Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 11

< 10 May	12 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was moved to draft. Now at Draft:Skinny Dip (TV series). ansh 666 20:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny Dip (TV series)[edit]

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

Unsold television pilot ScottKnight02^Talk 23:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

move to Draft: - Lots of pilot-hype style coverage, but no pick-up order. Moving to draft will preserve the existing work in case of a pick-up. -- Netoholic @ 08:51, 12 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) 00:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zeev Schwartz[edit]

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

Schwartz was aiming to be elected to the Knesset in the 2015 elections in Israel, but after being placed only 27th on his party's list, he failed to be elected by a long way (the Jewish Home won only eight seats), so fails WP:POLITICIAN. Number 5 7 22:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looked to see if he was notable for reasons other than being a possible politician and don't think he otherwise satisfies WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 06:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is on the verge of passing WP:GNG, I see a lot of primary sources, but not many secondaries. VitalPower | talk 19:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Searched name but found no other source of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. NPOL not relevant (nor does running in small party primaries generate all that much coverage - it isn't the same as the US). I agree with VitalPower he is close to GNG based on coverage of his activities in numerous NGOs over a fairly long period - but I do not think he passes. Note that he's mainly covered in Hebrew - not English.Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 17 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. Now at Draft:The End of the World As We Know It. ansh 666 20:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The End of the World As We Know It[edit]

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

Unsold television pilot ScottKnight02^Talk 22:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

move to Draft: - Lots of pilot-hype style coverage, but no pick-up order. Moving to draft will preserve the existing work in case of a pick-up. -- Netoholic @ 08:52, 12 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 and redirect to United States Senate election in California, 2018. Those arguing keep on GNG grounds are not addressing the fundamental issue that coverage of candidates in elections is usually in the context of tbe election and in summary is a 1E. To overcome that longstanding approach needs a much stronger argument than put forward. The deletes therefore reflect policy, and its also true a redirect is often applied. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Little (engineer)[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable political candidate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:BLP1E. There was one incident at a convention and all the reportage comes from that. That's not enough for WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and Chris troutman. --VitalPower (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in California, 2018, or create a disambiguation page for Patrick little, with a link to this article, and the other patrick little. its an interesting, and notable, BLP1E, and one people are likely to look up here. if its a redirect, the term should be "Patrick Little (political candidate)" not this name, cause he is not known as an engineer.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is continuing coverage beyond the convention incident, and the polling data lends it significance. I think this has crossed the WP:GNG line. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on my view, I think there are at least two events here: the statewide poll that placed Little second, behind only Feinstein, for the office of US Senator, and the exclusion from the Republican Convention, along with the denunciations by various Republican spokespeople. These are separate events, although many news stories are reporting on them together, so BLP1E does not apply. If here is a formal resolution of opposition from the Republican party, that would at least arguably be yet a 3rd event. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mercurywoodrose above that "Patrick Little (political candidate)", would be a better title, as that is what he is notable for. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage from reliable sources for multiple events (his running, his 18% number in a poll, and his being kicked out of the California State Republican convention): http://www.newsweek.com/republican-senate-candidate-praise-hitler-907749 - http://www.sanluisobispo.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article210943069.html - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/holocaust-denier-running-congress-180505125632779.html - https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Neo-Nazi-Senate-candidate-Patrick-Little-kicked-12890730.php - http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-patrick-kicked-out-gop-convention-san-diego-20180507-htmlstory.html Also, move to “Patrick Little (political candidate)” Samboy (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Number 5 7 15:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not being argued that he passes WP:NPOL, but rather WP:GNG. With coverage from major regional sources such as the San Francisco Chronicle., San Francisco Chronicle, The Loss Angeles Times, The Tribune (San Luis Obispo), NBC Bay Area, and the San Diego Union-Tribune; with national coverage from Newsweek, the Hufffington Post,and USA Today, and international coverage from Al Jazeera. (and I strongly suspect others will be coming) This is well over the threshold of the WP:GNG, and thus also WP:NPOL point 3: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As I've contributed to this article, I don't feel like I should say anything, as it's a self-serving matter that I'd rather not lose my contributions. Nevertheless, keeping this article is pretty clear to this editor: there's enough coverage from national and reliable sources; and, moreover, being kicked out of the convention, with all the attendant hubbub, is one event, and the second-place finish in the poll is (arguably) another. A dated, formal resolution of opposition from the California Republican Party, should such a thing occur (unless it already did), would be a third; and advancing in the jungle primary system would be a fourth. I should also note my opposition to the page-move earlier: Little isn't and wasn't notable for his contributions as an engineer, and I do wish discussion had occurred before the unilateral move. (I ~~would have, and do,~~ support "Patrick Little (political candidate)".) But that's neither here nor there; anyway, keep. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 15:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Add to all the above reasons for deletion that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We need to stop giving this person free ad space. Getting kicked out of the convention makes one many things. It does not go to notability. No redirect.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAP would only apply if the article were biased in favor of Little. i do not believe that it now is. This is no free advertising, it is reporting on what other independent sources have already commented on. As for Getting kicked out of the convention makes one many things. It does not go to notability. Of course it does. Anything that causes a person to be taken note of by independent sources goes to notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soap does apply as this is a platform for subject to present his political campaign.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-winning candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and the percentage that he scored in one public opinion poll during the campaign is not an automatic "this person's candidacy is more notable than most other people's candidacies" freebie either. So that does not count as a second "event" for the purposes of exempting him from the WP:BLP1E issue. He'll pass WP:NPOL if he wins the election in November, certainly — but nothing here is a reason why he would already qualify to have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree. Surely candidates do not get an automatic article just for being candidates, but candidates are eligible for an article if they get significant coverage. It says so right in point three of WP:NPOL. And I think there might be an argument that major party nominees for state-wide or national office will normally qualify, and if Little is one of the top two candidates in the June 5 primary (now less than a month away) that is essentially the position that he will be in. As for being more notable than most other people's candidacies how often does a candidate denounced by the state-wide party he claims to support run ahead of all other candidates declared for that party, in a state wide race? How many candidates for US senate get international coverage? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can disagree all you like, but the amount of coverage that a candidate has to get in order to qualify as having "significant" coverage, for the purposes of clearing NPOL #3, is "exponentially more coverage than every other candidate in every other race across the country is also getting" — and ten citations is not enough to make that happen. Bearcat (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what WP:NPOL says. No where on the page Wikipedia:Notability_(people) (the page WP:NPOL redirects to) does the word “exponentially” appear, and a Google search for "exponentially more coverage than every other candidate" site:wikipedia.org returns “No results found for "exponentially more coverage than every other candidate" site:wikipedia.org”. Please link to the exact page with the "expoentially more coverage” quote. This is what NPOL #3 actually says: “Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, 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"” which this candidate has, in fact, met. Samboy (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every single candidate in any election anywhere always gets every bit as much coverage as has been shown here — so if this were enough coverage to make a candidate notable just for being a candidate, then there would never be any such thing as a non-notable candidate at all. But we do have an established consensus that candidates are not notable just for being candidates per se — so making a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate most certainly does require that the candidate can be demonstrated as significantly more notable than most other candidates, and that is accomplished by showing substantially more sourcing than most other candidates could also show. I am entirely correct about how NPOL works for candidates: it takes ten year test-passing evidence that their candidacy is a special case over and above most other people's candidacies. Which is not what's in evidence here. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he's not an engineer, but rather a politician, and he fails WP:NPOL. There's also been some recent media coverage that refers to him only as an unelected politician. Polling well does not get you past WP:GNG, nor does causing a political ruckus in your party before an election. For an unelected candidate to pass WP:GNG, lasting significant coverage must be shown, and that's not shown here, nor is it close. SportingFlyer talk 06:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have seen many pages that has LESS information about the sub get matter this page has lots of information, Plus more News is coming about subget matter. I say keep this page for while until later this year. Leftwinguy92 (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that's not how Wikipedia works: once you're notable, you're always notable. You are arguing for "temporary" notability. SportingFlyer talk 17:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in California, 2018 per WP:POLOUTCOMES. "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls, such as Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 1995 Ontario provincial election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010." --Enos733 (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of substantial compliance with the GNG or any applicable SNG has been demonstrated either in the article or in this discussion. If he does, in fact, qualify as a major party candidate for office then the article can be recreated at the proper time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article's subject is currently running for a top-level political position in the world's 5th largest economy.^[1] The article cites multiple, reliably sourced references which focus on the subject exclusively. That alone gets the subject above the bar of WP:GNG's primary criterion. With elections six months from now, it's certain additional entries of note can be added to the article. If deleted we could end up in an unnecessary delete-recreate loop. For all the citing of WP:NPOL as the applicable standard this bit seems to have been glossed over: [...] an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion. →‎ GS →‎ ☎ → 06:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Brexit: California overtakes UK to become 'world's fifth largest economy', US politician claims". independent.co.uk. Retrieved 24 March 2018.

Wikipedia's inclusion standard for politicians is not "running for office", it is "won the election and holds the office". And since every candidate in every election always generates some media coverage in that context without fail, that coverage does not confer a "GNG because media coverage exists" exemption from having to clear NPOL by winning — if it did, then every candidate would always be notable and NPOL would be inherently disembowelled. Wikipedia is not news, so it's not our job to just uncritically start an article about every single person whose name happens to appear in any newspaper — a Wikipedia article does not become appropriate until a person has a credible claim to passing the will people still be looking for this article ten years from now test. Which means officeholders, not unelected candidates. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL strikes the right balance between recognizing the notability of certain officeholders and the recognition that most candidates are, for the most part, low profile individuals, and their only claim to notability is in the context of the campaign they are running for. (Once the campaign is over, so too is the likelihood of continued maintenance of the page). WP:POLOUTCOMES says that a redirect is an appropriate option, because the campaign is notable, even if the subject may not be. Wikipedia is not a repository of campaign material, nor should it be a collection of policy positions or polling results, or endorsements. These items properly belong on the page about the campaign. Our usual standard is the internationalization of a campaign, where people in Europe see news about an American candidate, or in reverse, a candidate in Germany is covered by Canadian press. --Enos733 (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Little has caused international outcry: https://worldisraelnews.com/watch-us-senate-candidate-tells-voters-support-candidate-names-jew/ — https://www.stern.de/politik/ausland/patrick-little--holocaust-leugner-will-fuer-republikaner-in-den-us-senat-7970702.html — https://fr.timesofisrael.com/un-candidat-neo-nazi-au-senat-americain-interdit-dune-convention-republicaine/ — https://www.yeniakit.com.tr/haber/abdli-siyasetci-israil-bayragini-cignedi-bu-terorist-bayragi-461992.html Samboy (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BLP1E. St Anselm (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in California, 2018. Nothing in this article couldn't be mentioned in a brief 2-3 sentences somewhere there. Neutrality^talk 22:08, 16 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 Keep - Withdrawn by nominator. Since the author didn't reference the article well, I know did some findings and fins the subject its notability, thanks. --VitalPower (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knox Fortune[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. VitalPower (talk) 20:54, 11 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. and SALT. Ping me for G4 if recreated. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flesher Andrew[edit]

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

Self-written -- and wrongly titled -- vanity bio/personal advert of a minor interior designer. Calton | Talk 20:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, delete and delete. also, WP:NOTPROMOTION WP:NOTFACEBOOK WP:NOTLINKEDIN --VitalPower (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, preferably speedy, since WP:G4 (and WP:GAME) applies, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Flesher. Kleuske (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - G4 doesn't apply; the content of the article is different from the previously deleted version. ansh 666 22:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bull. It's at this title because the real title was salted against re-creation. Less bureaucracy and more common sense, please. --Calton | Talk 07:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what title it's at, it could be at Chicken pot pies are delicious and it'd still be declined. The only thing that matters for G4 is content. ansh 666 07:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucratic bullshit. The CONTENT was salted against re-creation. What part of the purpose of SALTING was unclear? What part of "undoing another administrator's action" -- which is what you are, implicitly, doing -- was unclear? Especially since, for this to remain, it must be at its genuine title, Andrew Flesher. Would you care to move it so you can -- instead of implicitly -- officially and overtly override another admin's action? --Calton | Talk 08:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPROMOTION applies to speedy delete. --VitalPower (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to breach the Wikipedia article creation guidelines. This article was not created by the subject. The contents of the page have been modified and all promotional and vain statements removed. Kindly reconsider the speedy deletion decision.IreneVictor (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per everything above. When an article subject is SALTed, recreations of it are meant to be deleted and SALTed without delay - no matter what the title. I don't know if there's an actual policy that has prevented this from happening here, but if there is - WP:IAR. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bypasses the salt applied by using another naming convention. The article is largely WP:PROMO reading like a LinkedIn page. -- Dane ^talk 19:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since I protected the Andrew Fisher page, I won't !vote here. Just to note that the page should have been speedied as an attempt to avoid my salting, rather than waste people's time here, and to note that IreneVictor has not yet replied to a conflict of interest request on her user page, despite her editing pattern suggesting that she has one. Saying she isn't him is clearly less than full disclosure Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More I've just salted Draft:Andrew Flesher, deleted another sandbox version and blocked another Andrew Flesher sock Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note The creator of the article has declared that they have been paid to create the article. Destroy it with fire. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, salt etc.; as an exercise in bureaucracy this AfD seems exemplar. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 11:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt. I agree that it should have been speedied. --bonadea contributions talk 11:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For all the many reasons already enumerated above. Plus

Almost all references cited in article fail WP:IRS standards:

Ref #1 is at HGTV.com but it's part of a listing of literally hundreds of design professionals found at: [1]. I'm not sure how this helps to prove notability or aspects of WP:BIO or WP:GNG.

Ref #1 and Ref # 7 are described differently as sources in the article but are the same thing.

Ref #2 is to the Franklin Report, which is a referral-service like "Angie's List".

Ref #3 is actually reliable, a good ref from a major Minneapolis paper.

Ref #4 is a summation of an article that apparently appeared at "LoftLife" - which doesn't exist anymore. So, instead of being able to actually reference the original article we have to rely on a summation, a source removed from the original...

Ref #5 is a real estate company's blog.

Ref #6 is, again, a type of "Angie's List" referral service where the "top people" in various businesses are picked/listed..

Ref #8 is apparently a promo piece and not a standalone magazine of any repute - it's just a listing of interior designers in New York City and is NOT the well-known House & Garden (magazine).

And subject fails all aspects of WP:CREATIVE. Shearonink (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prediction Years from now, this AfD will be used as a test question at Admin candidate discussions. Take notes. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)note[reply]

Given the increasing difficulty of becoming an admin, I would imagine that years from now a brain scan and genetic analysis will probably be required over simple questioning.104.163.137.171 (talk) 06:48, 17 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) 00:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Jet[edit]

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

Sourceless vanity bio of...well, I'm not sure what he thinks he's famous for. Calton | Talk 20:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you know who Professor Jet is?? Everyone dose, jokes --> , Speedy Delete Y. --VitalPower (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cited sources have no relation to purported subject. Possible hoax. The sources that have been found outside Wikipedia appear to be generated by the subject himself. See here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can I have a Wikipedia page too?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:54, 16 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) 00:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Md arshad siddiqui[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A vanity article by Arshadsiddiqui446 whose editing history consists of creating Arshad Siddiqui (deleted CSD A7), Draft:Md Arshad Siddiqui (rejected at AfC), a user page biography, and placing his name, despite a previous warning about creating autobiographies. Seems a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. The article itemises the subject's school and college records and affiliations: run-of-the-mill. A brief in-role quotation in an item about student elections is far from sufficient for biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:12, 13 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) 00:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Jensen[edit]

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

Not an elected representative, not a candidate, but a pre-candidate. Fails WP:NPOL Cabayi (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG and a cursory before search wasn't at all helpful in finding anything specific to her. SportingFlyer talk 21:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won yet, and even less for being candidates in primary contests that they haven't won to become candidates in elections yet. But this doesn't even try to make any claim of preexisting notability for any other reason besides the candidacy itself — it's literally just "candidate, the end", which is not how a person qualifies for a Wikipedia article under WP:NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:35, 15 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 is one of those easier closed by reading the comments rather than the bolded its. The argument that this is promotional and coi has not been refuted. AFD isn't clean up but nor is is leave to keep promotional material. The detailed discussion of sourcing is that what is there is not about the subject but their discoveries. That hasn't been refuted effectively. A look of the keep votes are assertions and get less weight due to that. I note that scope_creep starts off by voting keep on GNG but at the end after a closer review of the sources accepts they are not good enough. That sums it up. The sources appear to be ok on cursory examination but are too weak when looked at closely. For that reason I'm closing by the opinions nthat reflect detailed examination of the sources and the fact that PROF is clearly missed by miles. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Lomax[edit]

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

Promotional article. Possibly notable but there is no evidence of this. most of the sources are written by himself. No independent coverage to show notability. Gbawden (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTPROMOTION WP:NOTFACEBOOK WP:NOTLINKEDIN Acnetj (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- There is no reference of any of this.... Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not 'self promotion' but is instead heavily referenced by various different, credible sources. To further elaborate this, I have included other sources for Lomax's work. I suggest he is deserved of a wikipedia page considering other palaeontologists of note are on wikipedia, such as Darren Naish, Matt J. Wedel and Mike P. Taylor. Lomax's contributions to palaeontology and society are of great significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dino710 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC) — Dino710 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Article actually DOES make a good shot at showing notablity (There are BBC references, daily mail and everythingdinosaur.co.uk which should be plenty), and even if it didn't, we judge the article by doing a WP:BEFORE search. If the article is possibly notable, or is notable, which I believe it is; then I don't believe this search was done. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think there may be a Conflict of interest that requires a declaration, but I think the subject is Notable. These would also go towards it [2], [3], [4], [5] and it's pretty easy to find others. KJP1 (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nearly all of the sources in the article appear to be about the discoveries, not about the scientist himself. Of the sources that are about him directly, the everythingdinosaur.co.uk article appears to be a blog (though happy to be convinced otherwise, I'm no dino expert), the Rosie Winterton ref appears to be a press release from the local MP's office, and doesn't address the topic in any substantial way, and the Doncaster free press article also appears to be a short local news article about an upcoming talk by the subject. Clearly the subject is the topic of some buzz, especially in the local press. However, I don't think the bar of "significant coverage" (i.e. addressing the topic "directly and in detail") has been met. This is often a hurdle for academics, who are rarely the topic of secondary sources. For this reason, we have WP:PROF which provides other ways to tell if an academic is notable. This bar also doesn't appear to be met (according to SCOPUS, top work is cited 11 times). Perhaps someday this scientist will meet the notability criteria here, but I think now it's just too soon. Ajpolino (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment - I've been following this discussion and I see several sources have been added to the article. I still can't find any independent refs that address the topic directly and in detail, so I still see no evidence the topic meets GNG. I certainly don't think he meets WP:PROF, per above. If someone could detail why they think he meets WP:NAUTHOR or what sources convinced them that he meets WP:GNG, I'd be most happy to reconsider (Many of the keep votes here are not specific enough for me to follow). Ajpolino (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject's work has been amply recognized as evidenced by the cited reliable sources. The article could be improved on but the subject backed up by citations easily passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:INHERIT. Species are indeed notable, but naming a species doesn't make the person notable. The news articles are all primarily about the discoveries, not the discoverer. Giving lectures doesn't satisfy WP:PROF. Also in terms of prof, their publication history doesn't pass the average professor test. That the subject has had local museum exhibit based on him[6] shows he might cross the threshold someday, but nothing quite satisfying PROF yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced, and notable. scope_creep (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is not "well sourced" towards notability. It is sourced but a problem per above comments is that the sources that are not WP:primary are more about the discoveries than the subject. Reference to other articles, as a show of reasoning to keep, is often misguided. Darren Naish has a PhD, Matt J. Wedel is an associate professor, and Mike P. Taylor a PhD, so there are some apple and oranges comparisons going on. This is currently a terrible pseudo WP:BLP needing biographical content like a birthday, family, education, etc... but this has become acceptable even on a BLP. He is an honory scientist and has co-authored books, including The Bone Wars and Dinosaurs of the British Isles. He also appears to be well published in peer-reviewed papers and in scientific journals so appears to pass WP:NAUTHOR and the professor test. He has self-professed to having a "MPhil in palaeontology" working towards a PhD. A sad state of an article does not diminish notability. Otr500 (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that is doesn't appear they are that well published. The google scholar link you gave gives a lot of publications that Lomax is not an author on at all. I gave a Scopus link in my above delete comment showing they have only at least 18 publications and a pretty weak citation record in terms of h-index or otherwise. I haven't really seen an argument here yet that shows this person passes and average professor test. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. Searching the Scopus link doesn't bring up even half of Lomax's studies. Google Sholar does, even some of his recent papers that have received wide interest. Regardless, how can you judge somebody from a simple Scopus link? It is clear from his personal website that he has published extensively in academia Lomax publications. Dino710 (talk) 10:15, 15 May, 2018 (BST) — Dino710 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Then those publications (many appear to be more magazines than scientific publications), are not deemed noteworthy by the database. Websites like GS, Scopus, and Web of Science compile all this information as an overview about an individual's publication impact, so that single link is going to tell a lot. Google Scholar is generally not regarded as a reliable source for publication counts because it has a tendency to include a lot of gray literature in addition to including many articles not even written by Lomax. Scopus is also on that end of the spectrum for gray literature to a lesser degree, so that it doesn't include very much is a big red flag. Again, it's pretty clear this person isn't passing the average professor test. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I see the usefulness of scopus, etc., I don't see how you can simply judge an individual on the basis of his/her prof' score? It wouldn't matter if Lomax had published x5 for x500 papers, what matters is his contribution in his relevant field. This page not only mentions his academic contribution but other areas of his paleontology contributions, such as science communication and awards. So again you shouldn't judge this page on simply the prof' test, which, as above, is not reliable. I have been through the list of publications on Lomax's site and count 31 scientific papers and two books, among the popular articles. Dino710 (talk) 20:54, 15 May, 2018 (BST)

The average professor test comes from WP:NPROF, which is primarily what we use to decide whether a researcher gets an article or not. There isn't a single score being focused on with Scopus, GS, etc. metrics. It's the combination of relatively few publications (~18 in notable peer-reveiwed journals) and low citation counts of those articles. We also use independent secondary sources to show notability. Lomax's website would not be appropriate for that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, one cannot simply rely upon Scopus, GS, etc., to make a decision on the importance of the said scientists research. To reiterate what others have said and what is reflected on the page, Lomax's work has been highly profiled in various media outlets, as cited throughout this page. Dino710 (talk) 11:15, 16 May 2018 (BST)

That's irrelevant for the purpose of this AfD. If someone's research is important (popular press generally doesn't count, especially local), that gets mention in the respective articles and doesn't inherit notability to a BLP page. If the researcher themself is notable, their work needs to be significantly recognized in the scientific field (e.g. multiple publications and citations) as one metric in the "average professor test" we use for these types of pages. Having a handful of publications and awards doesn't really pass that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree, given the details of other paleontologists listed on Wikipedia. Lomax's research is significant if you are in the field of palaeontology, which is the point of this page, for others in the field to recognise his works. I also see that somebody removed the research section from the page, which has now been re-added. I don't know why that was removed. Dino710 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2018 (BST)

Please remember that we do not use Wikipedia to promote people through BLP's. Doing so is another reason for deletion actually. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that deleting the research section without any justification is inappropriate. This is unjust and appears that you have a personal issue with this page. It was created simply to illustrate Lomax's contributions to paleontology, which is demonstrated and referenced on the page, so any paleontologists can quickly read this. Dino710 (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2018 (BST)

Unfortunately, Kingofaces43 has unjustifiably removed the research section on this page. He has added reasons why on the research discussion page. Initially, actual links to the studies themselves were listed but then replaced with media coverage, as advised by others on this page. Could somebody please work out what is going on here? Why is Kingofaces43 unjustifiably removing the research page which is obviously relevant to Lomax? Dino710 (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2018 (BST)

In addition, Kingofaces43 has also removed several important links, e.g. to public lectures at the Royal Institution and Cheltenham Science Festival, along with removing several of the awards. I have re-added them. I am not sure why, like those above, have been unjustifiably removed. This is beyond ridiculous but it appears the user is removing the content so that the page appears of little significance and thus can be deleted. Very poor. Dino710 (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2018 (BST)

Dino710, this is not the place to discuss content, you need to go to the article talk page for that. If the page actually does survive AfD, there was significant cleanup in terms of sourcing and removing promotional language needed. For this page, you and others need to demonstrate that the handful of awards and publications meet WP:PROF. Right now that's pretty shaky at best. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sourcing is problematic. So far I havent seen one high quality source. They tend to be about his discoveries, instead of him. There is not single decent WP:SECONDARY source, that I put a finger on, and say yip, it is absolutely encyclopaedic, he is notable and is worth an article. scope_creep (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS h-index of 8 is far too small to satisfy [[WP:Prof#C1]: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 18 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rohtas Educational and Associated Programs[edit]

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

Yes, it exists but fails to meet the notability guidelines. Per standing consensus that schools must prove notability. The Banner talk 11:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe Banner, have you read the article or just looked at the title? This is not a school, but a community organisation, that, in addition to health centers, women's self-help groups, sanitation projects, theatre programs, and adult education courses, and a library, manages a few primary schools. Even if we did not almost always keep school articles for high schools, about 10% of what you said is correct, for we normally do not keep primary schools, but merge them into the parent organisation or school district. This would be a good place to merge those primary schools. DGG DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of their work is educational. And they fail WP:GNG big time. The Banner talk 18:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, you have quite a reputation as a hard-line school-inclusionist (and I will not delve into another fruitless debate about it.....) but from what point of time have you started !voting keep on every article about NGOs etc. which is tangentially connected to education?! And, do you seriosuly mean that for every primary school chain, we need an article about the organization just because we need some place to redirect those primary schools into.The geographical areas are enough good as redirect-targets and will spare us a (most likely) non-notable crappy article.
- For the record, I concur with Jacknstock in it's entirety and will note Banner's nomination statement is not to the point either. This shall be treated as a clear cut case of NCORP.~ Winged Blades^Godric
Comment What I see is a social welfare organization in an impoverished district where sources are likely to be in Bhojpuri or Hindi. Someone who can search for information in one or both of these languages could be helpful. Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I will try to find local sources, in a day or two's time.Initial results are not any satisfactory.~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:NGO, it is clearly not national or international, so it looks like it would need to be a "nationally well-known local organization" or have received "widespread attention" to have a stand-alone article. Organizations in India with national media interest usually have good coverage in English language sources. It seems to me that the best outcome might be merge with Rohtas district. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Surely a merge with Rohtas district would fall foul of WP:UNDUE? The organisation under consideration here may or may not be notable, but if it is not notable then it is certainly not important enough to include in a general article about a district. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - It would likely be a selective merge WP:SMERGE. The scope depends on how influential the NGO is in the district, which requires research. Sufficient notability for a separate article is not required for inclusion in a more general article – for example, the article already mentions a coal depot and a couple of railway stations that seem to lack sufficient notability for their own articles. This is what is suggested at WP:NGO. Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I found a lone trivial mention in Dainik Jagran whence numerous people from different NGOs, operating in Bihar has commented about social menaces.Otherwise, a pretty good vacuum.Jesuit-sources are cross-promotional and fails the rigor of reliable sources.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Godric's search of local-language sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--It is necessary to look for printed local sources. Winged Blades of Godric have you done that? and have you looked for even online sources for the component parts, about which information could be merged here? DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look for printed local sources, DGG? The Banner talk 18:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG--You're mis-assesing the scenario of internet-media-penetration.All prominent Odisa news-dailies and regional channels have their full-fledged internet repositories, as is the case in a vast majority of Indian states.As to your second query, yes.Some of their schools are indded mentioned in the most trivial of all manners (as in a list of schools which have been assigned as centers for a part. exam, % of students securing above 90% marks along with several other schools et cetera).But, there's nothing merge-able.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this were an English school, it would be an easy delete. But, any Hindi speakers that can go to the Indian Wikipedia and see if the school is there, with better sourcing? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:38, 19 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Hoop[edit]

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

The multiple issues tag explains what this article lacks, and there has been no improvement. No one has come up with any reliable references, so I believe time should be called on the article. The originator has not edited WP for some years. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There aren't a real shortage of references to this magazine, but not a lot (searchable online, anyway) about this magazine. Material like this is almost certainly not "substantial" coverage. It wouldn't take much evidence of notability from dead-tree, likely specialist, literature for me to be convinced otherwise regarding deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything about the magazine in reliable mainstream publications. Fails WP:GNG.TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:16, 19 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ajith Kumar R[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet GNG and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. This appear some sort of paid promotional BLP . None of the awards are notable. Saqib (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clearly non-notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient current sourcing, and a simple Google search turns up little more. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:14, 19 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. G5, created by a sockpuppet. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Radha Krishna (TV series)[edit]

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

Non-notable show that was scrapped before production, per the creator's own source. Lacks coverage and i'm not sure how a show that was never produced and was already scrapped could ever be encyclopedic. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While a scrapped, un-produced show is notable on rare occasion, this doesn't seem like an exception to the rule. The usual pre-production chatter about crew changes and casting doesn't demonstrate notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Siddharth Kumar Tewary#Radha Krishna where I merged the content. It has received some coverage but is best included in its creator's biography for the reasons noted above. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:07, 11 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 and redirect to Camila (album). And salt. There is clear enough consensus that this shouldnt keep coming back. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never Be The Same Tour[edit]

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

The (current) tour of Camila Cabello. Maybe someday this will be some sort of landmark, but right now this article is just plain promotion. And no, Instagram is NOT a reliable source. Calton | Talk 15:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Camila (album) and salt. I thought I recognised this. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never Be the Same Tour (3rd nomination). The results of the three previous AFD discussions were draftify, delete, and redirect+WP:SALT respectively. Narky Blert (talk) 13:37, 12 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. Mz7 (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Mancaruso[edit]

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

Glen Mancaruso does not get any coverage in reliable sources. For instance, not enough to know where in the United States the subject was born. Fails WP:GNG and while he has been a member of several bands (and performed with others, but not as a member) the subject is not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few interviews with Mancaruso, mostly through Frontline Records Rewind. I will locate more sources, with the few I can find instantly off the top. [7], one from The Metal Factory which is a Mixcloud link which is not aloud, and there are two on ITunes I cannot copy from my PC. --Metalworker14 (Yo) 17:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- I've listened to the two interviews on Frontline Records Rewind (http://frontlinerecords.us/rewind/episode/?55 and http://frontlinerecords.us/rewind/episode/?56) and this is my point exactly: Mancaruso was involved with them but he was not the primary interviewee, nor was he the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and add videos as sources for the band articles). I must agree with the nominator. Mancaruso has indeed been featured in two videos that I found ([8], [9]) in which he is the interview subject, but he was talking about the bands that the was a member of at the time. There are a few more interviews ([10], [11]) in which he participated as a member of Vengeance Rising, but the interviews are about the band and not him. Mancaruso has not achieved independent notability in his own right, but he can be discussed with sources at the articles for his various bands. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see him mentioned on fan sites and blogs, but not in what looks like reliable third party music media - fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:07, 19 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. Mz7 (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kalipp[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search only comes up with IMDB and Facebook - which according to WP:NFILM are not reliable sources - and thus does not satisfy the notability guidelines. The film may be reviewed by independent sources later, but as it stands, it is not notable. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article previously said the title was Kalippu, which was prodded for notability in 2015. I can't read Malayalam, and the IMDB reference cited says Kalipp, but Kalippu seems to be an unrelated film. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILM. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ^talk 13:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could not find any reviews so it looks like this is on the way out. However, if after it is released, it receives at least 2 reviews, preferably more, in reliable sources such as press it can be recreated and G4 will not apply in that case, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:FILM, and WP:TOOSOON. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:04, 19 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. Sandstein 16:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adebiyi Gregory Daramola[edit]

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

No verifiable evidence of notability. Fails at WP:ANYBIO, WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. Hitro talk 13:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i don't see assertions or sourcing to establish notability. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Like i said in previous and more similar AFD like this that involved a Vice Chancellor, in Nigeria the Vice-Chancellor position is more distinguished than named professorial chair. Unlike the Chancellor position which is just given as an honor to people with far greater experience. The Vice Chancellor serves as the Head of the University. In this case, he was the VC but the sources are quite not adequate to support a page though they are more than half a dozen sources. Dunno if that works? Mredidiongekong (talk) 16:35, 12 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. Sandstein 16:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Babatunde A Ikotun[edit]

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

Not able to determine why the subject is notable or have encyclopedic value. No genuine evidence of notability, fails at WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. Hitro talk 13:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vice chancellor of a university startup. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG failure, possibly with some overlap with WP:NPROF. Not finding any claims to notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 15 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 Minor characters in The Railway Series#Thin Controller. Sandstein 16:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Thin Controller[edit]

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

Uncited for over 5 years. With good reason, there is not a lot out there. A few trivial mentions, not enough in-depth coverage about its real world relevance to meet notability criteria. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skarloey Railway which contains more encyclopaedic information in a more useful context. Not individually notable. Lithopsian (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I can't find substantial coverage of this railroad baron but he is noted in the above mentioned article from the 2nd paragraph. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect but to Minor characters in The Railway Series#Thin Controller. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:41, 12 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. (non-admin closure) — F R ⁺ 05:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bashir Ladan Aliero[edit]

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

Not meeting minimum inclusion requirement of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Being Vice Chancellor of any University does not warrant an encyclopedic entry. Hitro talk 12:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#6, by which being Vice Chancellor of a state university does warrant an encyclopedic entry. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All vice chancellors meet WP:PROF#6 and it supersedes GNG. Though it depends on what you think Vice-Chancellor is. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, WP:PROF#6 says that the "highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society" is notable. Sometimes, this is the vice chancellor, sometimes it isn't. I'm not familiar enough with Nigerian schools to make this determination, but I thought I should clarify that the guideline doesn't say that all vice chancellors are notable under that guideline. Mz7 (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It actually does says so.
"Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable."
Emphasis original, not mine. Also regarding Vice-Cancellor/Chancellor, this has been clarified many times. Vice Chancellor doesn't mean deputy of Chancellor, as many people who know only Universiy president (mis)think. It is the highest office in university system in many African and European countries and is higher than named chair and "Chancellor" post itself, which is ceremonial title. Same with professor title. In North America every university teacher is a "professor", while it is not so in Commonwealth countries. You can't be professor by mere teaching you have to earn it at the level beyond teaching. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence you quoted has nothing at all to do with what I wrote. I think I agree with you, and it's unfortunate that you think I meant to disagree. I don't contest that meeting PROF#6 makes the subject notable, but stating that All vice chancellors meet WP:PROF#6 is an oversimplification. In many North American universities, the position of vice chancellor is not the top academic/administrative position. Mz7 (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has been discussed over and over again. Vice Chancellor of notable Nigerian institution are deemed notable per WP:NPROF#6. With their recent nominations, HitroMilanese might need to reread that. Mahveotm (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#6. Good job keeping up on these policies folks. I would not have known to cite this. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:03, 19 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. Enigma^msg 14:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ama, his wife and a panther[edit]

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

Non-notable short film failing at WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Evidence of notability can not be determined under WP:NFO either. Hitro talk 12:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per reasons of nominator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:58, 16 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. Deleted per BLP/Oversight concerns —DoRD (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Reddy[edit]

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

Fails at WP:NACTOR. While inspecting all the available sources, I believe that the subject is currently notable for staging a semi-nude protest in the month of April. Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information, hence WP:BLP1E applies here. Hitro talk 10:35, 11 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. Sandstein 16:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Parrish[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Never played a pro game. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Parrish could also qualify under WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH, but I am not finding a basis under those standards either. No major awards, Halls of Fame, national press coverage. The coverage I'm finding (e.g., this) is insufficient to meet the GNG bar. Cbl62 (talk) 14:01, 11 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. Sandstein 16:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmal Baby Varghese[edit]

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

Not seeing any notability. Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. The same user had tried to repetitively inject a new WP page on this same topic at ml.wiki which had been deleted three times for lack of notability and sufficient citations. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ^talk 10:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. When closing, remember to delete Nirmal Baby (which I just turned into a redirect to this) as well. —Kusma (t·c) 11:53, 15 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. Sandstein 16:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EZ Come EZ Go (MC Mack song)[edit]

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

The claims in the article do not stand up to scrutiny. The song is said to have reached both #10 and #40 in the same Billboard chart, but a search turned up nothing. The article about the singer, MC Mack, failed to survive WP:AFD and has since been WP:SALTed. The article was created by a user who has since been WP:INDEFfed for hoaxing. Narky Blert (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article creator was indef blocked due to writing articles exactly like this - written entirely by hoax sources that don't verify anything in the article. (So blatantly wrong that it cannot be an accident.) The Billboard charting positions are likely entirely fabricated. Most of the article creator's articles have already been deleted or redirected, but this is one of the few that apparently had slipped through the cracks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --- Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 17 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. Sandstein 16:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Utah State Route 9 (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This disambiguation page only disambiguates 2 articles and is not required: there is a hatnote at the primary topic (WP:2DABS). PROD placed by User:Boleyn was removed by User:An Errant Knight who added an invalid See Also link which was a redirect to the primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For various reasons, I'm not often a big fan of TWODABS deletions, but this is pretty much the archetype of why that standard exists. There's no reason to expect there are any third topics that have been overlooked. There's a clear primary target, and the second article is easily accessed via hatnote. The attempt to rescue this via See Also isn't really how disambiguation works. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not objection from this editor for deleting this disambiguation page. As already stated, in this case the "disambiguation" is better handled by hatnotes. Notwithstanding, the See also link will eventually not redirect back to the primary topic. Count the page's erroneous creation as evolving editorial experience on the part of this editor. An Errant Knight (talk) 23:45, 14 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. Sandstein 16:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BCDF Pictures[edit]

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

Worrisome article, created by a known hoaxer and sockpuppeteer. The article is puffy and misleading and is simply a recitation of films where the studio is one of at least two to four production studios. BCDF Pictures only has 13 films to their name, and for all of those films it was one of several production companies. The only significant coverage I can find of it is here [12], on a not-very-notable site that caters to the digital content creation market. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT, and the wiki article violates WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTPROMO. Softlavender (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO as it is seriously misleading in inferring the films mentioned are solely the responsibility of BCDF. It maybe notable in the future but this version is a deception. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not exactly promotional, but the company fails [[WP:GNG]]/[[WP:NORG]]. Sam Sailor 16:17, 18 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. Sandstein 16:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of Renovation[edit]

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

Not notable; created by a SPA; references all seem to be the work of the busines founder, or unrelated to the business Anomalocaris (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Subject fails notability criteria. Article formed by a highly promotional text, clearly not written for encyclopaedic purposes. -The Gnome (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails [[WP:GNG]]. Sam Sailor 16:00, 18 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. Sandstein 16:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ujet[edit]

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

A WP:SPA article on a recent new company, largely devoted to the merits claimed for its products. The product’s launch coverage at the Consumer_Electronics_Show#2018 does not appear sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH, nor does the October 2017 LuxTimes photo-feature on the company assembly and its ambitions. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, which is the recommended solution for lack of notability. -The Gnome (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:06, 12 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. Sandstein 16:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Work: the Montana Women's Centennial Art Survey Exhibition 1889-1989[edit]

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

I find nothing much on google about this art exhibition. Probably because it was in the 18th century? I feel that notability isn't quite apparent and sources are scarce. EROS ^message 03:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For now just because the nominator thinks 1889 and apparently 1989 were in the 18th century. The article is a bit wierd though. Students at work I expect. References that are not just from the catalogue are needed. Johnbod (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but not a relevant reason for inclusion.104.163.159.237 (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had notified the creator DuBoisStormy (talk · contribs), a new editor, about notability guidelines. Perhaps she can provide the necessary significant, third-party coverage or otherwise attest to notability. If not, then Wikipedia is not the outlet to highlight this exhibition; alternative outlets or self-publishing might be more appropriate. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request Let's not rush this, yet. -The Gnome (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a long article for which inadequate refs are found in the article and in a search. There's nothing little out there to indicate that this show was important. Revision of social injustices aside, a very clear delete due to lack of sources to establish notability. Also, 1889 was 19th C, and 1989 was 20th C.104.163.159.237 (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The event does not meet WP:GNG. The two references on the page can be considered primary. There was coverage in the Billings Gazette, Great Falls Tribune and The Missoulian around the time of the exhibition. Much of this coverage is in a "what's on" section and does not represent in depth coverage. I have learned more about the exhibition by researching this AfD off Wikipedia, but what I have found does not make it notable enough for an article.8==8 Boneso (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, an interesting and informative article, but no citations that lead to notability, and have been unable to find any, allbeit using gsearch only, so its a delete from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 16 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. Sandstein 16:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruchi Trikha[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough yet, lack of independent coverage. Norcaes (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO and WP:NSPORT. I've done a little expansion - but article could use more, including improved referencing, per WP:ATD. First Indian woman to win a gold medal at an international competition. Hmlarson (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Current references establish notability. 'Punjab's top female fencer' (paraphrased) etc. Ross-c (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for meeting WP:ANYBIO and per above commentary. -The Gnome (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. More sources can be assumend to exist. Sam Sailor 15:51, 18 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. Sandstein 16:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Singh Rana[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NGYMNAST by virtue of participating in the World Championships. Smartyllama (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama they fail GNG, which overrides any sort of sport specific criterion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Otherwise we wouldn't have the sport criteria. Subjects need to pass either the GNG or the subject-specific criteria. Smartyllama (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. GNG overrides sports guidelines. Sports guidelines only say the person may be notable, but if you can't muster even a semblance of coverage, they clearly are not notable. Not everyone who participated in tug of war at the Olympics merits an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if "WP:GNG overrides sports guidelines," then why do we have sports guidelines? They certainly are not explanatory of WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:NGYMNAST, 'competed at the Summer Olympics or World Championships.' The reference to the article establishes that. There is therefore no need to pass WP:GNG. The article needs more references, but that is WP:SOFIXIT. Ross-c (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject meets WP:NGYMNAST. -The Gnome (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets [[WP:NGYMNAST]] and more soures can be presumed to exist. Sam Sailor 15:49, 18 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. Sandstein 16:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nisha Bhalla[edit]

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

WEF awards aren't any indicator of auto-notability. Promotional (probably-paid) spam. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails [[WP:GNG]]/[[WP:BASIC]]. Sam Sailor 15:46, 18 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. Enigma^msg 03:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Havaldar[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep references in the article demonstrate significant coverage in WP:RS. WP:GNG compliance is actually demonstrated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is unfortunate that there is no specific WP:NSWIMMER. However, Havaldar has won significant numbers of gold medals in national competitions, and has medalled at the South East Asian Games. Comparing this record to other sporting classes suggests that this should be sufficient for a sportsman. Significant coverage such as: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-sports/Rohit-Havaldar-hauls-it-in/article16617961.ece satisfies WP:GNG. Ross-c (talk) 06:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

India doesn't compete at the South East Asian Games. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he meant South Asian Games. Smartyllama (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. -The Gnome (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the significant source above, Havaldar gets frequent mentions in news articles that are much more than just reporting on scores; he appears to be an icon in the Indian swimming community.Jacona (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG per the above sources. This has been a repeated problem with this nominator, and it may be time to take further action against him. Smartyllama (talk) 12:35, 15 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. czar 09:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Hertiman[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. Segments of the article appear to be copyright violations, compare for example the biography section and this. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can only find significant coverage in one source [13], all the sources in the article already are primary, only have passing mentions or don't mention her at all. There is no evidence she meets WP:ARTIST. I have removed part of the article as a copyright violation. If it survives this AfD, I will add a biography section back in and revdel the copyvio in the history. Sarahj2107 (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have also found these sources: [14][15], but I'm inclined to say that the biography does not have enough independent coverage and does not meet notability guidelines. --Jamez42 (talk) 04:20, 12 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.

[1] "Brexit: California overtakes UK to become 'world's fifth largest economy', US politician claims". independent.co.uk. Retrieved 24 March 2018.

[1]