on WP:BEFORE are generic listings. I don't think there's a really strong assertion of notability here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What did you find on Google News? FloridaArmy (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about that Lowell Sun article you added, that's talking about her family, not so much her. There might be usable content, but it doesn't speak towards notability, IMO. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't mentioned the CBC articles, A.V. articles, or this article that covers her. And yes, the article I added covers her and her family as well. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly does not meet our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage. Agricolae (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Singh (actor, born 1985)[edit]

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

I feel like we've been through this before with this exact same subject however I can't seem to find it since it's such a common name. The article greatly exaggerates their work in (questionably) notable films/shows and was largely sourced by crufty spam and unreliable sources which I've removed. I can find no evidence this person meets inclusion criteria and has no actual in-depth coverage in rs. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not yet notable per WP:NACTOR, has only had a few minor roles and reality TV appearances. Sole claim to fame seems to be winning "Laughter Express", one of the innumerable low-cost reality TV shows they're hurling out the door at top speed in India these days. I don't see substantial coverage online in WP:RS that would support keeping per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. WP:TOOSOON at best. The selfie in the current infobox was uploaded as "Own Work" by the article creator, which suggests a WP:COI. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Poor source for WP:BLP article. - Siddiqsazzad001 (Talk) 15:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, sourcing problems, delete. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a simple google search will tell how much the subject is notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenon One (talk • contribs) 19:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There aren't enough sources on the web. Most searches lead to yet another actor with the same name. MT Train^Talk 19:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - needs more time to grow into notable, not there yet. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not yet notable per WP:NACTOR and the author seems to have WP:COI too. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved: I've moved this article from the mainspace to the draft, so that i can continue my edit. Please withdraw your nomination chrissy CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ Xenon One (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenon One: Yes, and I have moved it back. If there is consensus in this discussion that the page should be deleted then it will be deleted, and if not then it won't, no matter what title the page has when the discussion ends. Attempting to evade the effect of the likely outcome of this discussion by moving the page is unacceptable, and in any case won't work. You also attempted to prevent discussion by removing the "Articles for deletion" notice in this edit, and by persistently badgering the nominator on her talk page, continuing after she had answered your questions and told you explicitly she had no more to say. I suggest you accept that there is a deletion discussion about the article, and that consensus at the discussion will decide whether it is deleted or not, rather than trying various methods to prevent that happening. If you don't, then you are likely to be blocked from editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:41, 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. Sandstein 16:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Lizard[edit]

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

Minor band. A single EP and no charting songs. Calton | Talk 00:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there are a couple of "not as terrible as I was expecting" sources here (a review of the EP in Exclaim!, and a couple of short blurbs about the releases of videos), they're not supporting anything that constitutes an WP:NMUSIC pass — even NMUSIC #1, the criterion that just requires media coverage to exist, still requires more substantive coverage to exist than just short blurbs. So the Exclaim! review is the only genuinely strong source here, but one strong source isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - PopMatters coverage also appears to be a qualifying source so we have multiple in my eye and so WP:GNG is met. ~Kvng (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the short blurbs that I already addressed in my comment above — it's not substantive enough to aid a GNG pass if it's not verifying anything that would actually nail an NMUSIC criterion right on its face, because apart from the embedded video link itself the actual written content is less than 300 words in total, and even then at least half of them are about the director of the video more than the band. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's your assessment. Mine is different. ~Kvng (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:39, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 16:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianne Ho[edit]

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

Sources aren't that great; doesn't seem notable. Nerd1a4i (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google News search shows she's received extensive coverage over time. I added better sources to her article. She's been featured at Sports Illustrated and in newspapers. She is a global spokesperson for Adidas. She's the designer of an athleticwear line for PacSun and also offers several other lines including a successful swimsuit collection that was featured in Harper's Bazaar. Lonehexagon (talk)
Delete all of the article sources are commercial and personal promotion. The requirement for independent (i.e. unbiased, not connected with commercial products) coverage in diverse sources... fails. This is all commercial and personal promo hype.104.163.148.25 (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. Here are examples from the article of reliable, independent sources about her. None of these examples are written by her or self-promotional in nature.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] The definition of "Independent of the subject" in WP:GNG is "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." It does not include the requirement "not connected with commercial products" or we wouldn't be able to write about any business person. Every example I gave is independent as each one is written by someone who's unaffiliated with Adrianne Ho. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Davis, Kaysey. "Toronto's Adrianne Ho Is The Latest Ambassador For Adidas Originals | Elle Canada". Elle Canada. Retrieved 2018-03-07.
^ "SI Swimsuit 2017 Casting Calls: Adrianne Ho". Sports Illustrated. Retrieved 2018-03-03.
^ "Swim into spring: Canadian model Adrianne Ho talks swimwear trends, new collection with Simons". Vancouver Sun. 2016-04-18. Retrieved 2018-03-03.
^ "Fitness Model Adrianne Ho Talks Workouts and Beauty Tips". Shape Magazine. Retrieved 2017-10-20.
^ "Adrianne Ho on why she loves her body | H&M". H&M Magazine. Retrieved 2017-10-20.
^ "Morning Glory: Adrianne Ho". Harper's BAZAAR. Retrieved 2018-03-07.
^ "Adrianne Ho Is the New Face of Adidas Originals Who You Probably Already Follow on Instagram". Sharp Magazine. Retrieved 2018-03-07.
^ "30 Under 30: Adrianne Ho, Model & Lifestyle Guru". Flare Magazine. Retrieved 2017-10-20.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:39, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 14:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hazrat Maulana Wali Rahmani[edit]

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

I'm not seeing a good demonstration meeting GNG. The references in the article (including the bare urls at the bottom) don't offer significant coverage (except the pragmaticwealth one, which is not independent). Other news mentions are generally just brief mentions and coverage of him speaking about the Uniform Civil Code proposal, and not actually about him. There might be additional sources in Arabic, but the current state of the article is not worth much, and if other sources exist it would probably be better just to start over anyway. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 13:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First of all, the nominator misunderstands the criteria for deletion. A "good demonstration meeting GNG" is not required. Only the existence of sources matters. See WP:ARTN. Furthermore, this person easily meets WP:NPOL given that he was a member of the Bihar Legislative Council, which is a major state office. Finally, he also meets GNG easily, making it very clear that nominator did not carry out the obligations imposed by WP:BEFORE. Just for instance, consider [12], [13], and so on. Look, e.g., at this search in GNews. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I understand the criteria for deletion just fine. A "good demonstration meeting GNG" being the existence of sources is exactly that and I never implied otherwise. Neither of the sources that you give are actually about him either, but are trivial mentions as well, as I said about sources that I saw when searching. I definitely DID do a search (per WP:BEFORE) and I find your statement implying otherwise more than a little insulting. I see that you searched differently than I did, knowing to leave out "Hazrat", which gives quite a few more hits. I was not aware of the nature of the Bihar Legislative Council, but it does appear to meet NPOL, so I'll withdraw this nomination, but try to be a bit more polite next time eh? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 14:39, 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Nizami[edit]

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

fails to meet GNG. Saqib (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:JOURNALIST notability; contributing to the article will be more appropriate than deleting. --Kazmi ¹¹²² 11:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Actually, contrary to nom's unsupported assertion that subject "fails to meet GNG," this guy meets the GNG quite easily. For instance, he's discussed in monographs on South Asian journalism here and here, he's all over the news, as this GNews search demonstrates. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the subject has has not received significant coverage in reliable independent sources as you claim. Link me one profile or bio on him and I will withdraw my nom. I was only able to find name checking which is not enough and one cannot call it "significant coverage". I have removed 3 unreliable sources which cannot be cited on a BLP. --Saqib (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Arif Nizami is very famous journalist and columnist from Pakistan. He was associated for very long time with The Nation (Pakistan) and Nawa-i-Waqt. In both news papers, he is owner and was editor.--Spasage (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:JOURNALIST notability; contributing to the article will be more appropriate than deleting. --Kazmi ¹¹²² 11:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll go with Spasage once the issues I've mentioned on his talk page are resolved. Amirk94391 (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide rational why this BLP should be kept. This is not a vote. --Saqib (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. But for goodness sake Spasage, posting on the talk pages of 27 people Arif Nizami, Azhar Abbas (journalist) are up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azhar Abbas (journalist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arif Nizami. Can you please help in improving these articles and defect deletion attempt. is pushing the bounds of WP:CANVASS. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and because of the canvassing, this nom has now arguments without arguments. --Saqib (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST. samee ^talk 16:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arif Nizami's lengthy career as a journalist (over 30 years) and his contributions at 3 major Pakistani publications Nawa-i-Waqt newspaper, The Nation (Pakistan) newspaper and now at Pakistan Today newspaper clearly show his notability as a journalist. In addition, he regularly appears as a political affairs commentator on many different TV channels of Pakistn. Based on his reputation as a seasoned Pakistani journalist, his comments and viewpoint are sought by even major international newspapers like The New York Times. I expanded his stub article with all these references today - 2 independent major Pakistani newspapers Dawn (newspaper), The Express Tribune plus The New York Times and ARY Digital TV Network. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've looked through the references and added a friendly search suggestion template. What is required is expansion, otherwise tag it as a stub, don't delete it on the grounds of WP:GNG--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:28, 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. Sandstein 16:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QuarkVR[edit]

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

Undisclosed paid editing in violation of our Terms of Use. The editor claimed here (now visible only to admins) to have created the logo "As a part of my job as Marketing Manager of Intugame". Evaluation of the notability or otherwise of the company will probably require fluency in Bulgarian, but it appears not to pass WP:CORP. This is more or less an unattributed copy-paste from Intugame, also nominated for deletion – the company may have changed its name. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as undisclosed native advertising. MER-C 19:58, 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 16:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral Beverage[edit]

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

Hasn't got much in depth coverage in sources apart from this, barring which all are passing mentions in different local bulletins. Sounds like a mid-level company going by the company website, but there is just no WP:SIGCOV. MT Train^Talk 14:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interestingly enough, the company appears in a law text ("Hornbook on the Law of Property") on an important point of property law; in a mention of a predecessor acquired by the company; in a master list of major U. S. companies; in an advertisment from a group of employees at a competitor in a Kalispell MT newspaper from 1979, wishing a retiree from Admiral well on his retirement; in a report about a jury case the company won in a 1982 Colorado Springs Gazette issue; in an announcement of a plant openeing in the Billings (MT) Gazette; and, in a 2015 Casper Star Tribune article about the company as Business Hall of Fame winner. Since the latter includes the history of the company, I've added it to the article and done a little copyediting. I think there is enough to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV across the region where the company operates. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill company with nothing by way of references. The Google Book mentions above by Glane23 are nothing more than mere mentions-in-passing. The rest also fail as there is nothing in-depth written about this company. The references posted above represent the complete sum of Google search results and they all fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic completely fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sourcing offered above is insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. It's WP:SPIP and / or routine as in: "Casper Star Tribune article about the company as Business Hall of Fame winner". K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 12:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Hassani Sorkhi[edit]

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

Undoubtedly exists but I can't find any in-depth, reliable sources to indicate notability. Also can't verify the claim about him being the youngest Grand Ayatolah. Fails WP:GNG. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 08:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is given various names in various sources, and I find enough to suggest suitability for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Some names include "Al-Sayyid Al-Sarkhi Al-Hasani" and "Mahmoud Al-Sarkhi". He is a self-proclaimed Grand Ayatolah according to this. His Jaysh Al-Husayn (Husain's Army) is fairly active, although I think the article should be based on him rather than the his militia, as google news gives a lot of hits under "mahmoud+al-Sarkhi" "Mahmoud al-Sarkhi" which discuss the militant activities. There are also a google books result under "Mahmud+al-Hasani+al-Sarkhi" "Mahmud al-Hasani al-Sarkhi". Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems he is more often spelled in English as Sarkhi.[14][15][16] Subject is a significant militia leader and political figure, and possibly also notable for his religious stature (did not assess - it is claimed he has authored quite a bit). Fawiki and arwiki contain more sources, and searching for various naming variants leads to more.Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J. Paul Slavens[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT or WP:NBAND. Coverage in article sources is primary or passing. Possible COI with article creator/maintainer. Yunshui ^雲 _水 16:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Key member of both Ten Hands and Green Romance Orchestra, both of which are likely notable bands. Some coverage found of his work outside these bands: [17], [18], [19], [20]. --Michig (talk) 19:33, 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 08:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:47, 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.

What is the problem with this page please. I need to remove all the issues above the page. This is a person who has been in the North Texas music industry for more than 30 years. I have listed many references, etc. Please help me remove the issues box. Thanks.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal Zen Center[edit]

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

Zero news results, small organization with no independent, deep coverage outside of niche audience books; no assertion of notability in the article itself. Richard Ye^talk 10:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's inevitably referred to as a place that a lot of people have worked at, and I see some small bit of people talking in their own books about disputes or the like there, but I'm not seeing anyone writing directly to the story of the place. Mangoe (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like Mangoe, I'm able to find a few sources that mention it in passing, but none that are about it for the purposes of getting it over WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced and no evidence of notability. Nixon Now (talk) 19:52, 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. Insufficient discussion of the late-added sources to establish a "delete" consensus. Sandstein 12:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amrita Kak[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR.Nothing except about her connections with Salman Khan etc.. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though poorly written, she is very notable singer in India. "Just Chill", "Desi Beat" and "Character Dheela" are very notable and chart topping songs. This article needs to be improved by adding sources from news, interviews or online books. Ratsama (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only sources I'm able to find are her Apple Music page and an India Times article about her having a baby. Not nearly enough to warrant an article. Jdcomix (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep I've added some RS. Some songs in the list like Dhinka Chika and Character Dheela as mentioned in Ready (2011 film)#Reception, and Just Chill have been hits. MT Train^Discuss 18:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer. Too much emphasis on her relations, one does not notability by being a relation. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to easily pass WP:GNG using just the sources that are written in English. She's received continuing coverage since at least 2011, including significant coverage in The Times of India and Indian Express. Additionally, she is much more popular in India than in English speaking countries, which means there are likely many more sources in Hindi. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing is inadequate to establish notability. I did a search and it appears the article includes much of what is available, so sourcing is not likely to improve.104.163.148.25 (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least 6 sources talk about her in detail, but still inadequate? Passes notability as per WP:MUSICBIO. There is no music chart in India, else a couple of her songs would've made it up there.MT Train^Talk 03:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IN response to your claim, I just checked the first three again. Only one talked about her in detail. The Times of India source could not be more minor. The second was OK, and the third was minor. Don;t exaggerate the quality of the sourcing here, as it is poor.104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST says "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." Considering the fact that she's far more popular in India than here, and only speaks Hindi yet has received enough coverage in English to satisfy WP:GNG and possibly WP:MUSICBIO, there are certainly far more sources for her in Hindi. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added additional sources to the article. Passes WP:MUSICBIO She "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician." She "has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album" as she's written music for several notable Bollywood films. She "has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network" and although India doesn't have official music charts, in many profiles on her, her music is referred to as a "chart buster," "climbing the charts," or something along those lines, which indicates they were widely popular in the country. For example, this article in the India Times says "Amrita Kak, who has chartbusters like 'Just Chill' and 'Character Dheela' to her credit"^[1] or "Kak's heart pumping numbers 'Character Dheela Hai' and 'Dhinka Chika' in the recent Salman starrer 'Ready' became a rage in the country" ^[2] or "Her latest number, 'Character dheela' from the upcoming Salman Khan-Asin starrer Ready, has been steadily climbing the charts. And the same was the fate of almost all of of Amrita Kak’s previous numbers." ^[3] or "Amrita, who gave Bollywood hits like 'Just Chill-Chill' from the movie 'Maine Pyar Kyun Kiya' and 'Character Dheela' from the movie 'Ready'" ^[4] Nearly every bio on her that discusses her music says something along those lines, indicating her music is extremely popular and well-known in the country. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/music-reviews/Dangerous-Ishq-Music-Review/articleshow/12838126.cms
^ http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/i-am-too-shy-to-perform-on-stage-amrita-kak/810953/
^ http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-singer-amrita-kak-is-just-chilling-at-the-moment-1539223
^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/news/Amrita-Kak-Jhunjhunwala-singer-Just-Chill-Chill-Maine-Pyar-Kyun-Kiya-Nusrat-Fateh-Ali-Khan/articleshow/24604442.cms

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Usually, I don't like third relists but in this case, more discussion of the sources presented today makes sense.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:25, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) scope_creep (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fawzia Peer[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Not an established position for an article. scope_creep (talk) 09:45, 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 delete. Sandstein 10:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chindonesia[edit]

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

Non-notable phrase/neologism. Practically no sources can be found that actually use this phrase. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Apart from the uncompelling sources in the article it seems to be mostly used in finance for one or more investment schemes. So a barely used neologism.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears as if the word was created by an investment fund to entice investors in the region, and while there are some good references that use the term (Economist, Financial Times), they all appear to be in relation to the investment scheme, or an investment scheme. Only three of five references actually use the phrase, and one is a dictionary. SportingFlyer talk 04:53, 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. Sandstein 10:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chakresh Kumar[edit]

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

Sources are just trivial mention of her name, no significant coverage. The article is highly promotional. Mar11 (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources has information and mention of Chakresh Kumar and as well as Alankar Theatre. Apart from that, the article is linked to two other articles on wikipedia, named Shiwani Saini and Category:Indian theatre directors. Its a biographic and Encyclopedic article of one of the eminent directors in Indian Theatre.If anyone thinks that the article does not has enough sources and needs more information, should help by adding more information. Sanjeev22mannan (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of indepth coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:00, 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 delete. Sandstein 12:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Transit Commission bus garages[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced collection of bus fancruft and WP:INDISCRIMINATE information Ajf773 (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete~~Merge~~ - I fail to see the reason -- if there were actually more secondary sources -- why a seperate article is warranted for eight garages.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About 99% of the article is unsourced (and mostly contributed by anonymous editors) so there is very little in the way of merging. Besides that most of it is fansite material Ajf773 (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Ajf773, I'll drop the merge suggestion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is WP:CRUFTCRUFT. There are obvious alternatives to deletion per our editing policy. There are plenty of sources which can be used to improve the article, sources such as The TTC Story: The First Seventy-five Years; Transit in Toronto; The Toronto Trolley Car Story, 1921-1961; Not a One-horse Town: 125 Years of Toronto and Its Streetcars. Andrew D. (talk) 08:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toronto Transit Commission bus system. These depots only deserve a passing mention, they do not warrant their own article.R22-3877 (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOTDIRECTORY. Carrite (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reference present here is a PDF of the TTC's own design report for one garage's renovation plan — which is a directly affiliated primary source, not a notability-supporting reliable and independent source. While these garages certainly get mentioned in Toronto's local media from time to time within coverage of the TTC's bus or streetcar system, they aren't the subject of any media coverage in their own right for the purposes of actually clearing WP:GNG as a standalone topic. At most they merit brief mention in the relevant places in other TTC articles — but there's no discernible reason why they would need their own standalone article just to list them. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Startup City Magazine[edit]

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

A non-notable magazine lacking independent coverage in reliable sources and current sources are either unreliable, primary or self-published. Written by an SPA who appears to have a close connection with the subject. Fails WP:PERIODICAL. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:30, 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. WP:SNOW keep as notable. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Day of the Donald[edit]

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

Minor satire book, fails WP:NBOOK. — JFG ^talk 04:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It has widespread coverage in reputable media outlets, including two articles about it in the New York Times, coverage in the The Washington Post and hundreds of RS. Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I added one extra cite to show noteworthiness. However, I did not add more because it would be over cited. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The criteria for books is terribly low; this one clearly meets and supersedes it for whatever that is worth. Again, I do not like that the bar is set so low, but we are not here to discuss a change in guidelines.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
crap keep the standard of "it got some reviews" is too low, but this obviously meets it. There's obviously not going to be any sustained interest in this book, but there's no way to get the bad sub-standard adjusted to actually meet WP:GNG. Mangoe (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has coverage in reliable sources. --Doncram (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Marquez[edit]

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

She is a democrat super-delegate and owns a Mexican restaurant. She does not pass WP:BIO as a politician, businessperson, or just in general. The sources in this article are a collection of local newspaper articles, press releases, blogs, and a one-sentence mention in the LA Times. Rusf10 (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as either a politician or businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 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) 03:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Crawley[edit]

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

Non-notable actor - has had a variety of parts, but I can't find any substantial coverage. The one ref originally in the article, to [21], seems as unreliable as it is sparse. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I did a search also, found nothing really to demonstrate notability. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this biography of a living person lacks even one source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 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 redirect to Simon Property Group. J04n(talk page) 16:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kittery Premium Outlets[edit]

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

I can't see how this... open-air outlet store?... fulfills any kind of notability requirement. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Simon Property Group. Seems to be some kind of mall. sourcing available is very weak. No need for a separate article. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to List of Simon Property Group properties. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing pretty substantial coverage for this outlet mall. I think it meets notability guidelines. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Simon Property Group. No claim to notability in the article. Deb (talk) 18:46, 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. Killiondude (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Care (Australia)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:ORG as does not state why the organisation is notable. A quick Google search fails to bring up anything notable about the organisation either. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep are you sure you know how to use Google? It tailors results on location. In Australia there are plenty of references once you pass the first few pages which is taken up by their SEO. Jewish Care are an enormous organisation and central to the running of the Jewish community. They are widely reported in the Jewish press and sometimes in the mainstream as well. (Smellytap (talk) 08:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Smellytap is a CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppet (or master) with a history of using multiple accounts in order to influence the outcome of AfDs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC) .[reply]

Comment this message was put up when the article was only a stub, and understandably a bit thin on the ground. Since then I have had the opportunity to put some more detail into the article (UnicornLoz (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

UnicornLoz is a CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppet of Smellytap. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The sources included in the article aren't necessarily the most reliable, however, there is substantial coverage and countless references to the organisation across the news media. Likely meets WP:ORGDEPTH. Kb.au (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Some book hits for instance - [22], [23], [24], [25], [26].Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 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 draftify. Killiondude (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jer Thorp[edit]

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

WP:BLP, created in draftspace and then moved within days to mainspace without a proper WP:AFC review, about a person whose claims of notability are not properly referenced. Of the nine footnotes here, five are to his own primary source "staff" profiles on the websites of his own employers or organizations with which he's been directly affiliated; one more is a piece of his own writing; two are glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage that isn't about him; and literally the only one that's actually both about him and independent of him is on a blog. Which means that exactly none of these are notability-supporting reliable source coverage about him in real media for the purposes of getting a person into Wikipedia, and nothing claimed in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced to notability-supporting reliable source coverage about him in real media. Bearcat (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify ~~TNT or send back to AFC or even Delete~~. He's definitely notable, but the page is nauseating in terms of its self promotion. There are many good sources in Google news. I deleted a chunk of self-promotion. If sent back to AFC, it should have a big sign on it that says "REDUCE PUFFERY".104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above IP comment also per the nom. MapSGV (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: TNT or Draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as there is clear notability, but the sourcing needs to be done better.--Theredproject (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bell-Grave[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

leaning ~~keep~~ delete Should be moved to Bell grave culture, but there is scholarly literature on it. Not sure how much interest there is, though, or whether the notion is widely accepted. Mangoe (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Given discussion below any article on the culture can be created ex nihilo without reference to this vestigial thing. Mangoe (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect somewhere: For a two-sentence article, this manages to be impressively bad. There certainly does seem to be a Bell-Grave culture - a late variant in southern Poland of the Pomeranian culture, more usually known in English as the Cloche Grave culture. The Bell-Beaker culture, to which the article equates it, is better known as the Beaker culture, and was about two thousand years earlier than the Pomeranian culture. PWilkinson (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly this is not an encyclopedic article. It is merely two completely uncited sentences that make little sense. Softlavender (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect (if so, where)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Seems to be the subject of pretty much scholarly discussion. See here e.g.. It's a big deal in Polish archeology, see this GBooks search. Although this article equates the Bell Grave culture with the Beaker culture, that seems to be an error. That was the only likely redirect candidate and it's not actually appropriate. Hence this K. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. No sources, and some of the information in this very short unsourced blurb is wrong. If someone wants to do a WP:HEY here it seems possible - but as is there is nothing worth saving.Icewhiz (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Also worth noting several sources equate this with Lusatian culture and Pomeranian culture (as a transient) - which we have articles for. So content fork concerns as well. Possibly worth redirecting to one of them or to Pomeranian culture#Spread which does cover the bell shaped burials. It is probably mainly referred to as such by Polish digging archaeologists based on morphology in digs.Icewhiz (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see an article about historic burial customs beyond Burial#History; if this were about the burials themselves I could see a !voting keep or for a redirect to that article. As this article seems to be about a culture named for a burial practice, I don't see enought material that differentiates it from Pomeranian culture. But as "Bell-Grave" doesnt' seem to be a useful search term for the Bell Grave culture, I'd say delete. I see no reason to prejudice against a redirect from "Bell Grave culture" to "Pomeranian culture" nor, possibly, an article about Bell graves. If someone cleaned this article up in either direction, that could be fine, but I see little reason for this article under this title to not be deleted. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The name of this culture in Polish is pl:kultura grobów kloszowych, which is translated both as Bell Grave culture and Cloche Grave culture. Based on the Polish article and those searches I do think there is an encyclopaedic subject here, but this isn't a good start: it's a stub, awkwardly-titled, unreferenced, and conflates the subject with the entirely unrelated Bell Beaker culture. It would be easier to start the article over from scratch and I don't see any point in keeping a redirect with this title. – Joe (talk) 23:02, 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.

[1] Davis, Kaysey. "Toronto's Adrianne Ho Is The Latest Ambassador For Adidas Originals | Elle Canada". Elle Canada. Retrieved 2018-03-07.

[2] "SI Swimsuit 2017 Casting Calls: Adrianne Ho". Sports Illustrated. Retrieved 2018-03-03.

[3] "Swim into spring: Canadian model Adrianne Ho talks swimwear trends, new collection with Simons". Vancouver Sun. 2016-04-18. Retrieved 2018-03-03.

[shape-4] "Fitness Model Adrianne Ho Talks Workouts and Beauty Tips". Shape Magazine. Retrieved 2017-10-20.

[hm-5] "Adrianne Ho on why she loves her body | H&M". H&M Magazine. Retrieved 2017-10-20.

[6] "Morning Glory: Adrianne Ho". Harper's BAZAAR. Retrieved 2018-03-07.

[7] "Adrianne Ho Is the New Face of Adidas Originals Who You Probably Already Follow on Instagram". Sharp Magazine. Retrieved 2018-03-07.

[flare-8] "30 Under 30: Adrianne Ho, Model & Lifestyle Guru". Flare Magazine. Retrieved 2017-10-20.

[9] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/music-reviews/Dangerous-Ishq-Music-Review/articleshow/12838126.cms

[10] ttp://archive.indianexpress.com/news/i-am-too-shy-to-perform-on-stage-amrita-kak/810953/

[11] ttp://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-singer-amrita-kak-is-just-chilling-at-the-moment-1539223

[12] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/news/Amrita-Kak-Jhunjhunwala-singer-Just-Chill-Chill-Maine-Pyar-Kyun-Kiya-Nusrat-Fateh-Ali-Khan/articleshow/24604442.cms

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]