Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 30 April 2 May >

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akhmat Azimov[edit]

Akhmat Azimov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nn serial killer sourced from sensationalist sources Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 09:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 09:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 09:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, in the book Queer in Russia: A Story of Sex, Self, and the Other there is a couple of sentences, but a lot more would be needed for a standalone, did find an article in the Russian WP, but they also have it up for deletion, the discussion is here, and doesn't look too good for the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am exceedingly skeptical about this allegedly notable serial killer because, under the spelling/name given, the sole hit in a ProQuest news search is a story in BBC Monitoring (the BBC service that translates articles from around the world,) and the relevant sentence reads: "Akhmat Azimov, chairman of the Russian Congress of the Caucasian Peoples, is interviewed on the goals of the congress. "We want to help the government and the public yada, yada..." Point is, with details this lurid there ought to have been some contemporary coverage in the Latin alphabet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not surprizing, actually. Who the heck cares what's up in some Uzbekistan-Smuzbekistan. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 2 references on the same day with the same title and nothing else cited. There is no significant coverage so it does not meet WP:GNG. I should add that I cannot verify the references cited because google translate cannot read them. They are just a bunch of random symbols. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nthep (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Ahuja[edit]

Anand Ahuja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not inherited, his fiancé may be notable but that does not extend to him. The sources in the article aren't focused on him alone, but always in the context of his fiancé. Nothing supports notability independently. Ravensfire (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable businessman who fails WP:ANYBIO. Also lacking a credible claim to significant that is not inherited WP:NOTINHERITED from his family or fiancee.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 09:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 09:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I proposed deletion earlier, but it was removed. Natureium (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets the notability criteria to get verified HeyLetgoletgo (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note HeyLetgoletgo is the article's creator.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete verification is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hello, Admin. I've added all the right citations which refers to him alone and got rid of all the errors. So kindly check and do not delete the page in a haste. Yes, the previous urls were linking him to his fiancee only, which is why I got rid of many. So please do check and reject the idea of speedy deletion. And one more thing, I think instead of the users suggesting it for deletion, they should work on improving the article, like I have. Improving an article, is much better then considering it for deletion. Thank You! --Princessruby (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the existing sources are either about him as a fiancé or relative of a notable person (WP:NOTINHERITED), or primary sources including press releases (WP:PRIMARY). Attempts to pad the article with trivia don't make a convincing case for notability. --bonadea contributions talk 07:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Create a "personal life" section at Sonam Kapoor and redirect "Anand Ahuja" to that section. This is because they are set to marry tomorrow. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nominator. Redirecting a BLP to another BLP is a terrible practice. ~ Winged BladesGodric 09:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will re-open if sources are located within a reasonable amount of time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haar Jeet (TV series)[edit]

Haar Jeet (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTABILITY Panam2014 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unreferenced since February 2012 (two months before supposed cancellation), all plot and casting, premise description is clearly promotionally toned. Indian television shows are rarely notable. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as per WP:TVSERIES nationally broadcast tv series are normally notable with offline sources if not online sources and Indian tv shows are no less notable than US series Atlantic306 (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: please provide sources.--Panam2014 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • will search tomorrow, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • changed to weak keep as there could be offline sources but online could only find this that is directly about the show but somewhat promotional, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Not an iota of decent sourcing, even in vernacular sources.All mentions appear to be semblant to trivial specks in interviews of lead actors in tabloids and entertainment supplements.No indepth coverage is existent.And, AFAIK, being a TV show is not an autoindicator of encyclopedic notability.~ Winged BladesGodric 17:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frontera Emerging Markets[edit]

Frontera Emerging Markets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nn business Staszek Lem (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - this winter has been long enough. I'm finding no consensus whether or not to redirect, but I note that all mention of Rightpedia has been removed from the Metapedia article as of right now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rightpedia[edit]

Rightpedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find a single reliable source that reports on Rightpedia in depth, aside from the two SPLC articles which are equally, if not more about Wikipedia/WMF's policies. This website woefully fails WP:NWEB and while it's interesting and has history for many long term editors here, outside of the Wikipedia-world, it's utterly irrelevant. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possibly speedy - may fail WP:A7 as there is not a shred of notability to be seen. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kirbanzo I considered that first but the SPLC piece is significant despite not establishing notability. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - poor existing sourcing, and a Google search uncovers no media coverage. The SPLC alert, which is listed twice, isn't enough. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is the worst sourcing I've ever seen; Stormfront, Twitter, Wikipediocracy, and WP:SPI are all references. I don't see enough that meets GNG; the only thing I find not in the article is the RationalWiki article on it. The site itself has about 2 editors and barely loads, I doubt anyone would want to discuss it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hilariously poor referencing. There's some mildly interesting results on Google News, but nothing close to establishing notability. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very poor reference. Not very interesting at all. INeedSupport (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possibly WP:SALT due to notability concerns namely being just self published sources out there. I would add salt here due to the socks that were all recently caught editing this page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails notability, poor sourcing. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (fully protected) with an optional very minimal merge to Metapedia where there is already a short explanation of this topic. That paragraph is sufficient coverage given that this is only a very minimally notable topic. If that can be expanded very slightly with a very little of the material here, and one or two of the better references, then that would be OK but I don't see sufficient sources for this to have its own article or even a large section in any other article. It is sufficient that anybody who wishes to know what it is can search for it and get redirected to a short paragraph telling them what it is. This is not the sort of topic where greater detail adds greater edification.
    Whatever the outcome here, I recommend permanent full protection in order to prevent the lolnazis and their sockpuppets from messing around with it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with redirecting is that the sentence about it is totally unsourced. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 10:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is the SPLC source for that, so delete and redirect makes sense. The most important part is delete though, considering the total lack of significant coverage. Regards SoWhy 10:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SoWhy Normally I wouldn't push back on this but the one sentence mention of Rightpedia in the SPLC article supports virutally nothing in the paragraph on Metapedia. It's hardly meaningful and saying "Rightpedia was created by a neo-nazi from Metapedia" is rather silly. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrissymad: It supports the fact that RP is a fork of MP and since RP is a possible search term, it makes sense to redirect as long as it's mentioned in the MP article. As I said though, deletion is more important. Redirect can always be created later. Regards SoWhy 19:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Much as I am sure this must be notable, I can actually find no decent sources for it. So I have to vote delete.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG. Redirect so long as the mention at Metapedia stays. Don't see a need to salt yet. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Not seeing the need to WP:SALT yet. -- Dane talk 16:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Not notable. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 23:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nominator should try WP:PROD next time. wumbolo ^^^ 15:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then redirect to Metapedia (again on the basis it's discussed there, so a redirect makes sense and allows someone searching us something to find, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to have somewhere where it's made clear how disgusting the site is. Don't salt, I don't think there's a need yet. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 North Dakota State Bison#Media. Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bison Illustrated[edit]

Bison Illustrated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:Notability. A search does not show sources outside of the brand itself or its parent company. Editor10293813 (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. North Dakota loves the Bison, and this publication is cited frequently in connection with NDSU sports reporting (here's one from Sports Illustrated:[1]), but other than a non-NPOV university press release announcing its first issue [2] I don't find much to suggest it needs its own, separate article. The magazine is already mentioned in the main NDSU article; I suggest adding a similar sentence at North Dakota State Bison#Media and calling it a day. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KingAndGod 15:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Arxilos; perfectly legitimate publication but the article's current state seems to demonstrate that a separate article can't really be justified based on independent coverage. It can correctly and usefully be mentioned in the general article about NDSU. ~ mazca talk 22:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - agree with above consensus - not enough for a standalone - works as a redirect. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 04:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Morisod[edit]

Alain Morisod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was dePRODed without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Sources are all primary, interviews, local interest sites, or only fleeting mentions. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no sources proving notability, no notable Ghits either. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We don't create disambiguation pages for Second child of the Prince and Princess of Wales, or Fourth child of the King and Queen of England, or Third child of the Emperor and Empress of Russia, etc. Why it should take 4 attempts to get this page deleted is beyond me. The concept is absurd. No respectable encyclopedia draws up such lists. This is a very unlikely search term and even if readers were searching using this term, they can still do so and still be directed to the correct article through the search results. DrKay (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I would not want to insult the closing administrator's intelligence by further explaining why. Surtsicna (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Has there been any proposal to create a new project called "Dis-ambiguation pages for deletion"?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you think someone would recreate it after it's deleted? If it has already been recreated a couple times, sure, but that seems super unlikely to me. -- Tavix (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It being recreated and deleted 4 times is absurd. A SALT is definitely in order - besides, better safe than sorry. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably. But this leads to a partial answer to the nominator's question: because the speedy deletion nomination wasn't valid. At the time of this nomination, the page was a redirect to Prince Louis of Cambridge, and the criterion it was nominated under was G4. Was the previously deleted version a redirect to Prince Louis of Cambridge? I somehow doubt it. — Smjg (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR.Icewhiz (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Google results for "third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" are about Prince Louis of Cambridge. A disambiguation page is not necessary. The term has never been used in reference to Princess Amelia of Great Britain or Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge. Firebrace (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. e.g. "Princess Mary Adelaide ... is the third child of the late Duke of Cambridge ..." (Illustrated London News 14 Jun 1868 [3]. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is not titled "third child of the late Duke of Cambridge". Try harder. Firebrace (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Try harder"? Without too much effort I've given a counter-example to your speculative and unprovable opinion that "The term has never been used...". Google's a bit short of material from 1711, so I suppose I could try harder, given a good archive library, to see if the term was actually used for Princess Amelia, but instead I'll just smile at your cheek. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't a "term" - it's just a descriptive phrase. But regardless of what it is, I concur: how on earth can you prove that nobody has ever, in speech or writing, referred to Amelia or Mary Adelaide as the "third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge"? — Smjg (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely unnecessary. Rupert Rostenkowski (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for just about all the reasons already mentioned to avoid creating a useless "directory" listing, and as per the precedent of having deleted equivalent pages for George and Charlotte. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (facing into the snow) because I see a disambiguation page with 3 valid entries and no policy/guidance reason to delete (except perhaps WP:NOTDIR). This discussion reads like Arguments to avoid bingo. So far I can spot "No respectable encyclopedia..." (WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC), "absurd" and "insult ... intelligence" (WP:IDL), "not needed" and "completely unnecessary" (WP:WEDONTNEEDIT), "All Google results..." (WP:GOOGLEHITS) and "all the reasons already mentioned" (WP:EVERYONEELSE). House!  :-) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WEDONTNEEDIT applies to articles, not disambiguation pages, which is what we are discussing here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For that matter even the WP:NOTDIR comment is a mere WP:VAGUEWAVE! Notwithstanding, it gives weight to most of the other arguments, and while we now have proof that "third child..." has been used to refer to at least one of the other dab targets, it is hardly a plausible 21st Century search term for anyone other than Prince Louis. So I'll change my WP:EVERYONEELSE to WP:NOTDIR, coupled with the precedent of his siblings' pages. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: if this was unambiguous it would be deleted at WP:RfD as a redirect from a (now?) implausible search term; there's no justification for creating a dab page just because a couple more potential targets can be dreamed up. PamD 11:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Related discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 2#Second son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. -- Tavix (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This now has no obvious purpose and I cannot image it is a term people are going to search for. Dunarc (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the title thing is sufficiently explained on the baby's page.17:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete -- I was going to suggest a simple redirect, but find that we have two other possible targets. However this is not a very useful search term . Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and restore the redirect, as above, to maintain inbound link support. James F. (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milestone (music venue)[edit]

Milestone (music venue) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable local business. Despite the grandiose claims made about this place, it seems no one has written about it outside the local community. Fails WP:NCORP. John from Idegon (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  21:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those doing a broader WP:BEFORE might find it worth looking at the page history before Nom appeared, since some aggressive removal of non-cited work have rather aggressively trimmed the article, and they might give a chance to find something. My brief search (too little to cast a vote, yet) only found either the local sources given, or very brief mentions in several books about North Carolina music/musicians. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're not in the business of providing free web hosting. The stuff myself and others trimmed were unsubstantiated highly grandiose claims that would require really good sources. I found no good sources even local. Just the theatre group (whose Wikipedia article had the same creator and is equally weak) and a local entertainment website, whose reliability is questionable. I have doubts that the brief mentions found in books are anything but circular. If the grandiose claims can be substatiated, yeah, this place is probably notable. Maybe I'm jaded, but this sure seems like PR hype. John from Idegon (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't denying that they were unlikely, just that they might indicate a few places worth looking in a proper WP:BEFORE. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well- I 'm unsure exactly more I need to find. Should I contact the various bands of note that have played there to provide a letter of support? But how and where should I publish and provide that? What more sources will I need to provide? (John from Idegon thought this article wasn't appropriately cited: http://www.charlottemagazine.com/Charlotte-Magazine/October-2009/Musical-Milestone/) I'm not saying every place should have a wiki page devoted to it- but this particular spot may need to have a second look due to not only it's age but the bands that were upstarts coming through just before they became national or radio hits. If you can't take local newsprint, or regional magazines- it begs to ask, how can I or anyone prove something here? I'm more than willing to do the research and find a proper way to present this, I just need to know what that is to satisfy someone like John from Idegon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckbutt23 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duckbutt23, it's not a case of 'satisfy someone like John from Idegon', and that personalisation is not appropriate, especially as John is a highly experienced editor. It has to do with satisfying Wikipedia's criteria for notability which the Milestone venue clearly doesn't - see Quasimodo (music venue) for an example of a notable music pub - note its sources in the established, nation-wide quality press. Note also that notability is not inherited - the artists who have played there, while mentioned, do not add to the notability Wikipedia requires. It's the sources that count. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigmamsg 04:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HER_(healthy_energy_revitalizer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
HER_(healthy_energy_revitalizer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable product and also fails WP:GNG. There have been no significant coverage about the product for 7 years. I did some research for some other possible reliable sources, but there was none -- only a news article from BevNet which also fails WP:RS Romrom9 (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KingAndGod 15:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 notability of the subject is severely brought into question by a combination of (a) sources of questionable reliability, (b) a lack of substantial coverage therein outside of routine local news and (c) the questionable nature of "first female (rank) from (locality)" as any kind of encyclopedic claim to notability in the first place. Consensus, based on guidelines/policies on substantial news coverage other than routine in confirmed reliable sources does not seem to support keeping this questionably notable BLP. ~ mazca talk 22:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC) ~ mazca talk 22:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suhai Aziz Talpur[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Suhai Aziz Talpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NAC of last AfD by user who has now been topic-banned. Claim to notability is that she "is considered to be the first female from Lower Sindh to reach the rank of ASP in the Pakistan Police Services." Not the first female police officer, but the first female from a certain location to reach a certain rank. Most of the coverage is about routine police activities she is involved in, which is inherent in being a police officer, see also WP:ROUTINE. I don't see any in-depth coverage, aside from some public interest articles about a female from the certain place serving in a certain police role. Including facts like "When Talpur's parents first decided to enroll her at a school, most of their relatives started "taunting" the familty. They eventually decided to leave the village and move to a nearby town". I just don't see it passing WP:N, and I want to get clear consensus since past AfD was involved in the recent AfD topic bans. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There was 4-0 consensus to Keep this article at its previous AfD. The subject has received significant coverage in reputable press. Her achievement in being the first female police officer from Sindh seems significant, and follow-up articles show she has had continuing success in the role. We have articles about people who are notable for much less impressive achievements. Our test of notability is not whether you personally are interested by what made someone notable but whether journalists and other reliable sources are interested. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that is not really a response to this nomination, and I don't see any useful factual or policy assertions. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the users who voted keep in previous AfD are now XFD topic banned. --Saqib (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information, which I did not know. I see a topic ban from AfDs for Arif80s. Which of the other 3 keep votes is topic banned? HouseOfChange (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The one who made strong keep vote. --Saqib (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification From WP:N: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." This nomination admits, as 4 other people also stated in the previous AfD discussion, that Talpur has indeed received "in-depth coverage" including details that describe her childhood and education. Please cite policy justification that this in-depth coverage should not establish notability because 1) you personally do not consider her achievement significant and 2) in-depth coverage of her occurred in "public interest articles." Is there a policy exception somewhere denouncing "public interest articles"? I rarely see any other kind of article used as a source of significant biographical detail for our biographies. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "First female ASP from lower Sindh" is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia, unless meet GNG. Search doesn't produce any significant coverage in the independent RS about the person except only one human interest story so Can't see any significance, --Saqib (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I clicked through the references and there is significant discussion about this person to satisfy WP:GNG.[4][5][6] Per WP:NEXIST, there are likely more sources in her native language. Lonehexagon (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lonehexagon: You may don't know, but two of the sources (awamiweb.com and jworldtimes.com) you provided are not reliable by any means. --Saqib (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: Do you have more information about that? Lonehexagon (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lonehexagon: More information about these two sources being unreliable? Being a Pakistani, I never saw their usage as a RS anywhere, on or off Wikipedia. If it make sense to you I would say try external links search. Awamiweb.com cited nowhere whereas the latter one is cited in a couple of articles and should be removed outright. --Saqib (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bolsonarism[edit]

Bolsonarism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an ideology related to a brazillian politician. Such article doesn't exist in portuguese and the existance of the ideology itself is dubious. The sources used are not neutral. They are mostly left wing media that criticizes this right wing politician Holy Goo (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete and redirect to Jair Bolsonaro#Political views. Delete because the content is heavily non-NPOV sources. especially the ridiculous "cult of personality" part: every noisy politician has his claque, so what?. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The term is not mentioned in that section because no reliable sources exist for it. If there's at least two reliable sources that can attest to the term's usage, then may be we should consider redirect. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or Redirect - I am Brazilian and I assert that this is not a formal term, not even a recurring term. The same should be done with Lulism.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete and no need of redirect. First delete the article because it is promotinion of non notable term based on dubious sources. No decent sources exis for it. Then there's no need for redirect because no evidence of the terms usage (which is different from notability) even in suboptimal sources. Only this wikipedia article and another dictionary definition, which doesn't have relationship with this concept–exist when you search the term. Redirect is meant for termsusagee ery likely to be search based on evidence not just because it is created, let's leave it. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable WP:ADVOCACY page. I don't see a need for a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No redirect becuase Ammarpad demonstrated a lack of plausibility. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malpan[edit]

Malpan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a dictionary entry and Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT). -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 15:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've found a few references (such as [7] [8]) but they say little more than that this is a Syriac term for teacher. I'm not sure if some article about teachers could discuss this term with a redirect there (keeping history), or if it should just be deleted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:DICDEF. Septrillion (talk) 04:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Mcintyre[edit]

Mathew Mcintyre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of any significant coverage in reliable sources. Claim to notability is a nonexistent world record category. Sole source is 146 words at Sun City Biker, which appears to be a copy-paste of a press release from a motorcycle dealership. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Only reference is to another Wikipedia page which makes no mention of this person. A search also returns no notable info about this person. Editor10293813 (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zero indication of notability. --Kinu t/c 20:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A speedy candidate if I ever saw one. Husounde (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Shah Abdul Haq Gillani[edit]

Syed Shah Abdul Haq Gillani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, no reliable sources. I couldn't find any better sources when I searched for them; Google News and Dawn don't yielt any results. Huon (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of my searches came up bare as well. I had previously tagged the page with BLPPROD but the creator added a few links; even then, the references they added were questionable. Nanophosis (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I considered closing as redirect but really doesn't make sense as anyone searching for it would find WWE Greatest Royal Rumble anyway J04n(talk page) 14:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Trophy[edit]

WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability in the trophy GalatzTalk 14:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. GalatzTalk 14:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trophy may not be important to you, but it is significant, and if this page is deleted, then someone else may create it again. I hope you can't put this deletion tag everywhere. And the WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Championship page is even created by me. User:Hamza Ahmad Wiki Scientist
  • Delete The event in itself is notable. The trophy is not. The argument "someone else may create it again" doesn't hold any water, as if it is recreated, and doesn't address the reasoning for deletion, it will be deleted again. It's a kayfabe award for a one-off event, and doesn't hold any significance outside it. The battle royale held every Wrestlemania has a trophy awarded to the winner. That trophy does not have it's own article, which is a very good sign that this itself is not notable enough to warrant inclusion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • To tag that thought, we actually just moved the article to the battle royal over the trophy because consensus was the match was notable and not the trophy itself. And also the article could always be WP:SALTed to avoid recreation if there was an issue with recreation. I am not nominating the belt for now, I am undecided on it, because that is something that time will tell. If its carried around and used like a real belt then it has a case, but the trophy wont be, so to be this one is clear, the belt is too soon. Hamza Ahmad Wiki Scientist you might also want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT in your free time. - GalatzTalk 17:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Also, the WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Championship is completely wrong in its treatment of the belt that was awarded. It is not a regular championship title at all. It is not listed as a current championship on the WWE website, and that's the definitive source, so I've already removed it from the navbox and list article. It's exactly like this trophy, in that it has absolutely no separate notability from the event. oknazevad (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC) PS NotTheFakeJTP and I had the exact same point at the exact same time.[reply]
  • Delete - the event was clearly notable. The trophy awarded to the winner has no independent notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's basically the Greatest Royal Rumble version of the Andre the Giant Memorial Trophy. And as for the notability, WP:DOUBT. Also, don't flag things for deletion just because there is no notability (aka WP:ZEALOUS). Hansen Sebastian 04:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Yet the consensus was the Andre the Giant Memorial Trophy was not notable, therefore your argument makes no sense. Also WP:ZEALOUS is not an argument for lack for notability, that is why you delete things around here. - GalatzTalk 11:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WWE Greatest Royal Rumble; redirects are cheap. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no notability. Septrillion (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kapler[edit]

Daniel Kapler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography is sourced only to a single entry on the non-RS discogs. A BEFORE search finds no relevant mentions on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, or newspapers.com. Chetsford (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 03:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 03:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 03:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a notable musician. There are no significant coverage in reliable sources. KingAndGod 13:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep argument clearly state that they feel criteria 1 and 3 of NMOTORSPORTS are met, and why. Rest of keep !votes either parrot this statement or add nothing to the analysis. Delete argument does not state why the keep argument analysis of NMOTORSPORTS is incorrect. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calan Williams[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Calan Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A previously deleted stub about racing driver with no wins. Still fails GNG. Calton | Talk 03:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 03:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 03:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Williams competed and won the National Formula 3 championship in Australia winning races at all rounds. The Australian Formula 3 Premier Series is the highest level of formula racing in Australia and of national interest. HockeyHero88 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HockeyHero88. Meets criteria 1 and 3 of WP:NMOTORSPORTS, and is also in the currently proceeding 2018 Euroformula Open Championship, which clinches the matter in my opinion. SunChaser (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete special pleading aside, he does not meet the notability standards for notability of motor sports competitiors, which like all other sports notability criteria we currently have are ludicrously low.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's unclear whether WP:NMOTORSPORT is met, based on the current discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly meets WP:NMOTORSPORT. FloridaArmy (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know zero about motor sport but if the content in the article is correct, then the subject meets more than one NMOTORSPORT criteria. Aoziwe (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The 'keep' folks are not stating how NMOTORSPORT is met
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 14:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gairrett Brothers band[edit]

Gairrett Brothers band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced article, with some advertorial undertones, about a band whose only discernible claim of notability is that one member went on to play as a supporting session musician for more notable solo artists. This is not an WP:NMUSIC pass, but nothing else here appears to be one either -- and apart from one directory entry on an unreliable "musical rarities" fansite, the only other referencing here is unnecessary retriplication of a single article in their own hometown newspaper. But if a band doesn't have any notability claim that would pass any of NMUSIC #2 through #12, then it takes quite a lot more than just one piece of hometown coverage to get them over NMUSIC #1. Bearcat (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 09:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 09:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references are a compendium of Norman Petty productions and one dedicated article in a regional reliable source. The search tools provide nothing but confirmation of the dedicated article. Not close to WP:NM. Out the revolving door. Tapered (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agatha Magtibay Almeda[edit]

Agatha Magtibay Almeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a fictional character, which is written entirely in-universe and shows no evidence of real-world context for what would make her notable enough to have her own standalone article separately from already being discussed in The Blood Sisters (TV series). The sourcing here isn't cutting it, either: two of the four footnotes are to the show's own self-published content about itself; one is to a profile of the actress (not the character) on a user-generated "social news network"; and one is to a reaggregation of content about the actress originally published on a WP:BLOG -- which means that exactly zero of them are reliable and notability-supporting sources. As always, making a fictional character notable enough for her own article requires context and impact in the real world, not just the ability to write "biographical" content about her life inside her own fictional universe. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -WayKurat (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's thought experiments[edit]

Einstein's thought experiments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research and not a suitable topic for WP. Has many problems: consists of unencyclopaedic writing from the first paragraph ("In his youth, he rode beams of light"), and only gets more florid later on. Numerous lengthy quotes and sections written as lists not prose. But primarily is original research, relying heavily on interpreting primary sources. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I provide many primary source references for people who are interested, I have carefully made sure that all statements and claims that I made in the article are based on reliable secondary sources.
Please provide a list of statements that you claim represent wp:OR of primary source material. I will be able to justify all of them with quotations from secondary sources. Some may require my scanning books and journals that are not available online. In those cases, I will upload scans of the secondary source material to Google Drive for you to examine.
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It may be helpful to create a separate Primary Sources reference group so that people can clearly distinguish between primary source material and secondary references. I included a lot of links to primary source material because I am an amateur historian of science, and I happen to love this stuff. But, as is evident from the Afd nomination, my inclusion of so many links to primary source material can be misunderstood.
I'm not sure what to do about my "florid" writing. To me, it is "engaging" writing. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors are the people who can help you with that. Make a request there. SpinningSpark 22:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've segregated primary sources into a separate group from other references. There are a few places where I could add an additional secondary source reference. Isaacson was my "go to" source, but I was using it so much, I was worried about running out of letters of the alphabet, so I sometimes didn't stick it in at a few points where I probably should have. What happens after you reach the letter "z"? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as content is very notable, but style of writing needs to be toned down. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - scanning the article, nothing stood out as requiring deletion of the article. Needs editing of the "engaging" writing and focusing on "thought experiments". Added "tone" template since that seems to be an early consensus and it can warn the readers as well as flag editors. StrayBolt (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had originally intended the article to be simply a recounting of Einstein's documented thought experiments, ignoring the numerous pastiches that people have claimed to be from Einstein, but which really, like Washington and the cherry tree, represent later fabrications. (Twins in rocket ships and some later variations on the elevator gedanken go in this category.) It would also have allowed me to present nearly a dozen lesser known thought experiments, including a fascinating set that he devised while considering, and refuting, Nordström's theory of gravitation. But I discovered that focusing on the thought experiments themselves, as you seem to suggest, resulted in a dry, disconnected narrative. Rather, I found it much better to focus on a few of Einstein's most important thought experiments and to explain the context in which they were presented. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the topic is notable; secondary sources are used. --D.H (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup/keep Useful article. --MaoGo (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important topic. There are plenty of sources available. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an incomprehensible nomination. Anyone who knows anything about the history of science, when hearing the phrase "thought experiment", will immediately think of Einstein. These thought experiments form the basis of much of the physics of the last century. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep It needs some cleanup and there is plenty of sources, also it is a important topic. Felicia (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Years ago, I had read Einstein Defiant, by Edmund Bolles, and from that book, I had gotten the mental image of an aging genius completely unable to adapt to the new paradigm of quantum mechanics. A few days ago, I read this article and was stunned. I immediately borrowed Stone’s biography from the library and everything checks out! I have no idea what the nominator meant when he claimed that this article represented original research because everything is documented in secondary sources. Maybe, like myself, he found the view of Einstein presented in this article completely different from everything he had previously learned, and he just didn’t believe what he was reading. Last night, I borrowed Isaacson’s biography from the library, and so far, I can attest to the accuracy of the sourcing. This is one of the best articles in Wikipedia. 24.173.36.59 (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Sabur Khan[edit]

Md. Sabur Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced info, Primary sources and announcement of his being selected as the director of some org. No significant works and coverage. Mar11 (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Chairman of a nationally significant Chamber of Commerce and winner of several awards. Arman (Talk) 04:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. Coverage is in passing, WP:SPIP and / or not independent of his executive position. Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Looking at WP:ANYBIO, this article does not seem to fit. -Handoto 00:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handoto (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saroj Karki[edit]

Saroj Karki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I almost feel bad because the subject seems to be doing interesting work, but still fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Even if the promotional tone were fixed, I don't think notability exists. Four of five references on the article are created by the subject himself (his site, his organization, and his Facebook page). The only somewhat independent source is a youth blog that may not be reliable. Even if the "youth legend" source is reliable and independent, the coverage is just an interview and there are not multiple independent sources. I could not find any other significant coverage in reliable independent sources in English (he's mentioned in passing in a number of articles, but none are significant); my apologies if they exist in another language. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many citation and sources have been added to the article, Many of the sources are in the Nepali Language also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepwiky (talk • contribs) 08:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no claim of significance in the article despite lots of refs. Szzuk (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that WP:POLITICIAN is not met J04n(talk page) 14:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jacob[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Peter Jacob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsuccessful candidate for political office that isn't notable otherwise. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won yet — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. And no, the volume of media coverage shown here is still not enough to make his candidacy a special case over and above everybody else's candidacy (a standard that isn't attained until you're approaching Christine O'Donnell levels of coverage and notoriety), because every candidate in every election everywhere could always show at least this much media coverage of the campaign. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NPOL per Bearcat's sound explanation above. Marquardtika (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer talk 01:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the rationale provided by Tomwsulcer in the first deletion discussion. To quote his argument word for word: "yes failed politician bio but passes the general notability guideline. As a reminder, the politician rule says Just being ... an unelected candidate ... does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" and Jacob easily passes with in-depth coverage here and here and here and here and here and here and elsewhere. The nominator's argument that All of the coverage surrounding him is about his campaigns and he doesn't therefore meet WP:GNG is bogus -- it would be like saying that all of the coverage about Henry Ford was about his automobile business, therefore it doesn't count and he doesn't meet the GNG. Politicians get covered about politics; business people about business. Both Ford and Jacob are notable" I must add that I feel only two months between the closing of the first nomination as no consensus and the initiation of another deletion discussion seems rather quick. I am reminded of the January 2017 discussion to delete the article covering Evan McMullin with the rationale being that he was a failed candidate, but it closed rather quickly as a SNOW keep because the number of sources covering the campaign demonstrated notability. Vermin Supreme lost every election he ran for by a wide margin, being a clearly failed candidate (and a frivolous literal joke one at that) but the attention he received made him notable. Peter Jacob has received significant coverage in his current race and has received the endorsements of significant political action committees, proving notability. A notable stub article is still an article (though it's also worth noting that the article is well above stub rating). Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that every candidate in every election always gets some media coverage in that context. But candidates are not inherently notable just for being candidates — so a candidate's basis for includability is not "the purely expected media coverage of the campaign itself exists", but either (a) "enough media coverage exists to deem this person's candidacy a permanent ten year test-passing special case over and above most other people's candidacies", or (b) "the sourcing demonstrates that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons besides being a candidate per se". And no, endorsements don't assist a candidate's notability either, because again, virtually every candidate in every election can always tout endorsements by somebody. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.(non-admin closure) per G7. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mehra (caste)[edit]

Mehra (caste) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consensus at Talk:Mehra (caste) was that the article had numerous issues, including WP:BLP violations and an apparent failure to meet WP:GNG. It was basically a caste glorification thing. Per those discussions, I turned the redirect at Mehra into a surname list, moved the list of names to that new list and PRODed this article. The creator reverted me, despite a clear consensus that the article was inappropriate. Hence, here we are with another waste of time caused by the PROD rules' inability to handle new, often pov-pushing user accounts. Sitush (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion and votes from the article talk page participants are requested
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese supercentenarians[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Japanese supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is nearly 100% duplicative of List of supercentenarians from Asia with only one name on the other list. There is no point maintaining two lists. Legacypac (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Just because one person does not want this article does not outweigh the many of us who want it to stay. Is it the fault of the Japanese that they have the bulk of the supercentenarians located in Asia? As time progresses and more cases are identified in other parts of Asia the two lists will continue to evolve and differ. If the person who nominated the deletion wants a change then why do they not propose that the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supercentenarians_from_Asia is deleted? Crveni5 (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Which page gets more hits? The top 100 Asian list or the top 100 Japanese list? Crveni5 (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Firstly, the page is not just a duplicate of List of supercentenarians from Asia with the exception of one name. It also includes information specific to Japan; living Japanese supercentenarians, and a chronological list of the oldest person in Japan since 1992 which are not on the Asian page. I also agree that as time passes more cases will be identified (able to be verified) in other parts of Asia, specifically China and India and it is premature to discuss removing the page for Japan, a country with the second most verifiable number of supercentenarians.TFBCT1 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I agree with Crveni5 and TFBCT1. - Alumnum (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is your WP:CRYSTAL ball working? Legacypac (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment I'm all for condensing these lists down as much as possible but I reckon it'd be better to keep this one and redirect/delete the Asian one. Googling some of these names and you'll find a mention they're the oldest in Japan (country) but no mention of Asia (the continent). And like you said, the only difference is 4 immigrants who belong on their country of death lists and Yisrael Kristal who is covered in the oldest men list. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Noticed a bit of canvassing for this discussion so I have added the appropriate notavote tag. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're canvassing comment is in reference to someone leaving me a message regarding this concern on my talk page. For the record, I've been updating the Japanese page on a daily basis since 2015 which means my input is more than warranted and it should be reasonably presumed that I would have certainly noticed this discussion anyway.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the 110 Club is at it again, encouraging its members to come here and vote against the proposal, so the canvassing tag is appropriate. Canadian Paul 15:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. Article is not merely a duplication of the Asia article; this one has extra statistics and Japan-specific information the other one does not. I'd also be fine with CommanderLinx's proposal above, namely redirecting the Asia article to this one. There is nothing unencyclopedic about this list; look at (on the same subject) Oldest people, List of oldest living people, and List of the verified oldest people, all of which exist and to my knowledge have not been challenged. 65HCA7 22:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for delete have been set forth since the article has been moved and improvements have been made. By all appearances GNG has been met and the subject has been shown to be notable within the field. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Giloth[edit]

Cooper Giloth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searches turned up not a single in-depth source regarding this individual. Books turned up a few trivial mentions, but nothing which would meet WP:GNG, certainly doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC nor WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 TT me 12:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Userfy or Draftify Keep (per below) as this is a new user who struggled to put the article into userspace (first moving to Wikipedia: space). The subject of the article has a strong shot at notability, as she was very active in the 80's (pre-internet of course) [9]. The article still needs work, despite The Mighty Glen's effort to clean it up. The COPYVIO flag for the list of articles seems incorrect, and easy enough to fix: are copyrightable lists as such even copyrightable? For example: recipes are not. I put a Speedy on there, because I think the quality of the article is too rough to have on wiki in its current state, and the new editor should have the opportunity to learn how to make it correct. Theredproject (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy userfy or draftify per User:Theredproject. I've seen lists of artists exhibitions deleted as copyvio breaches of fair use before, but I don't really know copyright law in sufficient detail. So I'll simply leave that last copypaste tag in place, and let an editor who does know to make a decision. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Seems I missed the fact that the article title is a typo. The artist's real name is Copper Giloth, not Cooper. Agree with the draftify/userfy above. Onel5969 TT me 14:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all - I'm not going to argue for or against deletion since I watched over this class under my work account, Shalor (Wiki Ed). Looking at the page, it looks like the works section is actually a list of news articles that were written about Giloth as opposed to things she created. I'll try and do some cleanup as the class has ended and I'm not sure that the student would return to edit the article. Give me the evening to see if I can fix this? ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think I've added enough to establish notability. Part of the issue here is that Giloth was more active prior to the widespread use of the Internet, as most newspapers don't really upload their articles pre-2000. I've found some mention of her in various books, where she's credited as being a pioneer within her field, and she's also been featured in some exhibitions at major museums such as MoMA, which would be enough to establish notability. As far as the copyvio goes, there's no real way to re-write citations or even a list of works in general, so I would say that this is safe from speedy deletion as copyvio unless there's some other copyvio visible elsewhere. I won't remove the tag since I do have a COI here with the student, but I will say that this isn't the type of things that would be considered a copyright violation. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched my vote to keep based on this solid work by ReaderofthePack. Theredproject (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry - that was my mistake. I think I had an old version of the page up and ended up editing that instead. It's since been fixed. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistoric kingdom[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Prehistoric kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nominator's rationale Fails WP:GNG. The game was a upcoming game, but the page was only support by two primary source which is the digital store page (that have a low entrance fee for listing) and another source is kickstarter. Matthew_hk tc 12:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also read the first nomination. The first PC Gamer article was only a paraphrase of the kickstarter campaign, not a non-routine (i.e. no in-depth coverage), the second article was certainly routine coverage. For other source that was listed in the first nomination, the original Gamepro (US) was listed as Wikipedia:VG/RS, but not sure about German edition. Haven't read the French Jeuxvideo.com article mentioned in the first nomination to comment the article was a non-routine non-press release RS or not. Matthew_hk tc 13:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk tc 12:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there is a draft that located in Draft:Prehistoric Kingdom. Matthew_hk tc 15:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ping @Ansh666: who declined PROD and speedy G4 with the following reason "a half-sentence stub was deleted via AfD before. please use AfD again". Matthew_hk tc 12:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He is, unfortunately, correct to decline both. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, if the creator continues to recreate the material, it should either be SALTed or its creator blocked (or at least strongly warned) for disruptiveness. --Izno (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly there was a PR team, or some die-hard fans of an upcoming game. The draft was created by SPA @Calicojackosaur69:, while the article was created twice by @Bubblesorg:, which had a history of defying afd (see Australian Spinosaurid and User talk:Bubblesorg#Australian Spinosaurid). Matthew_hk tc 15:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was just deleted. Why are we going through this again? Natureium (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a relevant improvement over the previous incumbent; flimsy content, bad sourcing, crystalballing. Editor does not seem to be able to grasp what makes an article worth creating or keeping (Tursiops osennae,Idiorophus,...) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would endorse WP:SALT the article titles Prehistoric kingdom and Prehistoric Kingdom if we had a consensus to delete. The creator had messaged me for deletion (Special:Diff/839149607) as well as his message in the talk page of the article (Special:Diff/839149389), indicated that he may had problem of ownership of article. Matthew_hk tc 17:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Austin[edit]

Lana Austin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run of the mill article with nothing to support notability. GalatzTalk 11:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. GalatzTalk 14:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hmm, this one is tough, as she may well be notable. Sadly, this draft makes no evidence of this. However, if she has indeed been signed, she will be notable soon enough. So, no prejudice of recreation. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep - Hmm, this one is tough, as she already always be notable. Happily, this draft makes evidence of this. However, if she has indeed been signed, she will be notable soon enough. So, yes prejudice of recreation. FaZeCastorm(talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.251.23.32 (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC) — 95.251.23.32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I struck these comments as the user has been blocked due to these comments along with other actions. - GalatzTalk 13:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lia Morán[edit]

Lia Morán (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted by PROD, re-created by same author. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (never played in a fully-professional league). GiantSnowman 10:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hardly think a 15 year old kid passes GNG or NFooty. Govvy (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, WP:NSPORTS - "This page in a nutshell: An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition...", if Liga MX Femenil is indeed "the highest division of women's football in Mexico.", is it not a "major" competition? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree, but wp:nsport does not ie. "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article.." Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NFOOTBALL is a more specific guide than NSPORT - and the other alternative is meeting GNG, which this does not do either. On what grounds would you consider this topic to be notable? GiantSnowman 14:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • i dont, hence the "comment" not "keep", thanks for clarifying things. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case, the article says she hasn't actually played a game in the league, so it's irrelevant whether doing so would make her notable. As I've explained on other similar AfD's, I think it would, but in this case, that's irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has not actually played in the Liga MX Feminil, so whether doing so would make her notable is a moot point. Smartyllama (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K-IV water project[edit]

K-IV water project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing signifies its encyclopedia value. appear some kind of advertisement to me. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. WP:NOTFUTURE applies here. Saqib (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a case of WP:N. I said the article has no encyclopedia value. --Saqib (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Any particular reason under WP:NOT for it not belonging in the encyclopedia? A major water project doesn't seem to have any difficulty under those grounds. There clearly is some degree of advertising but not sufficient to make it a dedicated advert. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - in the sense of "don't delete". Both this article, and the proposed merge target Business travel are flawed pieces that could certainly benefit from attention in the form of both writing and sourcing - but there's certainly no consensus to delete this article. Either both articles can be usefully improved to cover the distinct topics, or a combined article could be produced with this becoming a merged redirect - but as far as AfD is concerned, there is clearly not a consensus that deletion is the correct path here. ~ mazca talk 22:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bleisure travel[edit]

Bleisure travel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

seems to be a WP:NEOLOGISM SeraphWiki (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Albeit a relatively new term, it has use in a variety of reliable sources in news [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19], corporate websites [20] [21] and even some hits in scholarly articles about the term itself and its definitions and characteristics per G scholar search. I don't think the Wikipedia article is an example of NEOLOGISM: it has growing usage already -- Whats new?(talk) 06:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Business travel — this article is a stub, its not like merging will overburden the main article. The term may have usage but NEOLOGISM, if you follow it links to WP:NOTDICTIONARY — there's no need for a stand alone article about a recent slang word for "sightseeing while on a business trip" SeraphWiki (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Business travel is astonishingly bad as an article. The "Bleisure" article is largely promotional. A merge would have to be very selective. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term certainly has sufficient usage, some given by Whats new? (whose oppose I assume means keep, here) but there's plenty more with some minimal searching - this lets it avoid WP:NEOLOGISM. Next up is WP:NOTDICTIONARY - there is plenty of content that covers non-dictionary areas, the article is far beyond (scope-wise, at least) a dictionary, so I feel it avoids that. Next up is the blended bit of WP:PROMO and the merge suggestion. The article certainly is promotional, but it clearly isn't purely promo, and NPOV issues are supposed to be dealt with by editing, not deletion. If we had some excellent business travel article then I might be in two minds about merging, but doing it here seems to help no-one. Hence, keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Vocational Agricultural School of Bevalala[edit]

Higher Vocational Agricultural School of Bevalala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 09:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course: based on long-standing custom of keeping colleges. Just because this is in Madagascar doesn't mean it should be deleted. Oh, did I mention multiple, independent reliable sources? In French... [22], [23], [24] – Lionel(talk) 10:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are about all the independent sources available... The Banner talk 10:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: You'll have very few articles from the economically poor countries in Wikipedia if you apply more stringent criteria than "one independent source to prove its existence". And you'll find that Madagascar is one of the most difficult countries to find news coverage, but thankfully @Lionelt: has used his skill to find them out. Jzsj (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Accredited, referenced degree-awarding institution. Kept by longstanding precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any policy? Or just the outdated circular reasoning? The Banner talk 14:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Kudos to Lionel for truly excellent source hunting - certainly sufficient in this particular instance. I will add the best in (if not already there) to the article to make sure it isn't lost. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is it verifiable? yes. Does it look likely to be notable? Yes. Egaoblai (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Verifiable is not enough and the few sources are not really convincing. The Banner talk 21:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mainstream degree awarding institution of higher learning. Fully accredited. Well sourced. If we delete this , we must delete all the colleges in the Netherlands. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am waiting for your nominations, Kudpung. But you make it clear this is a personal based comment, not based on the article or it contents. The Banner talk 11:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be realistic: everybody stares at a few sources that does not prove anything. And everybody comes up with the same outdated circular reasoning based on absolutely nothing. Unless the closing administrator is a hero of outstanding class, the article will be kept and the encyclopedia will deteriorate a bit more. The Banner talk 22:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be absolutely correct, even if it were not subject to what some people call 'circular reasoning' (what does that mean exactly?), according to policy it would still not be eligible for deletion, and to nominate it here is evidence of systemic bias and a pattern of disruptive editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fox. Among. Chickens Nosebagbear (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And on what policy is your statement based, Kudpung? Hopefully not Schooloutcomes... The Banner talk 22:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The National Portrait Gallery Collects[edit]

The National Portrait Gallery Collects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have conducted a WP:BEFORE search and all I've found for this one-off exhibition are PR-type announcements & passing mentions. An event does not automatically inherit notability from its participants, so any argument that this event is notable because of the people taking part is incorrect. There's none of the independent, significant coverage in reliable sources that the General Notability Guideline requires. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Gives no indication of its notability and has no sources. It is rare to have an article dedicated to an exhibition, it takes a lot to clear that bar. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Septrillion (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mike_Doughty#Solo_discography. Two weeks since the initial AfD and one week since relisting, though my recommendation was to delete we have some community consensus to redirect. I will complete that process. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skittish / Rockity Roll[edit]

Skittish / Rockity Roll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A budget compilation of two previous albums that both have their own articles. This package actually has some reliable reviews: [25] and [26], but they discuss the two original albums in succession while only briefly mentioning this double package. Those and all other sources are more relevant for the two previous album articles. This double package has little or no notability in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Skittish (album). No independent notability, but still a viable search term, and worth of a mention in a "release and promotion" type section of either/both releases. Technically it could redirect to either release, but album's (Skittish) tend to be more popular/recognizeable than EPs (Rockity Roll) so Skittish may make more sense. (I couldn't really verify it by page views alone though - Skittish averages 0-9 page views a day, while Rockity Roll averages 0-8 page views. - neither are exactly setting Wikipedia on fire with page views...) Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the nominator I think Eggishorn's suggestion is a good one. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that redirect target too. Either way. Sergecross73 msg me 02:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G4. Randykitty (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kanishk Sajnani[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kanishk Sajnani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was deleted last year via AfD so I'm not sure if G4 applies. So lets revisit it. A quick G'search produce some appropriate number of coverage in the independent RS about the person but I feel most of the coverage so far is still due a single event. The article was created by a SPA so I feel there is still some COI issue. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanghvi6722 Saqib (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I didn't knew about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanishk Sajnani (2nd nomination). That one is recent so I think G4 is perfect now. Let's close it speedy. GSS beat me to the punch with Speedy tags. I suggest page be salted when deleted. --Saqib (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: A possible case of UPE and G5 too. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If the meme is notable, then the meme should have a page. The film itself, based on the discussion, does not itself appear to be notable. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strawinsky and the Mysterious House[edit]

Strawinsky and the Mysterious House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film who's only claim to notability is a non-notable meme CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep The meme behind Strawinsky and the Mysterious House is absolutely a notable meme. This meme causes the article as a whole to reach a level of notability sufficient for status in a Wikipedia article. The meme has been discussed extensively, and the film is, as a result, fully deserving of a Wikipedia article. From my perspective, this appears to be a case of excessive deletionism. SuperChris (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SuperChris Not sure where this criteria came from but the meme isn't notable nor is the film. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with SuperChris. - Alumnum (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alumnum Based on what? I will gladly withdraw this nomination if anyone can provide sources that satisfy our inclusion criteria because I can't find a single one. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I agree with SuperChris too. Strawinsky and the Mysterious House is a strongly notable meme. DarthonTheOverseer (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone going to back this up with an actual source that supports this? Or are we just going to keep saying the same thing over and over with no proof? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 02:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 02:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Before CHRISSYMAD explodes, delete is the correct answer per nom. Online searching reveals nothing that can be used as a reliable source. Reviews are all user/purchaser/non-independent sourced. Like the other deletes I'd happily change if someone can start posting suitable sources, nothing either stated here or visible online functions as such. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete My input on the subject is the same as before.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 11:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you can't vote twice. Second of all, Simply providing a link, which only shows that the subject exists, will almost never actually help out the article at AFD.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 14:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DarthonTheOverseer You keep asserting that this is notable and have yet to provide a single source which supports your claim. By those standards, my dog is notable. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chrissymad Here is real proof: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/WesternAnimation/StrawinskyAndTheMysteriousHouse There. DarthonTheOverseer (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DarthonTheOverseer Have you ever read WP:RS or WP:COVERAGE? Because a Wiki (which TV tropes is) is neither of those things. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chrissymad I found several somehow reliable sources about SatMH: https://www.google.com/search?q=strawinsky+and+the+mysterious+house+news+post&oq=strawinsky+and+the+mysterious+house+news+post&aqs=chrome..69i57.5531j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Check each of them to see if they're reliable or not. DarthonTheOverseer (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DarthonTheOverseer: - what particular ones? I clicked on the link and nothing overtly jumped out. Can you send specific links, so we can evaluate specific sources, or at least very clear details about what to go to after the google search? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable film that has no reviews and hasn't even gotten on the radar of Rotten Tomatoes. No media coverage whatsover. Fails WP:GNG. Sole basis of notability is meme featuring character Globglogabgalab, so if anything was notable and deserving of an article it would be him. However, a search for his name finds social media and blog comments about the meme with no corresponding mainstream media coverage, so also fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Woodmont Company[edit]

The Woodmont Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no sources for notability that meet NCORP DGG ( talk ) 08:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of coverage would make a real estate developer and property manager notable? What kind of coverage wouldn't be routine? FloridaArmy (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the category Category:Property management companies , a few of them are clearly notable, such as  : [[:AG Real Estate}]],and, probably, Boston Holdings. I expect we'll see about half the others at afd over the next week or two. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Digital[edit]

Wolfgang Digital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence for notability that meet NC standards DGG ( talk ) 08:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, not a notable company. Spleodrach (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - confirmed notable company. Previously discussed and passed as newsworthy. Quickly researched additional and found additional information adding to newsworthiness 17:47, 1 May 2018 (GMT)
  • Delete, I opened the refs and read them, they are very promotional, google showing mostly primary or social websites. gnews is showing hits - but given that they are actually an advertising company this is all to be expected and I would only vote keep based upon a) them being a big company or b) critical commentary, neither of which is satisfied. Szzuk (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill company, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 17:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Various reports published by the firm have been quoted in media such as the Irish Times, but these fall under the "Examples of trivial coverage" point of WP:CORPDEPTH, as do the company's industry awards and appearance in local "Fast 50" lists. The previous discussion mention in the "keep" opinion above related to criterion WP:A7 which does not in itself establish a position of notability; nor is "newsworthiness" a criterion here. All in all, a company going about its business, but I am not seeing evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tjebbe van Tijen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tjebbe van Tijen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability Speedy declined, buti consider it a valid a7 DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because a previous deletion discussion that revolved around the question of his notability ended in a decision to Keep, and no reason has been offered here as grounds for reconsidering that decision. Largoplazo (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BEFORE is missing here as I see MANY excellent book refs in Gbooks. Example: "For many, Tjebbe van Tijen embodies the Will to Archive. For years he was not only an activist, but at the same time worked on archiving material for the Aktiegroep Nieuwmarkt and similar groups who were fighting against the construction of the metro, motorways and office buildings and for the preservation of housing and work spaces for all in the Amsterdam city centre." Just click Google and search his name under books. 104.163.159.237 (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also see TEN pages of results in Google scholar. Sorry but this is a very lazy nomination. He's a politically oriented media artist who was active in the 1960s and 70s in Amsterdam and has obviously made a significant impact as he is... what's the phrase?... "Widely cited by his peers" in reliable sources. 104.163.159.237 (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with no discrimination against starting a discussion on the talk page about renaming it J04n(talk page) 13:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-US places that have a US place named after them[edit]

List of non-US places that have a US place named after them (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be WP:Indiscriminate. Awkward title, and has been awkward. Unclear why it is notable - there are thousands of places around the world named after other places. Why are these ones from the US more notable than others? (same rationale as Canada companion article). ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's an invalid assumption in this proposal for deletion. That is, that it's a list of US places. Read the title: List of non-US places.... This list is of places outside the United States. The US places are there to show that there is at least one American town named for that non-US place. Most of the non-US places are somewhere that someone migrated to the US from, although there's also a fair number of places named for battles Americans were involved in. It gives a certain perspective on American history.
This error is common enough that perhaps the list should be changed to one of US places. That would mean multiple places named for the same non-US town would be added. Currently the list has some 900 entries; once all the multiples are added, I estimate there would be somewhere around 4 to 5 thousand. The lede would have to be rewritten and it would fix the awkward title. The name could be something like List of US places named for non-US places. Dtilque (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there may be an alternative to deletion, i'm not sure what it would be though, perhaps a rename ? Szzuk (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep how places got their names (toponymy) is a notable topic and the article is in line with it. The suggestion above for a rename may merit discussion, on the article's talk page, not here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 13:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trackle[edit]

Trackle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Defunct website that made a brief splash when announced (all three sources are from Feb-March 2009), then fell off the face of the earth. It therefore fails the portion of WP:N that requires sustained notice from a large audience. Clearly this service failed to obtain that level of interest. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 09:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 09:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep company noted in various sourcea such as "Trackle"&source=gbs_navlinks_s this one in 2006 and as recently as 2014. Notability doesn't expire. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two pages in one book from 2006 hardly counts for much, especially considering that one of those pages is half screencap. Do you have any links to these sources from "as recently as 2014"? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:NTEMP. That "brief splash" was sufficient to confer notability, which does not expire. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:N, notability comes from attention sustained "over a period of time". I submit that three relatively brief articles in two months right at the point of launch, with nothing thereafter, hardly qualifies as attention over a significant period of time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 2 months would usually be viewed as long enough to avoid WP:LASTING. That grounds usually has more effect with a couple of days or a week. It looks tiny since it's so far back, but 5 months of mentions will look tiny in 25 years. It doesn't prohibit it. There isn't a rock solid objective set of rules on it, but I would say it's sufficient for keep. The coverage in the refs is significantly more than a mention, so WP:SIGCOV would seem to also be met. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:N. Septrillion (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Iranian expatriate footballers[edit]

List of current Iranian expatriate footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail WP:NOTSTATS and can find them in Category:Iranian expatriate footballers Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - poorly sourced, NOTSTATS, incorrect (some aren't expatriates, they are foreigners of Iranian descent etc.) - overalll, just not needed. GiantSnowman 08:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per article subject and content. London Hall (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, better served by the category in question, and a WP:NOTSTATS failure. I'm curious to know if this is used elsewhere. Jay eyem (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Last time I mentioned this I wanted to delete due to possible list craft. Govvy (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and lists of current players are likely to go out of date fairly quickly. Ajf773 (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 13:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Starner[edit]

Shelby Starner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No source reliable about this person. Not notable. WP:BLP fail. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 06:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm finding lots pf sources covering her very substantially on Google Books as well as some articles about her death from Bulimia and her mom's campaign afterwards. Billboard. Book sources. Etc. Had a major contract with a major label. Successful album. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - would like to see some evidence that her single or album was a "success". Otherwise the WP:MUS criteria don't appear to be met.
here and here and article about her in the Guardian about her. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, nothing there to say it was successful, though I grant you it is coverage that may contribute to notability. Deb (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She has media notice for a couple of reasons: being signed as a teenager and then dying at an early age. Musical accomplishments are minor but she does have a relatively robust AllMusic biography [27] plus an appearance at NPR [28] and some news articles on her illness and death [29], [30]. Add those to what FloridaArmy found and it's enough for a stub article at least. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the comments above. I tried incorporating some of the above sources, and others that I found. From my findings, I believe both the subject notable and potentially her album are notable. I added many of the sources to the article and there are still several others that I haven't added yet or do not have access such as [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. The nomination says the subjects fails WP:BLP but that is not the correct policy to cite as she died in 2003. I believe this meets WP:SIGCOV and possibly WP:MUSICBIO #1, 4, 12. Thsmi002 (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:MUSICBIO. Septrillion (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete - vanity, test page at best. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Shameel[edit]

Ahmed Shameel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks even trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Uncle Tupelo. (non-admin closure) KingAndGod 15:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Belzer[edit]

Bill Belzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While he was a member of a notable band, and toured with others, there isn't enough to sustain a stand-alone article based on my searches. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 05:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Uncle Tupelo. As a short-term touring-only member of one notable band he doesn't qualify under any part of WP:NMUSIC and there is no evidence in the article or in searches of complying with WP:GNG. That said, there are over 2 dozen incoming links that shouldn't be broken. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Howard (actor)[edit]

Jack Howard (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is currently sourced to IMDB and YouTube. A BEFORE search of Google News finds copious references, however, all are to teneightymagazine.com, wetheunicorns.com, and tubefilters.com, none of which appear to meet the standards expected of RS for BLPs. Chetsford (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find coverage in Variety, the British Comedy Guide, a Streamy nom for best actor, amd coverage in the Tribune. As the coverage largely revolves around his show I wpuld suggest merging to that article. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have links to any of those? I just checked Variety and all I could find was an obit from 1998 (obviously a different Jack Howard) [38] and a second article containing a one sentence mention of this individual [39]. Given that, while I would like to AGF, I think links would allow us to better evaluate the references to determine whether they are SIGCOV and RS. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Entertaibment Weekly, Evening Standard, Variety, Hollywoood Reporter noting Streamy win, are a sampling of some of the coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these definitely don't provide any biographical information. Chetsford (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 13:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Banana[edit]

Black Banana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. There appears to be one article on this club in a local Philadelphia online magazine (and it is promoting a reunion). I do not see how the Black Banana is notable. Ambrosiaster (talk) 05:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was able tp find some sources on Google Books. Seems to have been quite iconic. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it is kept, it most certainly needs a complete overhaul. It currently reads like a promotional piece. (Even though it is no longer in existence.) - Ambrosiaster (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Well respected, important club in Philadelphia nightclub and GLBT, etc. subculture history through several decades. Has been referenced in numerous articles and books over time. One should also take note when searching, by looking for the alternative names for the club, as some references only appear as those names, or even slight differences. Centerone (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You and another user engaged in a discussion about potentially putting this article up for AfD back in December 2017. There was some discussion about bringing up sources, but nothing came to fruition. Where are all of these sources showing its importance? - Ambrosiaster (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In addition to the very in-depth coverage from Philadelphia (magazine), the book Public Culture: Bulletin of the Project for Transnational Cultural Studies devotes an entire chapter to this club.[40]--Oakshade (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source. I just accessed it using a private database and read the chapter in the academic journal Public Culture. This article is certainly discussing "La Banane Noire," but defines it as a "French ice-cream parlor/restaurant that opened on lower South Street in 1971," and, although it does provide some rich information about the establishment, it doesn't classify it as a nightclub and doesn't say much about its link to LGBT culture (In fact, it says nothing). Perhaps some research will need to be done, then, to see how the evolution took place. (I'm not opposed to keeping this article, but I do think that some users are over-exaggerating its importance. Outside of small Philadelphia-based sources [and this academic article is also from the Ph.D. dissertation of a U-Penn grad student] from the time period, it is difficult to find too many sources of note. If it was such an important establishment, as Centerone suggests, I think that it would be a bit easier to find more contemporary articles about it -- outside of the Philadelphia magazine's promotional article on the Black Banana reunion.) - Ambrosiaster (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You say "Philadelphia-based sources" as if that's a bad thing. Of course a local club with significant importance in the subculture history of a local region is most likely going to be covered mostly in local sources. Part of the problem is that a lot of the sources that covered it over time were ephemeral and their historical archives have not yet been digitized. Centerone (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your original claim, as I understood it, was that it was an important night club for the LGBT movement. Now you seem to be claiming that it is a nightclub that is important to "the subculture history of a local region." Does that really meet the guidelines for WP:GNG? —I am making an effort to find sources on the subject and to substantiate its notoriety, but, looking at it objectivity, I am just not sure if this place is as notable as everyone seems to be suggesting (and are mostly suggesting without reliable sources). After doing a Google books search, I saw that it was mentioned in the endnotes of the book, Fall of the 1977 Phillies, but, aside from that, most of the references I am finding are in local restaurant directories, etc. - Ambrosiaster (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I also want to note that the Philadelphia (magazine) article is a promotional piece/advertisement for a reunion and therefore might not be considered "independent of the subject," a requirement for WP:GNG. - Ambrosiaster (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that reporter Natalie Hope McDnnald and Philadelphia magazine were paid for a "promotional piece/advertisement"? It should be noted that WP:BLP applies to non-article space and that anything slanderous on a living person must be removed immediately. --Oakshade (talk) 05:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The piece is entitled "The Black Banana Reunion" and it is patently promoting "Black Banana reunion on Sunday, January 16 (8 p.m. – 12 a.m.), at Voyeur." It also links readers to the Voyeur nightclub home page, where they can buy tickets for the event. I'm not even going to address your intimation that this is slanderous. You're just being silly. I've dedicated time to sourcing the article as best I can; I am trying to be objective. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having a link to an event a reporter is writing about is not evidence and it is common practice. Even today's New York Times has multiple links to music events being written about today. [41] Do you have actual evidence that this reporter is on the financial take and there is a conflict of interest? If not, that is potentially slanderous. --Oakshade (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, I do not want to engage in a debate with someone who is baselessly accusing me of slander for pointing out that an article promoting an event is promotional. (And no, the NY Times article that you linked is not analogous to the "Black Banana Reunion" article in that it is a review of events that have already taken place, not a piece that is promoting one single future event and is linking users to ticket sales, such as the Black Banana Reunion article is.) It should be fairly uncontroversial that that Philadelphia magazine article is promotional, and, if you want to accuse me of slander for pointing out that fact, then, to me, that is just evidence that you cannot find actual reliable sources to support the claim that this meets WP:GNG. Just because users say that this nightclub is "important" does not mean that it is if there are no sources to back that up. - Ambrosiaster (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And let me just quote this line from the piece for your perusal: "I miss the Black Banana. I miss my friends, the music, being able to have a glass of champagne in a real glass and not a dixie cup. That’s why I started the reunions – to bring people back to that experience of the Banana and introduce a new group of people to it. Today, there is a young generation embracing the 80s and 90s again – and the electro gaga scene is thriving in New York and Europe." The author is clearly identifying herself as the person throwing the reunions and is promoting them. What's slanderous here? (Read more at https://www.phillymag.com/g-philly/2011/01/11/the-black-banana-reunion/#YjhodWbfLwffF2AK.99) - Ambrosiaster (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A reporter stating their opinion on the topic they are covering - whether positive or negative - does not mean they are taking money from the topic to advertise it. You made the charge that reporter Natalie Hope McDnnald wrote a "promotional piece/advertisement" and you're not providing evidence of such. --Oakshade (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you take a moment and read the article? She is the one throwing the reunions and she is the one promoting the reunions online. Stop denying facts. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is an obvious conflict of interest here. And I'm not going belabor the point. If others need to pass judgment, they can read this thread and make up their own minds. It is clear. - Ambrosiaster (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I read it. It doesn't matter if the reporter is favorable or not favorable to the topic, it's that publisher and the reporter gave the topic in-depth coverage. GNG makes no discrimination against opinion pieces. There could be an article called "The Black Banana is the Worst Place Ever!" and that would still be considered coverage per GNG as long as the publisher - in this case Philadelphia (magazine) - is independent of the subject and there is editorial control by the publisher. There's no contention that the reporter is favorable to the subject, but your charge the at the coverage is a "promotional piece/advertisement" has no weight. The publication even discloses other articles in the same page if they are advertisements with "Sponsored Content" of which is no such disclosure exists with this article in question. If you can provide any evidence, any, that is is a paid "advertisement" as you are claiming, then there might be weight to your charge. So far after repeated requests there have been none. --Oakshade (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly did not read the article. The "reporter" is the promoter. I'll copy-and-paste what I wrote above one more time and, after that, I'm bowing out gracefully and will let others decide. You already tried to resort to dirty tactics, such as accusing me of slander, so I quite frankly don't want to engage in a discussion with you. Not to mention, you're being illogical by denying the fact that the author is the promoter, something that is clearly spelled out in this article: ""I miss the Black Banana. I miss my friends, the music, being able to have a glass of champagne in a real glass and not a dixie cup. That’s why I started the reunions [at Voyeur night club] – to bring people back to that experience of the Banana and introduce a new group of people to it." After this paragraph, the author posts: "The Black Banana Reunion, Sunday, January 16 (8:00 p.m. – 12:00 a.m.), Voyeur Nightclub." Read more at https://www.phillymag.com/g-philly/2011/01/11/the-black-banana-reunion/#Mmyj8mXriPA6ZU3v.99 Ambrosiaster (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reporter is not the promoter. Nicholas Meoli, who is not the reporter, is the promoter. If you actually read the article you'll read: "As he gets ready for the official Black Banana reunion on Sunday, January 16 (8 p.m. – 12 a.m.), at Voyeur, he shared some of his fondest memory with G Philly about the now defunct, but influential destination that inspired trends in music, fashion and nightlife throughout two decades. Here’s his take:..." The content of "That’s why I started the reunions [at Voyeur night club]" is in fact by Nicholas Meoli, not the reporter Natalie Hope McDoneld. You're digging yourself in a hole here.--Oakshade (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article looks like it may be helpful. Does anyone have a subscription to the Philadelphia Daily News archive? My main worry with this article is that it might turn into a promotional piece for the building's current occupants, an art gallery. Deb (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I understand that the club pre-dated the Internet, and there are problems getting online sources, but that doesn't mean we can pick and choose the guidelines. I did a search, and to save you from having to wade through appalling stories of racial insults targeting black people, I could only collect these.[[42]][[43]][[44]][[45]] Mostly passing references - no indepth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really this is a straw man argument as these are ignoring the coverage linked above in the Afd (even by the nom who didn't read close enough and thought it was written by a promoter) which does demonstrate in-depth coverage and passing WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can support your argument with sources that add to the article, then more power to you. I looked for quite a bit and didn’t see very much.TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Hollar (politician)[edit]

John Hollar (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notable only for being the former mayor of a small town (albeit a state capital). A BEFORE search turned up only primary sources and some local news. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 04:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Montpelier is not large enough to hand its mayors a free WP:NPOL pass just for existing, but this is not well-sourced enough to make him a special case over and above most other smalltown mayors — the only references here are routine confirmation of his election victory and the initial announcement of his campaign, which are sources that every mayor of everywhere could always show. The fact that it's a state capital isn't an automatic inclusion freebie either, in the absence of much more solid sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. Note that if you've never been to Montpelier, you probably cannot imagine how small the town is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sources do not show he meets GNG and he fails NPOL. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnybrook Plaza[edit]

Sunnybrook Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a minor suburban strip mall, not referenced to anywhere near enough reliable source coverage to make it notable. Of the 29 footnotes here, 17 of them are to the self-published websites of either the mall owner or individual businesses located in the mall, which are not notability-supporting sources as they aren't independent of the mall. Three more are to Urban Toronto and BlogTO, local urbanism blogs -- and all of the remaining nine references are to the neighbourhood's local pennysaver, which would be fine used more sparingly as one source amid a mix of solid sources, but is not widely distributed enough to count as a WP:GNG pass all by itself if it's the strongest source in play. Stripmalls are not automatically presumed notable just because they exist -- a topic like this would have to clear WP:CORPDEPTH on the basis of much wider coverage than just its own local neighbourhood weekly, but there's no evidence of that here. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Faughn[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Scott Faughn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Faughn Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. He was a low profile politician - mayor of a small town of less than 17,000 people - and now a blogger with 6,400 followers on Twitter[1]. Profile has been raised during Governor Greitens' trial but that was for cash payments he delivered to an attorney in a rather salacious case. Self-publishing a book this fall[2] Chad.huber (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Twitter - Scott Faughn".
  2. ^ "While Missouri Slept".
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Smalltown mayors are not handed an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL #2 just because they exist, but this is not sourced well enough to make him a special case over and above other smalltown mayors. And the stuff about his post-mayoral career in media is not reliably sourced at all, so it doesn't hand him a "notable for other reasons besides his mayoralty" pass either. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete run of the mill small town politician who doesn't pass WP:NPOL. His run of the mill criminal conviction doesn't get him to WP:GNG, either. SportingFlyer talk 02:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian M. Hughes[edit]

Brian M. Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Low-profile individual who does not meet the guidelines for WP:GNG. He is the son of former NJ Governor Richard J. Hughes, but per WP:BIORELATED, this does not make him notable. According to WP:POLITICIAN, only "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." Press coverage appears to be entirely absent. Ambrosiaster (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - County executive is an odd position, so before I started debating the differences of that vs mayor, I thought it easier to consider "would I vote delete if he was a mayor?". Mercer County has a population of c. 365,000 - hardly small. I'd be inclined to say WP:POLOUTCOMES would support keeping a mayor in those conditions.
Thus, next stop - considering the role. His role is the elected variant of the position. This means he is both functioning as the chief executive/administrative officer of the county for the freeholder (legislative) board, but also has the right to veto their ordinances - so he is more than just a senior administrative position. I would say this position is similar enough to consider like a mayor in lieu of niche guidelines.
Finally, the actual grounds of the proposer - that position or not, as "Press coverage appears to be entirely absent." he warranted deletion. This isn't the case, though it doesn't seem miles off. There are plenty of mentions, discounted for now, a couple of larger articles about subpoenaing him (and his position), and some longer discussions with him, including some interviews. The interviews would be useless for actually supporting non-basic facts within the article, but can still demonstrate fundamental notability being given to the individual/article as in WP:INTERVIEW#Notability.
Still a blurred state, but hopefully this provides some food for thought - if I can find some clearer secondary sourcing I'll post them for ease. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete the coverage is not enough to show notability for a local figure. County populations should not be directly compared to city populations in considering weather their leaders are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, that depends entirely on which city and which county is involved. In some jurisdicitons, the power lies largely with the county, in others, cities have relatively more power. Some cities have charters that make the mayor very powerful, others don't. Looks to me like this county exec holds real power.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- County executive by itself is not a notable position. His other claims to notability all rely on WP:NOTINHERETED--Rusf10 (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. A7. Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earthbound Trading Company[edit]

Earthbound Trading Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject only mentioned in passing in reliable sources, this lacking notability. Meatsgains(talk) 01:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as well as WP:NOTPROMOTION, notability-wise, it exists but the few mentions are all demonstrating that the store exists and is present in some location. I do like the History section which makes an overt WP:OR usage. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Party Zone[edit]

Party Zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced. Does not appear notable - fails GNG Rayman60 (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 01:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Loads of coverage on Google Books. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Truly does exist, but it's either unhosted blocks of music videos or generic 'lots of people dancing to a song' footage. No point to a redirection as it really has no notability outside of ITEXISTS TV listings hits in the past and the Books results describe a litany of things named Party Zone. Nate • (chatter) 19:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: insufficiently notable for a stand-alone article; just a channel without original programming. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per A7. MT TrainTalk 06:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Cannon[edit]

Steven Cannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON for this person. There's no coverage that meets Wikipedia's GNG threshold and that's not surprising, considering they have not released any singles or albums. A person does not inherit notability from the people they work with, so all we have to go on is a mix tape they created. Like I said, too soon. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable rapper. The page also probably qualifies for A7 speedy deletion. Meatsgains(talk) 01:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was moved to draft. Content can be merged from there. ansh666 07:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Formula One docu-series[edit]

Untitled Formula One docu-series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON article about a television series that's still in the development pipeline, so early in the process that it doesn't even have a title yet. As always, just because a proposed television series has been announced does not necessarily mean that it's ever actually going to come out the other end as a finished series that actually airs — any number of things can happen in the meantime to prevent the show from ever actually being completed at all. So Wikipedia does not start an article about a new television series the moment one or two sources exist for the announcement that it's entering the production process — we wait until the broadcaster has announced a confirmed title and a confirmed premiere date before we start an article about it. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when those details have been confirmed, but it's too early for an article about this to already exist today. Bearcat (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against timely recreation, as WP:TOOSOON clearly does apply at this point in time. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge I don't see why some of this information couldn't at least be merged into the 2018 Formula One World Championship page as the docu-series will be covering events from this year's Championship. Otherwise, it's too soon for a standalone page. Gargleafg (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I like Gargleafg's suggestion - it's a proper colloboration with Formula 1, so putting a couple of lines in the year's F1 article seems perfectly reasonable. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GhostSingles.com[edit]

GhostSingles.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Somebody's joke, with one-off coverage of said joke. No actual notability, short-term or long-term. Calton | Talk 00:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't see a chance of this being notable. Home Lander (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are sources from good, reliable publications out there, but they all came out in or around October 2013. Which means WP:NEWSBRIEF applies to this one. Gargleafg (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for the suggestion that all the references date to 2013... 30 seconds with google news showed me the site is still being mentioned in 2017 and 2018...
  • Scott Henderson (2018-03-23). "New Dating App For Kanye West Fans Set To Launch This Month". Men's Health magazine. Whatever you're into, there's probably a dating app created so you can meet someone with your shared (and often very specific) passion. There's Sizzl for bacon lovers, JuggaLOVE for jugglers, and GhostSingles.com for… ghosts apparently.url
  • Lisa Antao (2018-02-22). "Finding a match just got bizarre with these quirky dating sites and apps". DNA India. This isn't meant for people who love watching supernatural and horror films. In fact, it's a dating site for singles who are dead and looking for love in their afterlife. Yes, you read that right! The site also clearly mentions that it doesn't accept the undead or living dead, zombies or vampires. You are supposed to fill in details such as whether you are a male or female ghost, your age and whether you died horribly, tragically, mysteriously or suddenly. Well, it doesn't get spookier than this.
  • Alison Segel (2017-08-23). "9 Weird Dating Apps To Try Because What Do You Have To Lose?". Elite Daily. No, it's not that kind of ghosting, although that might happen to you anyway. This dating app is for those who actually want to date the undead.
Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So thirty seconds of Googling gets you three passing references in three joke stories? Mind pointing out how that qualifies as "in-depth coverage"?
WP:ATA has a section for nominator -- WP:IDONTLIKEIT There's no alphabet-soup shortcut for "lazy contrarianism in a desperate bid to salvage the unsalvageable", but maybe there should be. --Calton | Talk 01:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calton, I was surprised, when I checked your block log, as to how many times you have been blocked for incivility. Let me join the many people who have pleaded with you to comply with our civility policies and conventions.

    Part of being more civil would be to drop the tactic of using strawman arguments. Civil contributors hate trying to civilly discuss editorial issues with contributors who distort what they said.

    I clearly explained that the references I included were to counter Gargleafg claim that ALL the coverage dated to October 2013. Its true that there was a cluster of coverage in October 2013. But Gargleafg was incorrect to claim ALL coverage dated to that period. The existence of RS that discussed the topic, in 2018, shows that it has had ongoing coverage, for years -- even if the recent coverage is not in depth. Geo Swan (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • And I'm not surprised, based on YOUR history, that you would resort to stalking my edits -- like you do here -- because you've been stymied in inserting garbage in other articles and personal attacks when you fail badly at that. Keep this up, and we'll see whose block log gets longer.
  • If I were to bring up YOUR history, I could point to your long history of misunderstanding basic sourcing and notability standards -- like here -- and your irrelevant Wikilawyering -- like here -- that attempts to muddy the basic facts. Your "counter-argument" hinging on the use of the word "all" to counter the "non-trivial" point -- as I pointed out -- WAS and still is weak and irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 00:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your essay makes a comparison between NORAD Tracks Santa and this page. That is a false analogy, since you are trying to equate "tongue in cheek" coverage of a phenomenon which has had "significant coverage" over a "long period of time" (i.e. since the late 1950s) with "tongue in cheek" trivial mentions of this subject (even if there are multiple trivial mentions over some period of time, if they are just trivial mentions (like, for example, any of the three above articles), then they do not constitute "significant coverage"). Your argument that we should keep this because there's coverage on other "tongue in cheek subjects" also sums up to WP:BUTITEXISTS. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I cleaned up some minor typos and added another source of coverage. It just barely meets my threshold for WP:GNG, although I would like to see more about the founder and the history of the site, as well as more current info showing that it has staying power and recurring relevance. Otherwise, the WP:NEWSBRIEF argument gets stronger. Right now, I see WP:NEWSBRIEF applying more to one time news events - not web sites that are ongoing and continuing to exist. The lask of history and more current coverage (beyond what is highlighted above) is the only thing that keeps me from giving this a regular keep vote. I read the essay and also agree that the NORAD Santa example is not the best comparison, but my overarching guideline is WP:GNG, regardless of if it's satirical subject matter or not. I also noticed that the creator has not weighed in, probably because he doesn't know he can vote. I'm not sure how much weight that would have for the closer, regardless. Of interesting note - the article creator appears to be a student studying English at Arkansas State University, and this was a course assignment. [[46]] One way or the other, this will be a Wikipedia learning experience for him. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is promotional in its nature WP:PROMO and (according to the 11 references) has appeared 10 times in articles from October 2013; four being WP:RS (Time, news.com.au & CBS). WP:NEWSBRIEF definitely applies. Does not meet WP:GNG because there is no substantial coverage in WP:RS evident. Just because people are still talking about it does not make it notable and google hits are not an indication of notability WP:GHITS, WP:E=N. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_May_1&oldid=1142615665"